Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on?

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > Three Bridges > Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on?

Page 1 of 1

Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 14/02/2013 at 23:37 #41537
jc92
Avatar
3626 posts
i have been playing brighton and came across the following situation:



Whilst the platform starter is cleared, i set the route from T1242 into P2 at preston park, expecting the signal to hold at danger until the route was clear, however it cleared to allow 5B01 to be called onto the back of 2T02.

two (and a bit) questions:

1) is preston park platform permissive? (ive checked the manual but no notes on permissive working are included) additionally does the interlocking allow such permissive movements?

2) Does Theree bridges (and specifically of course, the preston park area) have huddersfield control, which would prevent such a situation occuring.

not so much a bug report as a general question.

Joe

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Last edited: 14/02/2013 at 23:40 by jc92
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 02:58 #41542
JamesN
Avatar
1570 posts
I'm going to answer the questions in reverse, they make better sense that way round. (well, to me!)

2) Yes the box is, however Huddersfield Control doesn't necessarily apply here - a Call-On route is a Route from a main running signal onto an occupied section of line, whereas this is a Shunt route from a Shunt signal. I know of several locations where permissive working is not permitted, but you can get a shunt off onto an occupied line, sometimes with the 'exit' signal off too.

With that in mind:

1) Looking in the Sectional Appendix, there is nothing to say Preston Park is Permissive, but there are no signals capable of displaying a Call-On into a platform, T430 only has a main class route to pf2. I would take that to mean no permissive working at Preston Park.

I'm pretty sure we have 1 or 2 Three Bridges signallers in our midst, perhaps they can shed more light?

Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 08:56 #41545
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
2007 posts
If this installation were to be installed now Joe, that situation would probably not be allowed. The signal at the end of the platform would have to be at red for a shunt into the occupied platform - the risks are still the same irrespective of the type of entry signal or class of route, namely that the driver of the second train could read-through and crash into the back of the first train.

If anything the risk could be greater here as there is no way for the second driver to distinguish if the platform is occupied or not when he gets the proceed aspect at the ground position light.

EDIT:
With respect to permissive working, there are several types of permissive working, all of which work the same from an interlocking point of view. Where they are authorised to be used it is generally shown in the sectional appendix (although not always as it could be in the box instructions too).

I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.

Last edited: 15/02/2013 at 09:06 by Stephen Fulcher
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 10:08 #41546
DriverCurran
Avatar
682 posts
Online
Although not related to Preston Park, but still relevent. Call on moves are allowed to be made at Haywards Heath in platform 3 where a call on route between T348 and T340 being permitted even with T348 displaying a single yellow aspect (T348 is a fully automatic signal).

Paul

You have to get a red before you can get any other colour
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 10:22 #41547
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
2007 posts
I remember raising that one on the forum when Geoff released the sim as unusual. I suspect that is another that would not be allowed if installed new today.
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 10:32 #41548
Steamer
Avatar
3913 posts
" said:


I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.
Out of interest, why would permissive working no longer be authorised? It seems odd that someone would want to limit the operational flexibility of a location.

"Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q)
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 10:51 #41549
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
2007 posts
There have been occasions where for some reason or another they decided it was no longer required, but I am not entirely sure why to be honest.
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 10:54 #41550
jc92
Avatar
3626 posts
" said:
Although not related to Preston Park, but still relevent. Call on moves are allowed to be made at Haywards Heath in platform 3 where a call on route between T348 and T340 being permitted even with T348 displaying a single yellow aspect (T348 is a fully automatic signal).

Paul
when i last tried this on the sim, T340 had to be replaced using the replacement switch, before T348 would allow a call on.

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 12:08 #41552
DriverCurran
Avatar
682 posts
Online
Am heading to Haywards Heath in a couple of weeks, will undertake a Mark 1 eyeball observation and confirmation.

Paul

You have to get a red before you can get any other colour
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: jc92
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 13:41 #41554
bossman
Avatar
93 posts
In real life T340 normally displays a single yellow (sometimes a green!!) when we attach at Haywards Heath as does T338 in P4 although in the sim T338 has to be red before allowing a call on from T348.
cliff cook
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 17:55 #41565
jc92
Avatar
3626 posts
" said:
" said:
Although not related to Preston Park, but still relevent. Call on moves are allowed to be made at Haywards Heath in platform 3 where a call on route between T348 and T340 being permitted even with T348 displaying a single yellow aspect (T348 is a fully automatic signal).

