micron wrote:Collexions - You may find that things change again with Upminster and when it goes in to the ROC at Romford, as ERTMS / ETCS is very much in the frame for the Thameside Route, so that may have an affect on the TMS system being used, along with the main contractor?
StevieG wrote:It sounds like the "another safety critical voice system" which you mention in connection with Driver Only Operated EMU services is the driver/signaller radio system which was originally known, in the south at least, as "DOO Radio" as it was an essential requirement for driver-only operation of passenger trains, and latterly has become known as Cab Secure Radio (CSR), which re-christening I believe occurred once it was to be deployed on some (typically commuter lines) as a valuable means of communication where trains were still driver + guard(or equivalent)-operated.
(The new national GSM-R radio communication system, now at a fairly advanced stage of roll-out, I believe is intended to completely supersede both CSR and NRN.)
Because of its discrete communication (conversation with one driver cannot be heard by any others), CSR's primary function of one-to-one speech is normally authorised for use in any safety critical communications between signaller and driver (such as cautioning to examine the line, advising a driver of an emergency severe temporary speed restriction, authorising a signal to be passed at Danger, etc.).
But to operate fully (in a way which allows emergency and normal calling, both from signaller to driver by train reporting number, and similarly, driver-signaller to be indicated by Rep.No.), CSR requires only continuous signal-to-signal type train movement information from any signal box 'modern' (4-character headcode era, and since; & presumably computer-based) train describer or TD-driven mapping-based Automatic Train Reporting system, and so its operability is not dependent on the type of signal interlocking(s) and control system(s) in use to control lineside signals along CSR-equipped routes : Hence the early (approx. 1982), fully effective operation of DOOR/CSR throughout the Kings Cross PSB [NX(PP) panel + RRI] area, and soon extended into the areas of the similar Peterborough and Cambridge PSBs for lines required to carry DOO services.
In RETB, the radio communication involved is at the core of controlling train movements by handling exchanges of electronic tokens with trains (as data telegrams, governed by Solid State Interlocking) and is also the means, by verbal communication (which is actually not discrete to a specific driver), of routinely authorising train movements past the fixed boards equating to signals; so RETB and CSR are rather different from each other.
mossend4 wrote:IMO it was strange that so much trust was placed on the Driver to report exactly where the train was, and on one occasion after the Driver of a northbound train had heard the messages being passed to a southbound train at crossing loop 'D' north of him, authorising it to proceed to crossing loop 'C', he told the Signaller his train was standing at the Stop Board at crossing loop 'B', when in fact it was still approaching on the single line south of it ... in an attempt to get an 'early token' to proceed to crossing loop 'C', before the southbound train had reached there from 'D'. The incident came to light only because an Operations Manager happened to be at crossing loop 'B' , was listening in on his mobile RETB set, and knew the northbound train hadn't reached there'.
Pete2320 wrote: I wonder what would have happened if, say, Mr Dutton had decided to market his lever frames as "Signalbox" which seems comparable to what has happened with IECC and SSI.
It certainly was Pete, AFAIR quite soon after Liverpool Street (around 6-12 months?)Pete2320 wrote: " I'm pretty sure that York was described as an IECC when it opened. .... "
Although perhaps not a brand name in commercial terms, being developed by, and introduced under, BR, I am in no doubt that in those times, and as a defined configuration of software/electronic systems for signalling purposes, IECC was then a defined term in a technology/signal engineering context.Pete2320 wrote: " .... At that time I'm pretty certain that this was because it contained more than just a signalbox, or was intended to. I'm thinking electrical control room and operating control, though not really sure if this happened. Whatever, at that time I'm sure IECC was not a brand name for anything. .... "
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest