Signal Failure Banbury 5.11.25 - freight allowed through, passenger train held?

[BanburyBlue]

I‘ve just got back to Banbury from Birmingham, after being caught out by the signalling failure at Banbury this evening. As we were held at Warwick, I saw on OpenTrainTimes there was a freight train in front of us, held at a red signal just outside Leamington Spa. I think it was 4O32 Hams Hall Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf). Once the congestion at Leamington had cleared, 4O32 trundled on its way and we were held at Leamington until the signalling system fault was cleared (+90 mins).

2 things. Firstly, on OTT, freight train appeared to go through Banbury even though the signalling failure was still on. So are there different rules for freight trains during a period of a signalling failure? Of course I may have got the whole thing wrong.

Secondly, I seem to remember being on a train back in the 1970’s during the power cuts where the signalling failed around Birmingham, where the train was allowed past red signals, driving very slowly. I’m guessing this is down to changes in signalling and safety over the passing decades?

Thanks.

 

[Unobrow]

I‘ve just got back to Banbury from Birmingham, after being caught out by the signalling failure at Banbury this evening. As we were held at Warwick, I saw on OpenTrainTimes there was a freight train in front of us, held at a red signal just outside Leamington Spa. I think it was 4O32 Hams Hall Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf). Once the congestion at Leamington had cleared, 4O32 trundled on its way and we were held at Leamington until the signalling system fault was cleared (+90 mins).

2 things. Firstly, on OTT, freight train appeared to go through Banbury even though the signalling failure was still on. So are there different rules for freight trains during a period of a signalling failure? Of course I may have got the whole thing wrong.

Secondly, I seem to remember being on a train back in the 1970’s during the power cuts where the signalling failed around Birmingham, where the train was allowed past red signals, driving very slowly. I’m guessing this is down to changes in signalling and safety over the passing decades?

Thanks.

From what I’ve been told having asked a signaller mate, 4O32 was allowed through for operational reasons, to clear the line. Not too sure on the exact reasoning behind it though. There are no different rules for freight trains though in that respect.

 

[BanburyBlue]

From what I’ve been told having asked a signaller mate, 4O32 was allowed through for operational reasons, to clear the line. Not too sure on the exact reasoning behind it though. There are no different rules for freight trains though in that respect

Many thanks for this. Mind you, does raise a few more questions.

It would be good to know what operational reasons are?

And if they can allow a freight train through for 'operational reasons', why couldn't they allow passenger trains through on the same basis?

 

[Gloster]

The old method (my experience is early 1980s) was that if you could you would talk trains past signals. The driver would use a signalpost telephone to say where he was and the signalman, if he was satisfied that the line was clear to the next signal (no train and no obstruction in the way, just a signalling failure) would authorise him to pass the signal at Danger. ‘Pass signal AB12/my starting signal at Danger and proceed with Caution. Obey all other signals.’ It might be complicated if there was a level-crossing or facing points, or if it was not a fully-braked train. (By the rules whether the train was fully-braked didn’t matter, but in practice you modified your approach.)

The signalman had to keep a close eye on exactly which train was were and the driver should drive prudently if told to, but he was going to be right at the front if he hit something. For the signalman it could be a rather stressful time as in addition to moving the trains you usually had lots of people ringing up and asking questions.

As far as letting the container train run, general practice was (and I hope still is) to give preference to passenger trains. However, there are times when getting rid of a freight may give you a bit of room to manoeuvre, particularly if it might be a long one like a container train. Although cack-ups do happen, there was probably a good reason and running the train would be of overall advantage to getting everything moving again.

 

[DarloRich]

It is also worth noting that the non self loaded freight might be more important than the self loading freight!

 

[Harpo]

If the freight driver was likely to run out of hours with a risk of a train needing to be stood somewhere waiting for relief, running it would make good sense. (Other speculation is available.)

As always though, incomplete information can make some operating decisions seem odd.

 

[skyhigh]

Many thanks for this. Mind you, does raise a few more questions.

It would be good to know what operational reasons are?

And if they can allow a freight train through for 'operational reasons', why couldn't they allow passenger trains through on the same basis?

Could be as simple as the freight was blocking up points/track that might have been needed or an extended delay meant the port wouldn't be able to accept the cargo (or would miss the sailing) causing further headaches elsewhere.

Degraded working is very staff intensive, comes with it's own risks and also slow - so if it can be avoided, it will.