Paul
when i last tried this on the sim, T340 had to be replaced using the replacement switch, before T348 would allow a call on.
Ive just tested this, and it does actually allow a call-on with T340 off. i must have been confused with P4 rather than P3.

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 15/02/2013 at 20:46 #41576
Hooverman
Avatar
306 posts
You can still get the call on from T430 into platform 2 at Preston Park even after the train that was in the the platform has long since gone and T422 is now displaying green aspect. It has caught out a many a learner signaller that has pumped up slightly to early, including myself many years ago. I was also taught that all call on routes/shunt signals are all still active at Preston Park even though permissive working was banned at that location many years ago.

On another note I believe that permissive working was greatly reduced at locations round the network after the accident at Stafford in the early 90s? It's just easier to ban it in the special box instructions than pay for the interlocking to be altered.

Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 16/02/2013 at 08:59 #41578
Hooverman
Avatar
306 posts
An update on T1242. Having checked this out this out on the panel you can indeed set from T1242 on T422 with a train in the platform and T422 signal showing proceed and T1242 will clear to proceed itself. Obviously this was checked out without a train being on T1242 as I didn't fancy a trip down to the office!
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: TimTamToe
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 16/02/2013 at 09:32 #41579
kbarber
Avatar
1708 posts
" said:
" said:


I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.
Out of interest, why would permissive working no longer be authorised? It seems odd that someone would want to limit the operational flexibility of a location.

I believe 'the powers that be' got very uptight about just about anything that helped the railway run effectively, on safety grounds, after the accidents at Ladbroke Grove & Hatfield. That was the period when HSE got rather involved (with the consequent four week closure of the ECML at Hatfield. (Just to put that in context, trains were running past the site of the Clapham Junction collision of 1988 inside 36 hours and full 4-track working was restored in 60.)

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Steamer
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 16/02/2013 at 23:38 #41589
Signalhunter
Avatar
177 posts
" said:
" said:
" said:


I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.
Out of interest, why would permissive working no longer be authorised? It seems odd that someone would want to limit the operational flexibility of a location.

I believe 'the powers that be' got very uptight about just about anything that helped the railway run effectively, on safety grounds, after the accidents at Ladbroke Grove & Hatfield. That was the period when HSE got rather involved (with the consequent four week closure of the ECML at Hatfield. (Just to put that in context, trains were running past the site of the Clapham Junction collision of 1988 inside 36 hours and full 4-track working was restored in 60.)
I believe at Harrow it was even quicker than that!

Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 16/02/2013 at 23:49 #41591
postal
Avatar
5189 posts
As long as we have a belief that there is no such thing as an accident and it is always someone's fault (i.e. there is the chance for m'learned friends to earn an honest crust getting their share of a "victim's" compensation) this will not get any better as the owners of the trains and infrastructure will want to make sure their backs are covered if at all possible. It is just the same on the roads, where an accident on the motorway used to be cleared up and the traffic on the move within an hour after which the police would start taking statements etc. Now it is at least half a day before there is a chance of things moving.

In a joined up world, the cost of the delay to everyone else would be taken against the potential costs of any claims and all those inconvenienced wouldn't have to put up with the inordinate delays we now have to accept.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on? 17/02/2013 at 13:51 #41595
kbarber
Avatar
1708 posts
" said:
As long as we have a belief that there is no such thing as an accident and it is always someone's fault (i.e. there is the chance for m'learned friends to earn an honest crust getting their share of a "victim's" compensation) this will not get any better as the owners of the trains and infrastructure will want to make sure their backs are covered if at all possible. It is just the same on the roads, where an accident on the motorway used to be cleared up and the traffic on the move within an hour after which the police would start taking statements etc. Now it is at least half a day before there is a chance of things moving.

In a joined up world, the cost of the delay to everyone else would be taken against the potential costs of any claims and all those inconvenienced wouldn't have to put up with the inordinate delays we now have to accept.

True, though Clapham was recognised as being someone's fault. Gordon Pettit announced the cause on the 6 o'clock news that day and Bob Reid, who was stood beside him, announced that BR was accepting liability. There was a court case but it was for the sole purpose of determining damages.

In my view, I'm afraid m'learned friends have got their hooks far too deeply into the railway system, policing every 'interface' to try & ensure the pennies always flow in their clients' direction. I think Orlando Gibbons had it right a few centuries ago link (though I'm not planning to disappear for a while yet).

Log in to reply