Upcoming Games


Full list
Add a game

Spatham Lane LC failure

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > Brighton > Spatham Lane LC failure

Page 1 of 1

Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 06:51 #57418
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
I don't have any problems with Keymer LC but sometimes I notice the WORKING sign above Spatham Lane LC changes to FAILED and is flashing. Have no idea why. Clicking the flashing message changes it to a steady FAILED message but it seems to make no difference to traffic across it. I'm too busy elsewhere on this sim to have the time to monitor it constantly to check why. Anyone suggest a reason?
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 07:17 #57419
BarryM
Avatar
2140 posts
FAILED: indicates to the CCTV Operator that the barriers have failed to raise and are blocking the road traffic after a train has cleared the track circuit. Normally It does not affect the passage of trains. A technician is required to attend the failure.

Barry

Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 07:18 by BarryM
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 07:38 #57420
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
If I'm not mistaken (and certainly Max's description suggests I'm not!), it's an AHB rather than CCTV crossing? Indeed, Simsig doesn't show the failed indication at a CCTV crossing. In the case of an AHB, it'll indicate failed if the crossing has been working for longer than normal (two minutes?), so not only if the barriers fail to raise after the passage of a train but also if a train fails or is otherwise detained within the crossing controls, or is particularly long and slow. It doesn't directly affect the signalling of trains, but the regs require trains to be cautioned (though hopefully it'll be back to normal before that needs to happen) because of the risk of impatient motorists weaving around the barriers.
Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: maxand, BarryM
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 08:09 #57421
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
Thanks, Late Turn. Yes, Spatham Lane LC is an AHB, not a CCTV crossing, but right next to the Keymer LC, which is the CCTV crossing. I didn't bother mentioning this earlier as both are clearly marked on the panel. The FAILED sign is above the AHB crossing, not the CCTV crossing. I still don't see why Spatham Lane LC should be tied to Keymer LC in any way other than being adjacent on the panel. In reality there could be quite a distance between them, otherwise why would there be a need for two LCs?




In this pic, 1F51 has been banked up behind 1F49 for several minutes, yet Spatham Lane is shown as WORKING.

As a minor unrelated issue, signal 800 next to Plumpton LC works like an automatic signal (can't set a route from it), yet lacks a cross bar.

Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 08:24 #57423
AndyG
Avatar
1778 posts
" said:
As a minor unrelated issue, signal 800 next to Plumpton LC works like an automatic signal (can't set a route from it), yet lacks a cross bar.
Signal 800 will be a semi-automatic signal, insofar as it works as an automatic signal but is plated as semi-automatic as a driver will NOT have his own authority to pass it at danger when unable to contact the signaller; this is because the signal is a protecting signal for the LX, the signaller may be holding it at red for a particular reason unknown to the driver.

I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 08:28 #57424
AndyG
Avatar
1778 posts
" said:
I still don't see why Spatham Lane LC should be tied to Keymer LC in any way other than being adjacent on the panel. In reality there could be quite a distance between them, otherwise why would there be a need for two LCs?
The two crossing are almost 2 miles apart.

I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either.
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 08:45 #57426
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
" said:
Thanks, Late Turn. Yes, Spatham Lane LC is an AHB, not a CCTV crossing, but right next to the Keymer LC, which is the CCTV crossing. I didn't bother mentioning this earlier as both are clearly marked on the panel. The FAILED sign is above the AHB crossing, not the CCTV crossing. I still don't see why Spatham Lane LC should be tied to Keymer LC in any way other than being adjacent on the panel. In reality there could be quite a distance between them, otherwise why would there be a need for two LCs?

Indeed, Spatham Lane and Keymer are two separate crossings (with a full signal section between them on the Up - so, without checking the mileages, probably well over a mile). I wrote my post from memory though, with no access to Simsig to check, hence my initial uncertainty. Who's suggested that they are linked in any way?

It's difficult to say why the crossing is working in the screenshot attached - if 1F51's been occupying that TC for several minutes, it should have cleared the crossing controls, so it's more likely to be 1F34 on the Down. It should only be working for around 30 seconds for each train, if we're dealing with passenger trains running at linespeed - obviously longer if two approach in quick succession on opposite lines.

On a pedantic note, drivers are no longer able to pass an automatic or semi-automatic signal at danger on their own authority, but - prior to this change - it applied equally to either, with (from memory of something that I've never had to worry about!) the requirement for the driver to confirm that the gatebox/ground frame was closed in the case of a semi-automatic signal. I suspect that such signals would normally be shown as automatic signals on the panel (that's certainly what I've seen elsewhere), but I've no doubt that Simsig accurately reflects reality in this case...the railway really doesn't 'do' consistency!

