|
Post by Nortube on Mar 18, 2013 10:09:51 GMT
Thanks for the explanation. It confirmed what I thought and also explains why most of these signals don't have an overlap shown.
I mentioned A7171 and A7172 on the approach to Morden SB in a previous post. Having checked, it appears that, unlike the 'round the bend' signals, these were additional signals put in to split up the long 1400+ feet gap between A717 and A717. This allows for four trains to be held between South Wimbledon and Morden instead of three.
If there's blocking-back from Morden and four trains are being held, then the following train will be held at inner home A713C, not in the platform. A few drivers have found this out to their cost!
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 20, 2013 0:43:24 GMT
Post by Zippy on Mar 20, 2013 0:43:24 GMT
However, as we are aware this has not prevented accidents in the past when applying the rule and exceeding 'walking pace'. The phrase taught today is 'at a speed at which you can stop short of any obstruction'
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 20, 2013 3:36:53 GMT
Post by railtechnician on Mar 20, 2013 3:36:53 GMT
Yep, just another of those phrases that mean the same thing, not quite an exact science!
It's a bit like gauging, for some fine gauging the measure is the thickness of a fag paper but there aren't supposed to be any of those on the railway these days are there! Something else that was never quite an exact science!
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 20, 2013 12:40:13 GMT
Post by Nortube on Mar 20, 2013 12:40:13 GMT
My problem with 'at a speed at which you can stop short of any obstruction' is that it's too vague and can mean virtually any speed. A driver could do whatever speed they wanted. In the end, the driver would get the blame whatever happened.
How is an obstruction defined? If a driver has just passed a signal at danger, the next signal is a long way away and the track ahead is clear and train free, does the driver then proceed at full speed until they get to the next signal? (I know SCAT will restrict the speed, but the phrase was used before SCAT was fitted).
When I was taught rules and regs, an obstruction was defined as a visible reason that could hold the signal at danger. An obvious, and the most common, would be a train in the section ahead. However, it could mean 'a metal obstruction' between the running rails or even between the current rail and running rail. This sort of obstruction would be more common in the open section where things are thrown on the track. An obvious item being a shopping trolley or, less obvious until close up, the metal spokes of an umbrella spread across the track. Even a body on the track (which could be conductive). Although unlikely, there may also be some (metal containing) obstructions that could derail the train. We were also taught to look out for a broken rail, although it was admitted that we may not see that from the cab unless a chunk of rail had dropped off. We were taught to look out for these things, not just look out for a train.
The definitions of speed that we were taught when applying the rule gave a clearly defined speed: 'slow walking pace' 'so you can count the sleepers' or, for those trains that actually had a speedo and one that worked, '3 - 5 mph' The speed was clearly defined with no ambiguity and one that I always stuck to when applying the rule, even if it did mean a long delay. As any Northern line driver knows, if you apply the rule at NP14 (north of EF NB) it will take forever before you can resume normal speed (at NQ280A).
Whilst the change in speed definition may have been to reduce delays, it is yet another example of where instructions have been deliberately made vague instead of clearly defined. That way, a driver will get a bollocking whatever they do because it can be argued that they 'didn't follow procedures'.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 20, 2013 13:03:25 GMT
Post by ComGCOS on Mar 20, 2013 13:03:25 GMT
I do like to take issue with instructions to travel at "Caution Speed"!
The only definition of this is in the Network Rail working over books where it is a maximum speed of 50mph.
I take delight in telling the LU controller that I shan't exceed 50mph and that otherwise the expression has no meaning.
I don't have a problem with "at a speed you can stop short of any obstruction" as all sorts of factors affect this, such as fog, track curvature, tunnels etc.... In some places a much faster speed is quite safe, and that may vary from day to day as well as place to place, it's absurd to do, say, 5mph, if 30mph is suitable in places. I think that is best left to the skill and judgement of professional train operators.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Mar 20, 2013 16:34:56 GMT
The problem is that, whether through a lapse, ignorance, or any other reason, not all drivers are professional all of the time. If they were, there's be no crashes after applying the rule, no derailments due to speeding, no going the wrong way up a line because the driver got confused or wasn't sure what to do, etc.
