|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 21, 2013 8:30:54 GMT
I recall some discussion of the term 'walking pace' as applied to driving Underground stock some time ago in this place though I cannot recall the actual thread.
I was unaware until a few days ago that the rule for passing automatic signals at danger and proceeding at 'walking pace' was introduced originally following an incident at Camden Town which resulted in a collision circa 1931/2. Apparently the 'walking pace' speed was in no doubt at the time as originally the guard had to alight and proceed on foot in front of the train much as once occurred with cars on roads!
The source was the latest round of uploads of The Engineer at Graces Guide website.
If there were guards today I do wonder how many would be happy to walk down the pipe ahead of a train. Having been there and done that for engineering trains and had passenger trains 'creep' along behind me when investigating track failures years ago it is of course ultimately very much a question of trust as nothing is 100% safe where humans are involved. In my time as a signal lineman I came across a few station supervisors and higher uniformed grades who were quite unwary of sharing the pipe with trains!
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Jul 21, 2013 10:55:49 GMT
I recall some discussion of the term 'walking pace' as applied to driving Underground stock some time ago in this place though I cannot recall the actual thread. I was unaware until a few days ago that the rule for passing automatic signals at danger and proceeding at 'walking pace' was introduced originally following an incident at Camden Town which resulted in a collision circa 1931/2. Apparently the 'walking pace' speed was in no doubt at the time as originally the guard had to alight and proceed on foot in front of the train much as once occurred with cars on roads! The source was the latest round of uploads of The Engineer at Graces Guide website. If there were guards today I do wonder how many would be happy to walk down the pipe ahead of a train. Having been there and done that for engineering trains and had passenger trains 'creep' along behind me when investigating track failures years ago it is of course ultimately very much a question of trust as nothing is 100% safe where humans are involved. In my time as a signal lineman I came across a few station supervisors and higher uniformed grades who were quite unwary of sharing the pipe with trains! Below are 2 examples of a Motorman applying the rule but not adhering to the 'stop and proceed' procedure with dire consequences. SCAT: Speed Control After Tripping. Maybe Nortube can expand on this. ATP: Modern ATP trains passing a signal at danger. The T/Op would not have a code to proceed but by selecting RM or Restricted Manual the T/Op can proceed but is limited to 8kph (5mph) until such times as codes are present, normal procedures apply unless otherwise instructed. Staff leaving the cab. No member of staff should be leaving a cab until the train is disabled i.e. the T/Op has removed the key and handed it over to that person. When I was a Controller the Central Line Battery Locos were notorious for failing in ATP, there was no ATO on these so were manually driven to target speeds. These come out of a depot in an order to suit the works in hand and one out of sequence could hold up a possession. There were 2 choices, proceed in RM to a point where it could be reversed via a crossover back to depot or have a chat to the driver and ask him if he's willing to operate in an 'alternative mode' which would be 'tripcock mode' although there were no trainstops at signals. He would then be advised to proceed under clear signals to X point/station and wait there thus allowing plenty of space between him and the preceding train, it would also allow us to take action should he suddenly have suicidal tendencies, knock the juice off and set up an alternative route to a siding although we never had to do this. Highly irregular I know! Slightly off subject. One late turn there was a 92ts out in service hours testing ATO, at Queensway W/B there was a train in the platform protected by 2 reds to the rear, the ATO train ignored the first red and was only bought to a stand by the Test Operator. ATO testing only resumed after that incident during engineering hours. www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=293www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=824
|
|
|
Post by hellocontrol on Jul 22, 2013 7:10:10 GMT
I can remember the instructors at White City say count the sleepers they did this for some time until it was mentioned that the driver should be looking ahead and not down at the sleepers.
|
|
|
Post by Seven Kings Kid on Jul 22, 2013 19:36:13 GMT
SCAT - Speed Control After Tripping - after passing a signal at danger trains with SCAT can travel upto 9 or 10mph maximum depending on the stock for three minutes after being tripped. SCAT was fitted to all pre-1992 stocks to minimise the risk of collisions.
Newer trains post 1992 can only move in Restricted Manual after signals being passed at danger, the 1992s can motor upto 14kph and brakes apply at 15kph. S stocks if I recall correctly do 9mph in RM. 1995s can do 10mph max in RM.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 23, 2013 2:55:51 GMT
SCAT - Speed Control After Tripping - after passing a signal at danger trains with SCAT can travel upto 9 or 10mph maximum depending on the stock for three minutes after being tripped. SCAT was fitted to all pre-1992 stocks to minimise the risk of collisions. Newer trains post 1992 can only move in Restricted Manual after signals being passed at danger, the 1992s can motor upto 14kph and brakes apply at 15kph. S stocks if I recall correctly do 9mph in RM. 1995s can do 10mph max in RM. All of which are more than double the walking pace of an average human over any distance! Dealing with track failures on the Picc it was quite obvious that 73 stock SCAT was faster than walking pace might be presumed to be. 73 stock were coming into regular service as my LT career began so I had plenty of time to observe them over decades and particularly from the trackside at the beginning and towards the end of my career. On balance although I worked on all lines I suspect more than 60% of my career was spent both working and travelling on the Picc.
|
|
|
Post by neilw on Jul 23, 2013 8:55:18 GMT
If you think about it, the main aim is "to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear", so it's not about absolute speed but a safe speed. Clearly curves and gradients have a big effect, both at the same time even more so, as evidenced by the four collisions between Stratford and Leyton under The Rule.......