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 09:00 #57427
jc92
Avatar
3063 posts
" said:
" said:
As a minor unrelated issue, signal 800 next to Plumpton LC works like an automatic signal (can't set a route from it), yet lacks a cross bar.
Signal 800 will be a semi-automatic signal, insofar as it works as an automatic signal but is plated as semi-automatic as a driver will NOT have his own authority to pass it at danger when unable to contact the signaller; this is because the signal is a protecting signal for the LX, the signaller may be holding it at red for a particular reason unknown to the driver.
plumpton crossing is worked by a crossing keeper in real life, and therefore the signals are indeed semi automatic, with slots released by Plumpton Crossing box, hence the lack of Auto plates.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 11:21 #57441
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
Just when I thought I knew the meanings of all the signal icons, along come semi-automatic signals... :(

As usual, no mention of them in the Wiki or glossary. So, lemme see if I've got this right...

There seem to be two types of semi-automatic signals; signaller-controlled and non-signaller (for want of a better word) controlled. An example of a non-signaller would be a level crossing keeper, e.g., at Plumpton.

An automatic signal with a red E and a red roundel next to it would have to be classified as a semi-automatic signal, since the signaller is able to replace it (to red) and release it when required; otherwise it remains green to indicate that the block beyond it, which it protects, is unoccupied.

On the other hand, a level crossing's default must be to permit road but not rail traffic, so its protecting semi-automatic signal should be set (red) until manually released by the LC keeper, after which it should automatically replace itself (to red).

In that case, why isn't signal 800 red by default, instead of green, unlike the automatic signals to either side of it?

More info on semi-automatic signals here and here.

Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 11:25 by maxand
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 11:38 #57442
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
" said:
Just when I thought I knew the meanings of all the signal icons, along come semi-automatic signals... :(

Believe me, you'll never finish learning about the intricacies of railway operation .


" said:
As usual, no mention of them in the Wiki or glossary. So, lemme see if I've got this right...

There seem to be two types of semi-automatic signals; signaller-controlled and non-signaller (for want of a better word) controlled. An example of a non-signaller would be a level crossing keeper, e.g., at Plumpton.

Only the latter - see my next comment.


" said:
An automatic signal with a red E and a red roundel next to it would have to be classified as a semi-automatic signal, since the signaller is able to replace it (to red) and release it when required; otherwise it remains green to indicate that the block beyond it, which it protects, is unoccupied.

No, that's still an automatic signal - the replacement facility doesn't change that. Semi-automatic signals, in simple terms, are those which are replaced to danger by someone else - usually either a crossing keeper or ground frame operator.


" said:
On the other hand, a level crossing's default must be to permit road but not rail traffic, so its protecting semi-automatic signal should be set (red) until manually released by the LC keeper, after which it should automatically replace itself (to red).

In that case, why isn't signal 800 red by default, instead of green, unlike the automatic signals to either side of it?

I'm still without access to Simsig to check for now, but if it protects a manned level crossing (who will have a 'slot' on each of the protecting semi-automatic signals) then it'd normally be at danger - the exception being at crossings that are normally closed to road traffic (of which Plumpton isn't one, if I remember correctly).


" said:
More info on semi-automatic signals here and here.

Tread carefully - the second link refers to London Underground, where semi-automatic signals are entirely different; effectively the same as our controlled signals with auto-working facility (blue 'A' roundel in Simsig) as I understand it. There's some misinformation in the first link too, but the post by 'Old Timer' is spot on.

Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 11:39 by Late Turn
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 12:16 #57443
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
Thanks again Late Turn for deconfusing me.

You also wrote in post #3:
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken (and certainly Max's description suggests I'm not!), it's an AHB rather than CCTV crossing? Indeed, Simsig doesn't show the failed indication at a CCTV crossing. In the case of an AHB, it'll indicate failed if the crossing has been working for longer than normal (two minutes?), so not only if the barriers fail to raise after the passage of a train but also if a train fails or is otherwise detained within the crossing controls, or is particularly long and slow. It doesn't directly affect the signalling of trains, but the regs require trains to be cautioned (though hopefully it'll be back to normal before that needs to happen) because of the risk of impatient motorists weaving around the barriers.
You're spot on, there! I finally worked out how to fix this issue:




By setting automatic signal 644 (to red) I now prevent trains from banking up behind Keymer LC, across Spatham Lane LC, only letting them through when Keymer junction is clear. Now Spatham Lane stays RAISED instead of FAILED.