It has surprised me just how little knowledge some trainees or new drivers actually had. I know that experience improves things a lot, but some didn't even know some of the basic safety things properly, like applying the rule, so it's no wonder they get into trouble at a later date.
As mentioned on another board, exams used to be an oral affair where you were questioned on everything. This type of exam tested your knowledge and understanding and made sure you just hadn't learned it parrot fashion, but understood a procedure and the reason for doing it. If you didn't know, you didn't pass and that was it. The way a lot of exams work these days (and not just on LU) proves very little when the trainee takes assessments throughout the course then promptly forgets what they've been taught so they can carry on with the next subject knowing that they won't be questioned any more on what they've already learned. That and multiple choice tick box questions where you've got a good chance of passing because you ticked the answers that looked vaguely familiar, not because you were certain that was the answer or understood.
Then, of course, there's the revision, which nobody fails (unless they've very very bad) because it has to be a 100% pass. All this just so there is a bit of paper available saying the person has had their revision should they be involved in an incident. Anybody who was on the job prior to the Kings Cross fire will know how much has changed, with every level covering themselves so that if something did happen they can say "well we did what we should". Not that I'm saying some of the change wasn't needed, but a lot of it just seems way over the top with no real proof that anybody really knows anything in the end.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 21, 2013 0:27:48 GMT
Post by ComGCOS on Mar 21, 2013 0:27:48 GMT
Hmmm, whilst I don't disagree with your thoughts on the standard of some professional train operators; These "round the bend signals" exist at a minimal number of locations and certainly not on all the lines where trains may be just around the corner. Could they even offer a false protection to someone who assumes they exist where they don't? Equally someone whose lapse makes them forget what "a speed to stop short of an obstruction" is, may equally forget any fixed speed they should be doing under rule! Such people should be weeded out and required to meet minimum standards rather than catered for to the detriment of the service and proper staff.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 21, 2013 4:25:39 GMT
Post by railtechnician on Mar 21, 2013 4:25:39 GMT
The problem is that, whether through a lapse, ignorance, or any other reason, not all drivers are professional all of the time. If they were, there's be no crashes after applying the rule, no derailments due to speeding, no going the wrong way up a line because the driver got confused or wasn't sure what to do, etc. It has surprised me just how little knowledge some trainees or new drivers actually had. I know that experience improves things a lot, but some didn't even know some of the basic safety things properly, like applying the rule, so it's no wonder they get into trouble at a later date. As mentioned on another board, exams used to be an oral affair where you were questioned on everything. This type of exam tested your knowledge and understanding and made sure you just hadn't learned it parrot fashion, but understood a procedure and the reason for doing it. If you didn't know, you didn't pass and that was it. The way a lot of exams work these days (and not just on LU) proves very little when the trainee takes assessments throughout the course then promptly forgets what they've been taught so they can carry on with the next subject knowing that they won't be questioned any more on what they've already learned. That and multiple choice tick box questions where you've got a good chance of passing because you ticked the answers that looked vaguely familiar, not because you were certain that was the answer or understood. Then, of course, there's the revision, which nobody fails (unless they've very very bad) because it has to be a 100% pass. All this just so there is a bit of paper available saying the person has had their revision should they be involved in an incident. Anybody who was on the job prior to the Kings Cross fire will know how much has changed, with every level covering themselves so that if something did happen they can say "well we did what we should". Not that I'm saying some of the change wasn't needed, but a lot of it just seems way over the top with no real proof that anybody really knows anything in the end.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 21, 2013 4:28:26 GMT
Post by railtechnician on Mar 21, 2013 4:28:26 GMT
The problem is that, whether through a lapse, ignorance, or any other reason, not all drivers are professional all of the time. If they were, there's be no crashes after applying the rule, no derailments due to speeding, no going the wrong way up a line because the driver got confused or wasn't sure what to do, etc. It has surprised me just how little knowledge some trainees or new drivers actually had. I know that experience improves things a lot, but some didn't even know some of the basic safety things properly, like applying the rule, so it's no wonder they get into trouble at a later date. As mentioned on another board, exams used to be an oral affair where you were questioned on everything. This type of exam tested your knowledge and understanding and made sure you just hadn't learned it parrot fashion, but understood a procedure and the reason for doing it. If you didn't know, you didn't pass and that was it. The way a lot of exams work these days (and not just on LU) proves very little when the trainee takes assessments throughout the course then promptly forgets what they've been taught so they can carry on with the next subject knowing that they won't be questioned any more on what they've already learned. That and multiple choice tick box questions where you've got a good chance of passing because you ticked the answers that looked vaguely familiar, not because you were certain that was the answer or understood. Then, of course, there's the revision, which nobody fails (unless they've very very bad) because it has to be a 100% pass. All this just so there is a bit of paper available saying the person has had their revision should they be involved in an incident. Anybody who was on the job prior to the Kings Cross fire will know how much has changed, with every level covering themselves so that if something did happen they can say "well we did what we should". Not that I'm saying some of the change wasn't needed, but a lot of it just seems way over the top with no real proof that anybody really knows anything in the end. Unfortunately the politically correct world has decided that no-one is or can ever be a failure at anything and so the professionalism in many things LU is just not what is was in LT days. I spent several years in the training division in the 1980s and could already see the changes before I went back on the tools in 1986. When I wrote the course exam papers for installation and maintenance technicians I did it in the old fashioned LT way, i.e. three hours to attempt a written paper containing 10 questions of which the students were expected to answer six questions in full, each question being multipart and designed to test the student's knowledge and understanding of each subject in detail. Ten years later I found myself being asked to train staff on an 'as required' basis, mostly staff who were new to the line but some experienced staff including supervisors from related disciplines. I was told that only multiple choice test papers were to be given and that the pass mark was not going to be a minimum 75% as it had once been for copious amounts of handwriting but something lower to ensure that everyone who attended would pass unless they were complete dunces hadn't quite reached the required standard yet in which case they would receive another chance to discover the answers before being retested! I recall being admonished by a manager when he heard me suggest to a 'student' in a class, "we spent all day yesterday on this, you really should know the basics by now". I'm a patient fellow by nature but if I thought someone wouldn't make the grade I'd tell them straight so that they could find something they were good at and succeed. Such sentiments were no longer allowed as it was seen as 'abuse', so square pegs found their way into round holes! From what I hear from former colleagues things are more that way than ever these days!
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 25, 2013 15:00:54 GMT
Post by fitztightly on Mar 25, 2013 15:00:54 GMT
I will say now that I haven't read this entire thread, so may well be about to 'state the bleeding obvious'!
A signal of this type is an extra signal put in to increase line capacity years ago. I don't know why - I saw talk of Stratford as I scanned through - but it meant in the bad old days that when we joined the endless queues into Morden following the peaks, you could fit more trains between South Wimbledon and Morden as there were more signals. It's something like the benefit ATO gives you but with signals and manually driven trains. It relies upon the Driver's route knowledge and reaction times and gauging how many other trains are around you.
