Page 1 of 1
| SPADing Trains 14/07/2010 at 18:47 #1457 | |
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Hope this is in the right area of the forum I've been having a little think about this lately and believe this might be a valid point to make therefore a valid change to request for future simulations. Let me set this imaginary scenario that you've got a Track Circuit Failure on a Track Circuit, the signal in the rear of it (that is, the signal protecting the TC) turns red as you'd of-course expect it to. The first train to go over that TC arrives at said red signal and calls you up then you ask the driver to Pass Signal At Danger and examine the line and then it is reported as clear so you just PSAD all future trains over it. Now, on some simulations when you select the PSAD or PSAD+EXAM option from the telephone call dialogue box (or from the F2 Train List if you really choose to do it that way) a box will pop-up and it asks you to enter the headcode to confirm this action/command. What I have noted is that when it does this it tells you the headcode to actually enter. My thinking on this subject, and therefore reason behind this post/thread/discussion, is that surely it shouldn't just tell you the headcode to be entered to PSAD the train, you should already know this, i.e: from the telephone call received, or at least be able to find it out from another source What I'm thinking is that it should say something like "Please enter the exact headcode to confirm" (I say "exact" because, sometimes, if the headcode is 1Q23-4 you need to ensure you enter the -4 along with the main part of the headcode for the PSAD to work for the correct train). It's sort of a bit like this old thread (or this post in particular) that I remember reading, providing the headcode to enter makes it too easy to ask a driver to PSAD (the same as using a button to override a reminder (collar) makes it an all too easy thing to do). Just a thought really - please don't snap my head off if it's no good or something. Would appreciate replies with other peoples views on this. Thanks in advance for your replies. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 14/07/2010 at 18:47 #10075 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Hope this is in the right area of the forum I've been having a little think about this lately and believe this might be a valid point to make therefore a valid change to request for future simulations. Let me set this imaginary scenario that you've got a Track Circuit Failure on a Track Circuit, the signal in the rear of it (that is, the signal protecting the TC) turns red as you'd of-course expect it to. The first train to go over that TC arrives at said red signal and calls you up then you ask the driver to Pass Signal At Danger and examine the line and then it is reported as clear so you just PSAD all future trains over it. Now, on some simulations when you select the PSAD or PSAD+EXAM option from the telephone call dialogue box (or from the F2 Train List if you really choose to do it that way) a box will pop-up and it asks you to enter the headcode to confirm this action/command. What I have noted is that when it does this it tells you the headcode to actually enter. My thinking on this subject, and therefore reason behind this post/thread/discussion, is that surely it shouldn't just tell you the headcode to be entered to PSAD the train, you should already know this, i.e: from the telephone call received, or at least be able to find it out from another source What I'm thinking is that it should say something like "Please enter the exact headcode to confirm" (I say "exact" because, sometimes, if the headcode is 1Q23-4 you need to ensure you enter the -4 along with the main part of the headcode for the PSAD to work for the correct train). It's sort of a bit like this old thread (or this post in particular) that I remember reading, providing the headcode to enter makes it too easy to ask a driver to PSAD (the same as using a button to override a reminder (collar) makes it an all too easy thing to do). Just a thought really - please don't snap my head off if it's no good or something. Would appreciate replies with other peoples views on this. Thanks in advance for your replies. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 14/07/2010 at 19:25 #10077 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Entering the Train ID shown is exactly the sam as a signaller looking at the TD on the panel when saying"Hello driver of 1G69, you may pass VS999 at danger and obey all others) he doesn't have to guess the train ID, the infomation is given to him to use.
Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 14/07/2010 at 19:33 #10078 | |
|
AndyG
1834 posts |
Isn't the driver when calling in required to state his TD anyway - "for the avoidance of doubt" - in safety related messages? Ths is what SimSig is simulating.
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 14/07/2010 at 19:37 #10079 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Yes he is Andy & before anyone says it, I am fully away that not all boxes have TD's!
Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 18:14 #10374 | |
|
GB
64 posts |
Noisynoel said:Yes he is Andy & before anyone says it, I am fully away that not all boxes have TD's!Quite correct, but it should also be said that even where a box has TD's installed, not every signal may have a TD. The correct procedure as far as comms is concerned is for the signaller to first identify himself and his location/panel/workstation and for the driver to identify his head code and if applicable, the signal he is standing at. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 20:51 #10388 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
The replies to this really do surprise me. In the thread I linked to an idea by somebody else for a keyboard command for reminder override was 'rejected' as it would make it too easy to do, so surely giving the signaller (well, the SimSigger) the headcode in the confirmation box with the text entry box right below it is making the whole process of PSADing a train far too easy to do. I noted today during my "Exeter Signalrunners 1.0" whilst PSADing a train via F2 it only said "Enter train identity to confirm" so it suggests that the coding for this idea is already there. Surely there is some sort of safety implication in making the PSADing process too easy.... I hope my idea could please be reconsidered. Thanks. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 21:17 #10389 | |
GeoffM
6282 posts |
There have been three (as far as I remember) ways of PSAD-ing a train over the years in SimSig: 1. No confirmation at all - or possibly an "are you sure" was offered 2. The ID was presented with the user prompted to re-type the same ID 3. The current situation where the ID is NOT shown but is asked for. It could go further and prompt for the signal identity as well... SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 21:32 #10390 | |
|
GB
64 posts |
Quote:Surely there is some sort of safety implication in making the PSADing process too easy....I would personly say that simplicty is often the key to safety. Why over complicate things when there is no need? I do not see the need in having to manually enter the TD in order to get the train passed the signal, providing you make sure whats written in the box corospondes to the train concerned. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 22:47 #10391 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
Simsig isn't real life, nor is it safety critical. If you do PSAD the wrong train due to not paying enough attention, in real life you don't get a prompt that tells you that you input the wrong headcode, you get a potential accident. In Simsig you go "oops" and forget it or reload your last save. Nor does SimSig aim to recreate real life - you can replatform trains at will, have no trains ever SPAD accidentally, any form of major accident is not simulated, and so forth. I'm sure to PSAD in reality, you'd have a small pile of forms along with the permission of the S&T and probably someone higher up in the signalling chain of command before doing so (along with possibly someone on the ground, dependent on situation). Could always print some forms yourself and have a few friends fill in the other roles every time you want to PSAD, I guess.. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 22:56 #10392 | |
|
GB
64 posts |
Quote:I'm sure to PSAD in reality, you'd have a small pile of forms along with the permission of the S&T and probably someone higher up in the signalling chain of command before doing so (along with possibly someone on the ground, dependent on situation).Nope, nope and nope (at least not for basic situations such as a TC SOWC) Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 31/07/2010 at 23:39 #10394 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
Would have expected some sort of form these days at least! Maybe the H&S Culture hasn't quite reached Signalling - or at least parts of it.
Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 01/08/2010 at 06:20 #10397 | |
|
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
UKT< said:Let me set this imaginary scenario that you've got a Track Circuit Failure on a Track Circuit, Well, where else could you get a TCF? Inputting the headcode is the same as the signaller looking up at his panel, reading the TD and telling the driver to pass the signal. Why does it need to be more complicated? If you really want to be realistic print off a load of 3185's and fill one every time you have a signalling irregularity, then relive yourself from duty and go and have an imaginary interview with the SSM. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 03/08/2010 at 16:32 #10421 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
WARNING - THREAD CREEP Now I admit that I only get to work in signal boxes/control centres a handful of times a year but I have never heard real signallers using the term SPAD'ing or PSAD'ing a train. Have I missed something? Is this a new term that people in the real world are actually using these days or is it just a SimSig term? In the real world the signaller would either a) Talk him by b) Call him by c) Authorise him by d) Caution him but he wouldn't SPAD him. (Strange how they're all he's. Trains must be male!). In my experience SPAD is a term reserved for the inadvertent passing of a signal at danger. I've not done any work on the railway in a while so it may be a recognised term but I find that I cringe when somebody says "can you SPAD 1L21". or "I just SPAD'ed it" Is it only me or do any signallers know where I'm coming from? BACK TO THE THREAD I think you should keep the TD description on the pop up box. That way you know if it has additional characters (2F671 or 4L21-1). Regards Kev Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 03/08/2010 at 18:24 #10432 | |
|
Late Turn
696 posts |
It's not just you! We've got signalling experience from most corners of the country and of all ages on the GCR, and "talk him by" or similar seems to be the order of the day. Incidentally, I suspect 'him' refers to the Driver - traditionally correct if not politically correct! 'PSAD' appears to have been an acronym that's crept onto these forums (understandable for those who haven't had the chance to pick up the experience from the old hands); not sure how the usage of 'SPAD' has developed, but I'd be reluctant to drop it into any sort of communication, as it usually causes a brief moment of alarm for anyone who's listening!
Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 03/08/2010 at 20:06 #10441 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
When it comes to talking a train passed a signal I would refer to it as a PSAD (you're telling the driver to pass the signal at danger), although yes I am aware of what the proper terminology is, but PSAD will suffice for SimSig - and takes a lot less time to type out too (especially if you're working a busy workstation). It seems that someone doesn't agree with or like me entitling this thread "PSADing trains" and wants to edit it to read "SPADing trains" which sounds wrong to me anyway, especially with the potential consequences of a real-life SPAD. Perhaps the title should therefore be edited one final time to read "Talking a train passed a signal" or something like that. ralphjwchadkirk said: I said it like that as later on I referred to Track Circuits as simply TC and I didn't want some question like "What is TC?" / "What is a TC?" cropping up later on. Firefly said: I think you should keep the TD description on the pop up box. That way you know if it has additional characters (2F671 or 4L21-1).The additional characters would still be visible in the main telephone call dialogue box...and anyway some simulations don't require the additional characters. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 03/08/2010 at 20:24 #10442 | |
|
Late Turn
696 posts |
I suppose the proper terminology is something like 'passing a signal at Danger with authority', so 'PSAD' is an appropriate, but not generally accepted, acronym in that respect. The full title's certainly not what you'd normally hear in normal conversation though, and as I say, the acronym is far from generally accepted. Obviously, in reality, the Signalman hasn't got to worry about passing safety-critical messages through the F10 interface!
Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 05/08/2010 at 20:27 #10490 | |
|
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
Talk a driver past is the only version I have heard. PSAD sounds silly too me, and mentioning a SPAD would give the person on the other end a minor heart attack.
Log in to reply |
| SPADing Trains 06/08/2010 at 09:33 #10509 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
It's a long time ago now but I'd have used 3 of the 4 terms mentioned, I think. "Talk him by" would be for a straightforward signal or TC failure, where the line was otherwise known to be clear. "Call him by" would be more likely for shunting purposes, getting assistance onto a failure, or any other reason for making an unsignalled move. (Remember I did my signalling in manual boxes of various ages and completeness of provision.) "Caution him" would be a situation where the line was not known to be clear - either a known issue or a situation that was uncertain in some way. But I have to emphasise that none of these is official. None of them would be acceptable if they had to be used in a safety-critical context (though I can't think when it would be neccessary to do such a thing). The circumstances I'd have used them were (e.g.) reporting to Control or informing a manager, where a rapid and easily understood message was necessary but there would not be safety-related consequences if misunderstanding arose. In that case the use above is probably what would seem most natural in the particular circumstances. But like most specialist slang it's inexact and others would've used it differently. it never really mattered, everyone knew that meant drivers were being authorised to pass signals at danger under whatever rules & regs applied in that situation. If you want a quick acronym for passing around a multiplayer game PSAD sounds about right - quick to type & clearly understood. But there's no way you'd hear that being used in a real box. And it would probably only appear in full in the instruction given to a driver, which I always gave as "pass that signal at danger and obey all others". Log in to reply |