As an aside, one of the big problems I found in playing Brighton seems to be that there are never enough places to hold trains waiting for other trains to join them without blocking other through traffic. Haywards Heath is one spot, even with 4 platforms. As a typical example, 1F51 from (Lewes to Keymer LC) needs to join with 1H27 (from Shoreham, via Preston Park) at Haywards Heath. 1F51 joins the Up Main to Haywards Heath at Keymer Jn. So one way to handle this is to keep 1F51 waiting at Keymer LC until 1H27 arrives at signal 368 (and preferably another train to Lewes stops at Wivelsfield, signal 369). Lower Keymer LC, let 1F51 (and the opposite train if there is one) through, then route 1H27 immediately after 1F51 so that both arrive in tandem at Haywards Heath, where they can join without blocking anyone else.

Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 12:20 by maxand
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 12:26 #57445
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
Late Turn also wrote in post #10:
Quote:
I'm still without access to Simsig to check for now, but if it protects a manned level crossing (who will have a 'slot' on each of the protecting semi-automatic signals) then it'd normally be at danger - the exception being at crossings that are normally closed to road traffic (of which Plumpton isn't one, if I remember correctly).
Does this mean you agree with me that signal 800 should normally be at danger (and thus display a red aspect on the SimSig panel), or have I misunderstood you? The way it seems to function at the moment is to protect the next block, not the LC. Could the developer have been unaware that it was controlled by a LC keeper in a signalbox?

Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 12:29 by maxand
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 12:43 #57447
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
" said:
You're spot on, there! I finally worked out how to fix this issue:




By setting automatic signal 644 (to red) I now prevent trains from banking up behind Keymer LC, across Spatham Lane LC, only letting them through when Keymer junction is clear. Now Spatham Lane stays RAISED instead of FAILED.

Hmm, interesting. There should be ample room for a train to stand at 642, clear of the crossing controls, so if Spatham Lane LC is continuing to operate once an Up train's at a stand at 642 (and therefore well clear of the crossing) with nothing present on the Down road, there might be a bug in the sim. It certainly shouldn't be necessary to use replacement switches to hold trains in rear, at least not in normal working - see the Trent sim, where, somewhere at the Mansfield end of the job (still no Simsig to check!) there's an AHB with special 'overlength' controls to prevent long trains from approaching a certain signal until it's showing a proceed aspect: stopping there would result in the rear of the train fouling the crossing.

" said:
As an aside, one of the big problems I found in playing Brighton seems to be that there are never enough places to hold trains waiting for other trains to join them without blocking other through traffic. Haywards Heath is one spot, even with 4 platforms. As a typical example, 1F51 from (Lewes to Keymer LC) needs to join with 1H27 (from Shoreham, via Preston Park) at Haywards Heath. 1F51 joins the Up Main to Haywards Heath at Keymer Jn. So one way to handle this is to keep 1F51 waiting at Keymer LC until 1H27 arrives at signal 368 (and preferably another train to Lewes stops at Wivelsfield, signal 369). Lower Keymer LC, let 1F51 (and the opposite train if there is one) through, then route 1H27 immediately after 1F51 so that both arrive in tandem at Haywards Heath, where they can join without blocking anyone else.

That's what makes the job interesting! Shouldn't be a problem if both portions are right-time (unless there's a late runner that needs to nip through first) as the timetable will (should!) account for the fact that the first portion's standing waiting. If one portion is running late, it's time to decide whether you need to hold the other portion somewhere out of the way (if possible!) or abandon the join and work out what to do with the second portion when it arrives. Making the most of the parallel moves over Keymer Jn is obviously a good thing, but bringing the second portion to a stand before getting the first portion on the move is only going to further increase the delay - forward planning is the key .

Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 12:48 #57448
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
" said:
Late Turn also wrote in post #10:
Quote:
I'm still without access to Simsig to check for now, but if it protects a manned level crossing (who will have a 'slot' on each of the protecting semi-automatic signals) then it'd normally be at danger - the exception being at crossings that are normally closed to road traffic (of which Plumpton isn't one, if I remember correctly).
Does this mean you agree with me that signal 800 should normally be at danger (and thus display a red aspect on the SimSig panel), or have I misunderstood you? The way it seems to function at the moment is to protect the next block, not the LC. Could the developer have been unaware that it was controlled by a LC keeper in a signalbox?

I agree that it probably should be normally at danger (if the crossing is normally open to road traffic) - the aspect might not even be indicated on the real panel though (auto/semi-auto signals often aren't), and it doesn't affect the operation of the sim, so hopefully not a huge problem!

Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 13:30 #57453
maxand
Avatar
1637 posts
Late Turn wrote:
Quote:
If one portion is running late, it's time to decide whether you need to hold the other portion somewhere out of the way (if possible!) or abandon the join and work out what to do with the second portion when it arrives.
Does this mean I don't have to join 2 trains where the TT says I should, but (if desperate!) simply abandon the join, shove the two trains out of the way separately somewhere, then later on, in a galaxy far, far away, run one train into the other and they will join? Or maybe I need to send them back to the platform specified in the TT for this join to eventually occur? Have not tried this at all!

Last edited: 20/03/2014 at 13:30 by maxand
Log in to reply
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 15:00 #57460
postal
Avatar
4320 posts
Online
" said:
Late Turn wrote:
Quote:
If one portion is running late, it's time to decide whether you need to hold the other portion somewhere out of the way (if possible!) or abandon the join and work out what to do with the second portion when it arrives.
Does this mean I don't have to join 2 trains where the TT says I should, but (if desperate!) simply abandon the join, shove the two trains out of the way separately somewhere, then later on, in a galaxy far, far away, run one train into the other and they will join? Or maybe I need to send them back to the platform specified in the TT for this join to eventually occur? Have not tried this at all!
In the idealised world of SimSig you can abandon the join and send the separate sections on their way. In the real world this would cause problems as it is unlikely that Haywards Heath will have spare train crew hanging on the back of the messroom door. If a join was abandoned and the 2 sections sent forward as separate trains, there would soon be a train sitting on the Down platform waiting to go forward to Eastbourne or wherever and no driver or guard to make it happen.

“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
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 15:19 #57463
Late Turn
Avatar
660 posts
Online
In any case, you'd have to edit the timetable to get the second portion to do anything - it'd otherwise just sit forlornly at Haywards Heath indefinitely. The simplest option in reality, I suppose, would be to shove it out of the way somewhere until a short-formed Down train arrives and pick up the working that should be formed by the detached portion (might even get it back onto its own diagram if you're lucky). Life's rarely that simple though, so it might end up having to go ECS somewhere else (for the reasons that 'postal' suggests) to do something else.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 17:04 #57478
Steamer
Avatar
3264 posts
Online
" said:

Does this mean I don't have to join 2 trains where the TT says I should, but (if desperate!) simply abandon the join, shove the two trains out of the way separately somewhere, then later on, in a galaxy far, far away, run one train into the other and they will join? Or maybe I need to send them back to the platform specified in the TT for this join to eventually occur? Have not tried this at all!
Unless things are running extremely late (greater than 20-25 minutes), you can just put the first half in its booked platform at Haywards Heath (P3 in the case of 1F51) and send everything else via P4 until the join has completed. Looking at the timetable, 1F51 is booked to arrive 3 minutes before 1H27, so you should just send 1F51 to Haywards Heath and let 1H27 follow. Stopping 1H27 at signal 368, then letting 1F51 go will delay both halves needlessly, especially as 1F51 has to stop at Wivelsfield. Abandoning the join is a last resort.

"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
The following user said thank you: maxand
Spatham Lane LC failure 20/03/2014 at 22:15 #57491
clive
Avatar
2112 posts
Online
" said:
" said:

Does this mean you agree with me that signal 800 should normally be at danger (and thus display a red aspect on the SimSig panel), or have I misunderstood you? The way it seems to function at the moment is to protect the next block, not the LC. Could the developer have been unaware that it was controlled by a LC keeper in a signalbox?

I agree that it probably should be normally at danger (if the crossing is normally open to road traffic) - the aspect might not even be indicated on the real panel though (auto/semi-auto signals often aren't), and it doesn't affect the operation of the sim, so hopefully not a huge problem!
Peterborough (the real box) has/had some signals like this. Where a signal protects a crossing managed by one of the gate boxes, or the new crossing panel in the box, the signal is shown on the main panel as an auto (just an outline) or an auto with E button. The gate box has a slot on the signal and there's a small white light on the panel that comes on when the signal is off.

See the attached photo for an example. 802 is controlled with a slot from Helpston gate box; the other five are wired as autos by Peterborough but with Helpston being able to hold them at red until the relevant crossing(s) is down.

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: maxand