-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is this what you call a SPAD?
- Thread starter neil9327
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
if that’s what LO have reported they might want to get their facts straight before publicly stating it.
They seem to have done so (on their website) - "due to a freight train" -
To add to the OP's description, the signal appears to have the junction indicator (still) illuminated.
Says:
"SEVERE DELAYS between Camden Road and Richmond / Clapham Junction due to a faulty freight train."
"SEVERE DELAYS between Camden Road and Richmond / Clapham Junction due to a faulty freight train."
It does not- if you zoom in on the image it becomes clear that the shades on the number 4 position are reflecting some of the ambient light- the actual underside where you'd see the glow of the lamps remains dark.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 3,823
Stuffing the job up for the time being until a MOM arrives who can help with the set back.
Trying not to divert the thread but just out of curiosity, what does the MOM do on site? And how do they assist with the set back?
zwk500
Veteran Member
They watch the end of the train and communicate with the driver (the better part of half a mile away) whether the route is clear or if he should stop, and how far they have left before an obstruction.
Annetts key
Established Member
A SPAD (signal passed at danger) only occurs if a train actually passes a red signal (or semaphore at danger) if a train passes the signal without permission/authority.
Generally speaking, under normal running, if the signal was showing a proceed aspect when the front of the train passed it, if required, the driver can stop the train at any point after passing the signal, even if it’s half a carriage length and then proceed when ready/required. Unless there are special or specific circumstances.
It should also be noted that not all signals return to red / danger / most restrictive aspect after the front of the train has passed them.
Most controlled signals return to red when the first track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal becomes occupied (sometimes known as first wheel replacement).
Where required by operations (specified in the interlocking design), a controlled signal can be configured to continue to show a proceed aspect after the first track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal becomes occupied. Sometimes known as last wheel replacement, even though it may not be, as it depends on the length of the train and the actual operating requirements.
Signals without a separate overlap track circuit or axle counter section, such as automatic signals, will continue to show a proceed aspect until the train occupies the next track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal. Which could be between 200 to 300 yards further on.
Some types of faults can result in a signal going to red in the drivers face. These technical SPADs may be caused by various things. And sometimes it’s not something the driver actually sees, but the TPWS or ATP system reacts and dumps the air brakes, bringing the train to a halt.
Generally speaking, under normal running, if the signal was showing a proceed aspect when the front of the train passed it, if required, the driver can stop the train at any point after passing the signal, even if it’s half a carriage length and then proceed when ready/required. Unless there are special or specific circumstances.
It should also be noted that not all signals return to red / danger / most restrictive aspect after the front of the train has passed them.
Most controlled signals return to red when the first track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal becomes occupied (sometimes known as first wheel replacement).
Where required by operations (specified in the interlocking design), a controlled signal can be configured to continue to show a proceed aspect after the first track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal becomes occupied. Sometimes known as last wheel replacement, even though it may not be, as it depends on the length of the train and the actual operating requirements.
Signals without a separate overlap track circuit or axle counter section, such as automatic signals, will continue to show a proceed aspect until the train occupies the next track circuit or axle counter section beyond the signal. Which could be between 200 to 300 yards further on.
Some types of faults can result in a signal going to red in the drivers face. These technical SPADs may be caused by various things. And sometimes it’s not something the driver actually sees, but the TPWS or ATP system reacts and dumps the air brakes, bringing the train to a halt.
Last edited by a moderator:
alf
On Moderation
Imagine the train’s battery powered rear wagon red light included 2 small cameras that could be radio controlled from the loco to turn on & transmit left right images to a cab unit.
It would resolve the problem as soon the signaller gives permission to draw back.
No need for MOMmy to visit from 30 miles away plus the time needed to park.
The driver could sort it in three minutes.
What’s the betting that someone will say “it can’t possibly be done like that.” I can imagine the “not possible brigade already marshalling their arguments”
It reminds me of the senior manager who said “we won’t try for DOO on the Fenchurch St Tilbury Southend line because the east west nature means the sun will shine into the cameras”. I mentioned the adjacent east west District line plodding along happily with DOO & he found some other excuse. DOO was introduced two years later on all LTS services. He went to a more important job..
The camera device would also be useful for shunting.
It would resolve the problem as soon the signaller gives permission to draw back.
No need for MOMmy to visit from 30 miles away plus the time needed to park.
The driver could sort it in three minutes.
What’s the betting that someone will say “it can’t possibly be done like that.” I can imagine the “not possible brigade already marshalling their arguments”
It reminds me of the senior manager who said “we won’t try for DOO on the Fenchurch St Tilbury Southend line because the east west nature means the sun will shine into the cameras”. I mentioned the adjacent east west District line plodding along happily with DOO & he found some other excuse. DOO was introduced two years later on all LTS services. He went to a more important job..
The camera device would also be useful for shunting.
Except it wasn't.
Our trams are fitted with rear view monitors but they certainly don't give you a full view of what your reversing towards, while you can clearly see what is 10 foot dead behind the vehicle, you can't see what's close to either side of the camera. They are only 29m long and I certainly wouldn't reverse one reliant on the rear view camera, let alone if it was half a mile long.
