1A53 wrong route not queried by driver

It's 09:00 and I've just noticed 1A53 trundling towards Polmont Jn. having just passed Greenhill Upper Jn. where it should have gone towards Greenhill Lower Jn. and on to Stirling. The driver didn’t query the wrong route. 15-10-09 (04:45) tt.
I should have noticed the headcode before miss-routing this train, although did recognise it when it was already too late. Trying to get to grips with Headcodes with at least some success now.

Don't know if a save is required, so put one here just in case it is. It's roughly 8-9 minutes beforehand.
....

As I said in another topic last week, "when does SimSig stop being a signalling simulation with all that requires in terms of becoming the proxy signaller for the simulation (i.e. knowing the area, knowing the TT, regulating accordingly etc.) and start becoming a computer game with error traps built in to take away the responsibility which normally lies on the signaller's shoulders"?

postal in post 135971 said:

As I said in another topic last week, "when does SimSig stop being a signalling simulation with all that requires in terms of becoming the proxy signaller for the simulation (i.e. knowing the area, knowing the TT, regulating accordingly etc.) and start becoming a computer game with error traps built in to take away the responsibility which normally lies on the signaller's shoulders"?

Important question. But a driver querying a wrong route would definitely be part of a signalling sim (though in my experience they were a little less genteel than the SimSig phone calls!!!) Places where drivers could accept a route other than booked tended to be laid down in the Sectional Appendix (and of course the instruction only applied to trains not booked to call intermediately). Other instances might be a result of Control intervention (in which case the driver's route knowledge would have been checked and there would be a phone call with instructions for the diversion); that might apply to just one train or to a significant part of the service. Or a failure might require a diversion, in which case there would undoubtedly be a 'wrong route' call and the bobby would have to check whether the driver signed the alternative route - and be completely boxed up if they didn't (with, usually, a call to Control to authorise the diversion as well). (Might that be another feature that could be included when the core code team have some spare time?)

postal in post 135971 said:

The service to Aberdeen could pass Polmont then go forward to Aberdeen via Winchburgh Jn, Dalmeny, Forth Bridge, Ladybank then either Perth or Dundee so there is a valid alternative route (although whether the driver would sign for any of that . . . )

I can see that this is possible, but would this valid, alternative route actually be taken in real life? Wouldn’t the passengers for the intermediate stations be considered and would they be told that the train was on a diversionary route?

As I said in another topic last week, "when does SimSig stop being a signalling simulation with all that requires in terms of becoming the proxy signaller for the simulation (i.e. knowing the area, knowing the TT, regulating accordingly etc.) and start becoming a computer game with error traps built in to take away the responsibility which normally lies on the signaller's shoulders"?

I sense an opportunity for a diversionary TT with a closure near Stirling :D

bugsy in post 135983 said:

postal in post 135971 said:

The service to Aberdeen could pass Polmont then go forward to Aberdeen via Winchburgh Jn, Dalmeny, Forth Bridge, Ladybank then either Perth or Dundee so there is a valid alternative route (although whether the driver would sign for any of that . . . )

I can see that this is possible, but would this valid, alternative route actually be taken in real life? Wouldn’t the passengers for the intermediate stations be considered and would they be told that the train was on a diversionary route?

So unlikely that it is bizarre but the decision could already been taken before the train left Queen Street allowing for due announcement. Getting into the realms of fantasy with things like that but you know how to avoid the situation.

Whilst thinking about this topic, I decided to do a bit of digging on YouTube and found a train driver's VLOG in which he describes an occasion when he actually took a wrong route, realised it, phoned the signaller to advise him and ask for instructions. He had to reverse his train to an appropriate location where he could be directed onto the correct route. He was driving an EMU and had to undertake what he described as "the walk of shame". Twice!

bugsy in post 135999 said:

Whilst thinking about this topic, I decided to do a bit of digging on YouTube and found a train driver's VLOG in which he describes an occasion when he actually took a wrong route, realised it, phoned the signaller to advise him and ask for instructions. He had to reverse his train to an appropriate location where he could be directed onto the correct route. He was driving an EMU and had to undertake what he described as "the walk of shame". Twice!

You might like this tale, told by the culprit:

http://www.districtdave.co.uk/html/confession_time.html

Now generally where a junction is of similar speeds (so no FY aspects) is it not likely that by the time the driver sees the wrong route it will be too late to stop ?

Now generally where a junction is of similar speeds (so no FY aspects) is it not likely that by the time the driver sees the wrong route it will be too late to stop ?

I think an AC hauled sleeper ECS got far enough along the Shotts line at Midcalder to be off wire once

bill_gensheet in post 136030 said:

Now generally where a junction is of similar speeds (so no FY aspects) is it not likely that by the time the driver sees the wrong route it will be too late to stop ?

Now that would be an evil addition to the core code! Where the train would be expected to stop before the signal, allow a wrong route call from the signal but where the train would overshoot, stop the train at the next signal after the junction for the wrong route call.

bill_gensheet in post 136030 said:

Now generally where a junction is of similar speeds (so no FY aspects) is it not likely that by the time the driver sees the wrong route it will be too late to stop ?

Now that would be an evil addition to the core code! Where the train would be expected to stop before the signal, allow a wrong route call from the signal but where the train would overshoot, stop the train at the next signal after the junction for the wrong route call.

bill_gensheet in post 136030 said:

Now generally where a junction is of similar speeds (so no FY aspects) is it not likely that by the time the driver sees the wrong route it will be too late to stop ?

Now that would be an evil addition to the core code! Where the train would be expected to stop before the signal, allow a wrong route call from the signal but where the train would overshoot, stop the train at the next signal after the junction for the wrong route call.