For instance, if there were just A717, YX719 and Y2 between South Wimbledon and Morden, you could only have three trains between the two stations. But by installing two extra signals.... you get A717, A7171, A7172, YX719 and Y2. It is certainly possible to get four trains between stations as it is, and if the trains are driven at a suitable speed possibly five, as one leaves the tunnel towards Morden and another starts from South Wimbledon.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 25, 2013 17:22:33 GMT
Post by railtechnician on Mar 25, 2013 17:22:33 GMT
I will say now that I haven't read this entire thread, so may well be about to 'state the bleeding obvious'! A signal of this type is an extra signal put in to increase line capacity years ago. I don't know why - I saw talk of Stratford as I scanned through - but it meant in the bad old days that when we joined the endless queues into Morden following the peaks, you could fit more trains between South Wimbledon and Morden as there were more signals. It's something like the benefit ATO gives you but with signals and manually driven trains. It relies upon the Driver's route knowledge and reaction times and gauging how many other trains are around you. For instance, if there were just A717, YX719 and Y2 between South Wimbledon and Morden, you could only have three trains between the two stations. But by installing two extra signals.... you get A717, A7171, A7172, YX719 and Y2. It is certainly possible to get four trains between stations as it is, and if the trains are driven at a suitable speed possibly five, as one leaves the tunnel towards Morden and another starts from South Wimbledon. I think you'll find there's a difference, on the Northern line I'm sure you are correct regarding increased capacity but they are not 'round the bend' signals which are specifically post SPAD policemen. I spent my first stint on nightshift on the Northern line resignalling of the 1970s and I'm aware that the signalling was the 'standard' three homes and a starter but where additional capacity was required it was five homes and a starter. The Picc is a different animal, basically two homes and a starter almost throughout. The point about 'round the bend' signals as I mentioned upthread is that a train operator will normally only ever see them green unless applying the rule due to SPAD whereas additional capacity signals are there to hold trains.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Mar 25, 2013 18:24:49 GMT
Post by fitztightly on Mar 25, 2013 18:24:49 GMT
Absolutely RT, I didn't think they were 'round the bend' signals in my specific example.... I was only referring to the Northern Line signals which I had specific knowledge about. I'll read back through when I've got a mo ;-D
|
|
|
Axxx1
Apr 1, 2013 15:14:48 GMT
Post by Nortube on Apr 1, 2013 15:14:48 GMT
Looking in a hand-out (probably from 1973 era), it quotes an extract from Traffic Circular No.41 (1963) under Passing of automatic signals at danger (rule 55):
“The special attention of every Driver and Guard is directed to the provisions of rule 55, claise (g/iv), which require the Driver to proceed cautiously and at such speeds as to enable him to stop short of any obstruction when proceeding after passing a signal at Danger; full regard must be had to the prevailing conditions, such as reduced visibility, and the possibility that the section may be occupied by a train which is displaying only an oil tail lamp.
Drivers are reminded that, when Rule 55, clause (g/iv), is being operated, it is not a question of judgemet at how many miles an hour a train is running, but of moving at no more than a slow walking pace. When moving on a down gradient, Drivers must be particularly alert to ensure that the speed of their train does not become higher than a slow walking pace.
Guards are also reminded tof the importance of the proper tail lights being displayed by their train at all times in tunnel sections, after sunset and during conditions of poor visibility. Should a train be detrained in a section ahead, of an automatic signal, the safety of that train and of the following train which may have entered the section under the provisions of Rule 55, clause (g/iv), may depend upon the display of a good tail light.”
I didn’t realise that “a slow walking pace” had actually formed part of the rule. Obviously I read the hand-out when it was given to me, but the phrase was embedded in my brain from the R&R week in both the Guard’s and Motoman’s course.
Checking the tail lights after one minute delay – “because the train behind can apply the rule after one minute if at an auto” was something that was embedded into the Guard’s brain. In the days of electric tail lights, it shouldn’t be necessary to have to keep checking the tail lights. The Guard would normally check when changing ends and setting up the read describer and that was it. Indeed, on the Vic line and other lines as they went OPO, the rear tail lights could not be checked because there was no Guard and it wasn’t thought to be necessary for them to be checked in any other way. I presume that Guards were still instructed to do it ‘because they could’.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Apr 1, 2013 16:47:50 GMT
Post by railtechnician on Apr 1, 2013 16:47:50 GMT
History is full of whys and wherefores which are often misunderstood or unknown now. In the modern day the basis for something still in place and in use is often lost in the long forgotten past. Anyone reading that handout today should have no doubt what the purpose of a round the bend signal is. If memory serves me correctly the 1974 rule book which was the one in use when I began my LT career used exactly that phrase "a slow walking pace" in several places.
|
|
|
Axxx1
Apr 1, 2013 17:37:42 GMT
Post by Nortube on Apr 1, 2013 17:37:42 GMT
If I still have a copy of that rule book somewhere, I'll have to have a look. I did have a clear out some months back and got rid of a load of excess paperwork, including lots of pretty coloured appendices (I still had the cloth(?) covered ones that I was first issued with. At least i did read through them all. When the doorstep size The Cat Sat on The Mat replacement was issued, like most staff I didn't bother to look at it at all. For most people, if they didn't throw it away when they received it, it became locker ballast and only saw light of day if you needed to prove you still had it.
|
|