Chris M
Member
I expect that getting a video signal from one end of the train to the other reliably in all circumstances would be tricky. Most freight trains don't have any sort of electrical connection from one end to the other, so it would need to be wireless. It's much to far for wifi or bluetooth, 3G/4G/5G are not reliable enough in the open let alone in cuttings and tunnels, and AFIAK GSM-R wouldn't have nearly enough bandwidth (remember its safety critical, so you can't have any lag). Containers and tank wagons at least are also liable to get in the way of signals. Then you would need to consider issues like field of view (probably you'd want two cameras, one giving a wide angle overview and other a closeup of the area immediately behind the train), where in the cab you would mount the screen(s) such that the driver could have a view large enough and close enough to their eyeline to be useful while also not getting in the way when they aren't needed. Once you have sorted all these you can then move on to how they will be tested and maintained. At this point you should be in a position to think about how to fund them...
If the need to reverse a train is frequent enough and disruptive enough that its worth spending money on making it quicker (I have my doubts) then I suspect it would be far more effective to just train (and authorise) people who are closer than 30 miles away.
If the need to reverse a train is frequent enough and disruptive enough that its worth spending money on making it quicker (I have my doubts) then I suspect it would be far more effective to just train (and authorise) people who are closer than 30 miles away.
Last edited:
Annetts key
Established Member
As with anything on the railway, a new standard would have to be written and approved, before anything could be installed.
And keep in mind that the MOM is employed by Network Rail. And in my area, cost cutting by reducing the number of MOMs and the locations they are (were) based at appears to be more important than train delay.
Sometimes (on nights for example), they could be 130 miles away, never mind 30 miles…
zwk500
Veteran Member
A standard electrical connection could be designed and fitted, especially if it came with other upgrades like ECP brakes, for a price of course.
Passenger units manage the door CCTV in the cab so 2 cameras shouldn't really be that big of a problem, you could even use the DMI from ETCS for one of the pictures if you wanted (Shunting would be on SR mode).
Testing and maintenance wouldn't be too problematic, but the funding is the killer.
I'm not sure, tbh. The ongoing cost of such a system would be lower than the ongoing cost of staff, even if the initial cost is higher. It depends on whether you're fitting only a handful of trains or all c.600 Class 66s. If it's only for specific trains then yes, staff are probably easier. But if it's every train then there's a lot of different operational moves that may become available and could change rolling stock strategies.
What this system wouldn't help is anywhere that locos and wagons need to be detached or shunted, which would still need staff and is where I think the business case falls down.
The Puddock
Member
I’ve never been comfortable with NR MOMs being sent to this sort of job. They’re not trained and competent to undertake shunting, they don’t have suitable back to back radios (with the continuous confidence tone) and they are having to walk close to a moving train on the main line with all the hazards that presents, without any sort of planned safe system of work or suitably risk assessed walking route like groundstaff at a siding, yard or terminal would have. All it would take is one trip over a raised troughing lid or a bit of scrap rail and there could be a serious accident. See the RAIB reports for Dagenham Dock in 2006, Harlow Mill in 2007 and Dollands Moor in 2019 for examples of hpw badly wrong shunting can go in a yard, let alone on the main line.
I know the reason it’s done is because freight groundstaff are even spread even thinner than MOMs so it can be a very long wait for one to get to site depending on where the wrong route has been offered and taken. However Network Rail has a lifesaving rule (‘Never undertake any job unless you have been trained and assessed as competent’) which should tell MOMs that getting involved with this sort of activity is a very bad idea. If anything went wrong they would, assuming they had survived to give evidence to the investigation, be thrown straight under the bus along with the Controller who asked them to do it.
And don’t get me started on MOMs carrying out brake tests despite never having been trained or assessed.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,977
In the USA, where freight trains are very much longer than here, radio signals are routinely used to control locos at mid-train or on the rear, which may be up to three miles from the lead loco controlling them. There are also end-of-train devices which receive braking signals that operate an air valve, allowing the air to be dumped from the rear as well as front of the train. However I don't know of any which include cameras, back up moves are always done with a member of staff riding on the end wagon, talking to the engineer (driver) using a hand held radio.
Annetts key
Established Member
The limitations of a radio link depend on a number of factors. Certainly it’s possible to transmit high quality, high definition pictures over ten miles or more, as that’s what happens with TV transmission.
However, given how infrequently these set-back under the control of a MOM incidents occurs, the cost of developing it, deciding a suitable standard and the cost of equipping trains, I just can’t see it happening anytime soon. At least, not until an incident occurs which results in a formal inquiry. And said inquiry makes a recommendation that forces the railway to reconsider.
Portable tail lamps flash for a reason - it conserves the battery. How much energy would be drained trying to transmit clear images over half a mile? Are you going to equip every single locomotive and every single tail lamp for the sake of a pretty rare bit of disruption? Who is paying for all this?
And equip every single wagon (just one not equipped in the train would render the whole system useless)?
This is the sort of hare-brained scheme worthy of the DfT.
You would need pretty good integrity to ensure that the video feed the driver was watching was from the right tail lamp........
I know it would be massively unlucky coincidence to cross feed with one that could be mistaken for correct, but layers of Swiss cheese and all that....
I know it would be massively unlucky coincidence to cross feed with one that could be mistaken for correct, but layers of Swiss cheese and all that....
Misery guts
Member
Does any one know the head code of the freight service invloved?
Snow1964
Established Member
Can you please clarify for someone like me.
Further up suggests wrong route was set (surely this is signaller), but that a second error also occurred (driver accepted it, and went few metres beyond signal before realising)
So is it both signaller and driver error ?
greatkingrat
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 3,293
The booked WTT path for this service is via South Tottenham, then Willesden and WCML. Gospel Oak-Barking was closed yesterday so the schedule was amended to run NLL to Canonbury, then up the ECML. The amended schedule was then cancelled and a STP schedule created for NLL to Willesden, then WCML. So with 3 different schedules going 3 different routes, it is not surprising that confusion arose!
- Status