Upcoming Events

No events to display

We are not planning any more in-person events until the COVID-19 situation has improved.

TC beyond a signal query

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > Doncaster (South) > TC beyond a signal query

Page 1 of 1

TC beyond a signal query 29/07/2021 at 21:28 #140835
bugsy
Avatar
1183 posts
In the screenshot you can see 1A59, which is stationary at signal 138. Just beyond the next signal (136) there is a failed TC.

In this situation I would tell 1A59 to pass signal 138 at danger and at the next signal (136) ask the driver to examine the line and pass signal at danger.
I have done this before in the Doncaster South sims but is this course of action wrong?


Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate.
Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 29/07/2021 at 21:44 #140837
Hap
Avatar
623 posts
PSAD first signal and examine the second section.
HAP
Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 30/07/2021 at 09:04 #140839
JamesN
Avatar
1374 posts
Nope, that’s absolutely correct

Once the first train has examined on the affected line you can just talk past both signals

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 30/07/2021 at 09:46 #140840
bugsy
Avatar
1183 posts
Thank you both. That's what I have been doing whenever a similar situation has arisen but I've always had a nagging doubt, so that's why I asked
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate.
Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 11:10 #140868
bugsy
Avatar
1183 posts
This may seem obvious to some, but this is a similar query.

The signal is situated just before the end of the TC which has failed. I am going to ask the driver to examine the line at the signal where the train is held and the following signal. Is this correct?
.....


Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate.
Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 11:16 #140870
9pN1SEAp
Avatar
602 posts
Online
Yes, just one signal block to examine, as the failure is beyond the overlap of the signal at which you stand. TD will need to be stepped up manually as the "false" occupation is immediately beyond the section of the signal.

Thanks
Jamie

Jamie S (JAMS)
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: bugsy
TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 17:56 #140879
GeoffM
Avatar
5673 posts
If you know that only T2325 is showing occupied then examining up as far as D104 would be okay. But if you don't know if it's 2324 and/or 2325 then you would have to examine from (after) D104 as well.
SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: bugsy
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 12:08 #140884
KymriskaDraken
Avatar
954 posts
bugsy in post 140868 said:
This may seem obvious to some, but this is a similar query.

The signal is situated just before the end of the TC which has failed. I am going to ask the driver to examine the line at the signal where the train is held and the following signal. Is this correct?
.....

Before you tell the Driver anything you must ensure that the level crossing gates are closed, and the crossing is clear.

Then tell the Driver:

I am unable to clear the signal because of an equipment failure. I want you to pass signal XXX at Danger and examine the [up/down] line as far as [name of 2nd LC] then report back at signal YYY irrespective of aspect.

I think it's less complicated to say to examine to the LC rather than 200m past the signal.

Kev

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: TUT
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 12:44 #140885
JamesN
Avatar
1374 posts
Yes signallers should where possible use landmarks to denote where signals are or when examining the line

You wouldn’t be telling the driver you can’t clear the signal because of an equipment failure as you wouldn’t at this stage know it’s an equipment failure

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:22 #140886
KymriskaDraken
Avatar
954 posts
JamesN in post 140885 said:


You wouldn’t be telling the driver you can’t clear the signal because of an equipment failure as you wouldn’t at this stage know it’s an equipment failure
It's difficult to find appropriate words without being too verbose and confusing the Driver. I know it's not officially a failure yet, but does the Driver need to know that as well? They are simple folk after all.

Kev

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:56 #140887
Ron_J
Avatar
300 posts
KymriskaDraken in post 140886 said:
JamesN in post 140885 said:


You wouldn’t be telling the driver you can’t clear the signal because of an equipment failure as you wouldn’t at this stage know it’s an equipment failure
It's difficult to find appropriate words without being too verbose and confusing the Driver. I know it's not officially a failure yet, but does the Driver need to know that as well? They are simple folk after all.

