Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Paddington derailment 16/06

Current and future British signalling (UK except Northern Ireland)

Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby Mike Stone » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:59 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -june-2016
;
Is it normal practice to require all subsidiary signals in a route to be clear when the route starts at a sub, or is it peculiar to TVSC?
Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby S&TEngineer » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:59 pm

Mike Stone wrote:Is it normal practice to require all subsidiary signals in a route to be clear when the route starts at a sub, or is it peculiar to TVSC

Its in the report:
Quote: Among the written special instructions to the signallers at TVSC is one that requires that, when a movement starting from a position-light signal requires to run via another position-light signal before reaching a platform, siding or main aspect signal, the signaller must clear all the intermediate position-light signals in the route first. When it is ‘absolutely essential to route such a movement as far as an intermediate position-light signal only’, the signaller is required to reach a clear understanding with the driver before the movement starts.
Regards,
S&TEngineer
-----------------------------------------------------
Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3
User avatar
S&TEngineer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: Somewhere in the far South West

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:44 pm

Why should it be necessary for the signaller to have to caution the driver to stop at the next subsidiary signal - surely the whole point of a position light is to authorise the movement at caution only as far as the line is clear? Even in the absence of route knowledge, shouldn't signals be so placed that it is obvious which lines they apply to?
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby S&TEngineer » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:03 am

Moderator Note: Gentlemen you really do need to reread the complete report again as it's all explained therein.
Regards,
S&TEngineer
-----------------------------------------------------
Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3
User avatar
S&TEngineer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: Somewhere in the far South West

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby Pete2320 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:43 am

I am reminded that, as a signalman in the 1970s, I was tought the adage "Sub to Sub" is "Sub to Destruction" ! Not that it was written down anywhere.

Pete
Pete
Pete2320
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Barton on Humber

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby Mike Stone » Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:59 pm

That doesn't answer my question - is this instruction issued to signallers at other boxes or just TVSC?
;
It also says something about the quality of management that allows an instruction to be issued that cannot be complied with - they should surely either have refused to accept it or instructed signallers to carry it out and b***** the consequences.
Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:13 pm

Mike Stone wrote:It also says something about the quality of management that allows an instruction to be issued that cannot be complied with - they should surely either have refused to accept it or instructed signallers to carry it out and b***** the consequences.

No, that is just a quote from the box managers at the Signalling Centre. Being "too busy" to carry out an instruction is often used as an excuse but it really doesn't wash. The report doesn't really go into whether the instruction was regularly infringed so I can't see how we can judge the situation.

There is really no essential reason for an instruction like that in circumstances where the driver is in the leading cab so its presence is a bonus. Compliance may well have prevented the accident but it was certainly not the cause.

Incidentally, you cannot "refuse to accept" an official instruction issued to a signal box.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6980
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Paddington derailment 16/06

Unread postby Stuart Johnson » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:14 pm

I understand that, since the accident, the instruction in question has been withdrawn.
Stuart J
User avatar
Stuart Johnson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:47 pm
Location: Metroland


Return to Signalling - current

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests