Wrong side failure filament failure?

I'm playing Portsmouth and i've suffered a failure of a filament for a Red Signal. The signal in rear correctly maintains itself at danger. However, when i set a route from the failed signal, it then turns green and the signal in rear clears also. Is that right?

However,there is one potential danger in such a situation,wherein if the signal has been taken off and the train is approaching it and if in the remote possibility the need arises for the signaller to throw the signal to red,on doing so,the driver will be confronted with a blank signal and potentially pass the signal without noticing the abnormality.

Khalid.

If a Driver passes a signal without "noticing" its aspect he has no business being on the footplate. He is paid to observe and react to every single signal that he passes.

" said:

However,there is one potential danger in such a situation,wherein if the signal has been taken off and the train is approaching it and if in the remote possibility the need arises for the signaller to throw the signal to red,on doing so,the driver will be confronted with a blank signal and potentially pass the signal without noticing the abnormality.

Khalid.

If a Driver passes a signal without "noticing" its aspect he has no business being on the footplate. He is paid to observe and react to every single signal that he passes.

That was the thinking that led me to post my query. If you needed to return the signal to danger in an emergency, there is the chance of a driver missing the unlit signal.

That was the thinking that led me to post my query. If you needed to return the signal to danger in an emergency, there is the chance of a driver missing the unlit signal.

1. I am a Train Driver.


2. My previous job was as a Signaller


3. I live in New Zealand.


4. I sign a Route Card that states that I hold all applicable knowledge for that route. That includes where all Signals are exactly, what aspects I can get on them, where I can go on them, the layout of the line etc


5. New Zealand's Rail Operating Rules and Procedures, Rule 9 states Quote:

   Unusual or irregular signals, or the hands waved violently, denote Danger
   and the necessity for stopping immediately. The absence of a signal at a
   place and time where and when a signal is ordinarily shown, or a signal
   imperfectly exhibited, or the exhibition of a white light at a place where a
   Green, Yellow, Purple or red light should be seen, must be regarded as a
   Danger signal.



6. I would be extremely surprised if an equivalent rule did not exist in the UK Rule Book.


7. I agree that anyone who "does not see a signal" and then carries on, does not deserve to stay in the seat, and should be stood down and Drug Tested for a Category A SPAD.

I would be extremely surprised if an equivalent rule did not exist in the UK Rule Book.

No a driver won't get his Butt kicked if he goes past a signal that had been thrown back and he was unable to stop, that's a SPAD B or SPAD C depending on why it reverted.

" said:

No a driver won't get his Butt kicked if he goes past a signal that had been thrown back and he was unable to stop, that's a SPAD B or SPAD C depending on why it reverted.

Or rather, it was a SPAD B or C (unless NZ uses those terms still!). Not sure what NR calls them now - we go by "operational incident" on the SVR if it's not what used to be SPAD A.

" said:

" said:

No a driver won't get his Butt kicked if he goes past a signal that had been thrown back and he was unable to stop, that's a SPAD B or SPAD C depending on why it reverted.

Or rather, it was a SPAD B or C (unless NZ uses those terms still!). Not sure what NR calls them now - we go by "operational incident" on the SVR if it's not what used to be SPAD A.

Yes we are still using those terms, at the moment anyway. Not sure if they are planning to change that though...

No a driver won't get his Butt kicked if he goes past a signal that had been thrown back and he was unable to stop, that's a SPAD B or SPAD C depending on why it reverted.

They are still widely referred to by their former designations, and I have seen both the old designation and SPAR quoted in some places for what is technically an operational incident. Personally I think it was a system that everyone understood and worked, that was reclassified because someone somewhere decided it was a good idea, but the new designations didn't really catch on with those who have to work with them because the old ones are better.

If you mention a category C SPAD then everyone knew that the signalman had thrown the road back straight away, an operational incident can mean anything and generally requires a lot more explanation to get to the point that, for instance, the signalman had thrown the road back. Therefore a lot of people still say category C SPAD because everyone understands that and it is quick and easy.

In a way, its a bit like "in rear" and "in advance" which were officially done away with in favour of "on the approach to" and "beyond" but are still more widely used than their replacements.

As for the SVR, when I used to be a signalman there the only time SPADs were considered to be a SPAD worthy of a report would be if it was a "category A" and then these were generally just referred to as a SPAD. If you said to most of the people there that a Category D SPAD had occurred there's a good chance they would not have a clue what you were on about, but would understand that a wagon nobody had put the brakes on had just run off the end of the traps somewhere. Category B would have been rare as there is very little equipment failure that is likely to put a signal back in purely mechanical areas, and Category C would just be sorted out between the signalman and driver concerned, whatever the reason for the signal being thrown back (usually in error).