Kev

In this situation you’d just say I can’t clear the signal because of a track circuit showing occupied, so because of that I need you to etc.. etc…

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Hap
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:57 #140888
TUT
Avatar
368 posts
We were trained to simply say that there is a track circuit showing occupied. You don't describe it as a track circuit (or any other kind of) failure yet as you don't know it's a failure until it's been examined and that's been confirmed. (Also don't describe it as SOWC yet of course).
Last edited: 01/08/2021 at 14:57 by TUT
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Hap
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 15:00 #140889
TUT
Avatar
368 posts
Going back to the original uestion

bugsy in post 140835 said:
In the screenshot you can see 1A59, which is stationary at signal 138. Just beyond the next signal (136) there is a failed TC.

In this situation I would tell 1A59 to pass signal 138 at danger and at the next signal (136) ask the driver to examine the line and pass signal at danger.
I have done this before in the Doncaster South sims but is this course of action wrong?
Interestingly, after it has been examined, this would potentially be an occasion where you could use the new passing two main aspect stop signals at danger procedure in real life (not simulated in simsig). The second signal would have to be not fitted with TPWS and the third signal would have to be off before you authorised the driver to pass the two signals at danger, but you could now do it in the same authority.

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Hap, JamesN
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 15:17 #140890
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
1756 posts
Online
How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?

Is it enough to assume it is off on the basis that the tracks are all clear between it and the next or would you need something more positive?

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:08 #140894
KymriskaDraken
Avatar
954 posts
Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:
How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?

Is it enough to assume it is off on the basis that the tracks are all clear between it and the next or would you need something more positive?
I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again.

Kev

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:41 #140899
Hap
Avatar
623 posts
KymriskaDraken in post 140894 said:
Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:
How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?

Is it enough to assume it is off on the basis that the tracks are all clear between it and the next or would you need something more positive?
I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again.

Kev
Number 1 rule in the railway. NEVER assume.

What if a train has dropped a load off and it's not occupying the circuits because of a TCA fault? 4 car 156 and the front 2 has a track circuit actuator fault (Not operating track circuits) but then rear 2 is working fine and then it splits. Then you've got a train in section not operating TC's and one occupying a TC in rear.

You'd be wanting to contact the last train that's traversed over that section to check it was complete (If there was one in close proximity when it started showing occupied).

IF the railway is based on assumptions, I'll just throw my rule book in the bin then.

HAP
Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:58 #140900
KymriskaDraken
Avatar
954 posts
Hap in post 140899 said:
KymriskaDraken in post 140894 said:
Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:
How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?

Is it enough to assume it is off on the basis that the tracks are all clear between it and the next or would you need something more positive?
I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again.

Kev
Number 1 rule in the railway. NEVER assume.

What if a train has dropped a load off and it's not occupying the circuits because of a TCA fault? 4 car 156 and the front 2 has a track circuit actuator fault (Not operating track circuits) but then rear 2 is working fine and then it splits. Then you've got a train in section not operating TC's and one occupying a TC in rear.

You'd be wanting to contact the last train that's traversed over that section to check it was complete (If there was one in close proximity when it started showing occupied).

IF the railway is based on assumptions, I'll just throw my rule book in the bin then.
The problem with that is that your scenario could apply to any track circuit on the railway! You might as well go back to Absolute Block.

On a Track Circuit Block line I suggest that the Signalman could be satisfied that the section is clear if the track circuits are showing clear, and there is no reason to suspect that the line is obstructed in any way. He shouldn't have to think about possible obstructions on the bits of the railway where the system is working.

I'm not sure what the Regs say now about TCFs, but in my day the Reg said that before authorising train #2 to PSAD he must see the previous train occupy and clear a track circuit in advance of the affected portion of line. Provided that the other conditions for PSAD are met, train #2 can be sent forward.

Kev

Log in to reply
TC beyond a signal query 16/08/2021 at 21:40 #141176
Mikehax
Avatar
25 posts
Prior to implementing the Passing two signals under the same authority, the line MUST be examined in the old way passing each signal under a separate authority so there is no requirement to assume anything as the line has been proved clear.

Incidentally, in addition to the requirement for the second signal to not be fitted with TPWS and the third signal showing a proceed aspect, it must be the same fault that is causing the first and second signals to be held held at danger / black.

Log in to reply