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Jul 23, 2013 11:05:18 GMT
If you think about it, the main aim is "to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear", so it's not about absolute speed but a safe speed. Clearly curves and gradients have a big effect, both at the same time even more so, as evidenced by the four collisions between Stratford and Leyton under The Rule....... When I did my training as an ROA back in 72' we were told in no uncertain terms never to say which signal(s) were failing as the failure might have righted itself or been repaired thus the only reason a signal remains red is due to a train up front. In saying that, if a signal remained at danger then the T/Op would then apply 'The Rule' and 'expect to find an obstruction ahead'. Many years ago my Dad was on his way home from his night shift (Post Office) at Liverpool St. the E/B Central Line train he was on stopped on the approach to Leyton, this is where the connection with BR was and freight was still commonplace. My Dad was in the rear carriage when he overheard the Motorman tell the Guard he was 'applying the rule' with that my old man suggested he tell the Motorman to hang on a moment or two as some special workings were taking place, moments later a Freight came across from Stratford. A classic case of expecting the norm.
|
|
|
Post by hangerlanejn on Jul 23, 2013 14:46:48 GMT
Re the Leyton scenario, surely "applying the rule" did not apply to "controlled" or "X" signals but to Auto signals only? I'm assuming from the description that the train was standing at a controlled signal protecting the junction.
HLJ
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 23, 2013 15:32:46 GMT
Re the Leyton scenario, surely "applying the rule" did not apply to "controlled" or "X" signals but to Auto signals only? I'm assuming from the description that the train was standing at a controlled signal protecting the junction. HLJ Absolutely correct, at a semi auto the decision about movement past such a signal cannot be made by the motorman.
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Jul 23, 2013 17:59:09 GMT
Re the Leyton scenario, surely "applying the rule" did not apply to "controlled" or "X" signals but to Auto signals only? I'm assuming from the description that the train was standing at a controlled signal protecting the junction. HLJ Absolutely correct, at a semi auto the decision about movement past such a signal cannot be made by the motorman. This is correct and most semi-autos would display an illuminated 'A' when the box was in King Lever operation as Leyton was at certain (most) times. I can only assume that the Motorman was expecting to find clear signals at that time of day with the 'A' illuminated and could have made an assumption that the 'A' had failed and applied the rule. There were not always telephones on all semi's and definitely no train radio. This story is about 50 years old so might not be as accurate as when I first heard it.
|
|
|
Post by hangerlanejn on Jul 24, 2013 13:56:34 GMT
Whilst I accept that the story is "old", it does demonstrate even now why one was always taught that in operational safety matters that one should never make assumptions but must "ascertain" or "satisfy oneself" that it was safe to proceed.
Rgds, HLJ.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 24, 2013 21:57:12 GMT
Whilst I accept that the story is "old", it does demonstrate even now why one was always taught that in operational safety matters that one should never make assumptions but must "ascertain" or "satisfy oneself" that it was safe to proceed. Rgds, HLJ. Indeed, that one subphrase would clarify many rules and firmly apportion responsibility without attempting to spell out every possibility, much like the extremely useful 'all parties must come to a complete agreement' which intelligently allowed workable solutions to be enacted by competent individuals in the days of the old rule book before the Working Manual spelt out in detail every rule and every role therein but without explicitly covering every situation.
|
|
|
Post by oldcodger on Jul 24, 2013 22:07:18 GMT
motormans instrutions were when a signal is RED stop at it.Identify it(auto,semi or 'X')If there is a telephone use it.If no telephone and it is an auto.wait one minuet.and pass under the Rule.(55g) proceed at extreem caution keeping a sharp look out for any obstuction until you have passed two stop signals at clear or caution.when normal working could be resumed .
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 25, 2013 8:18:58 GMT
motormans instrutions were when a signal is RED stop at it.Identify it(auto,semi or 'X')If there is a telephone use it.If no telephone and it is an auto.wait one minuet.and pass under the Rule.(55g) proceed at extreem caution keeping a sharp look out for any obstuction until you have passed two stop signals at clear or caution.when normal working could be resumed . What if it was a semi or X and there was no telephone? As someone who spent over 25 years installing and maintaining LU 'stick' phones on all lines I know that they were provided at the majority of semi and X signals, an exception being where those signals were sighted at platforms. I've never really thought about it before, obviously in the tunnel an alternative form of communication was available in the form of the tunnel telephone superimposed DRICO circuit allowing indirect communication with the signalman via the controller. At platforms comms would be relayed via the station supervisor, indeed many S/S offices were where standalone stick phone systems connected to following transfer of signal operators from local boxes to regulating rooms. This was still the case in many places when I retired in 2005. Presumably in open sections, assuming a defective telephone (or telephone system i.e. permanent busy or no tone and no answer) and a manned local box, the guard could be asked to walk to the signal box for instructions if the signal remained at danger for longer than an expected time to allow it to clear. I expect that the local signal operator would soon notice the train occupying a track and not moving at an apparently cleared signal and despatch the PSL/AET assuming some failure was the reason for the hold up and no enquiry from the motorman.
|
|
|
Post by oldcodger on Jul 25, 2013 9:08:17 GMT
It is over 20yrs. since I left the Underground,but my old Rule Book is still around I will have to look it out(its either in the might come in usefull one day or the too damb lazy to chuck it away cupboard).but at the Semi or 'X'Signal it did involve the Guard going for a walk,or using drico as you say.If whilst walking to the Signal Box or next Station the guard came across a signal with a telephone he could use it to get Instuctions and relay them to his Driver.
|
|