Passing signals at danger is possessions?

[GB]

I always thought that if you were travelling within a T3 possession the driver could pass signals at danger under his own authority providing they were not protecting a CCTV MCB crossing that was not under local control?

Have just read module T3 (latest update June 11) and it states in a big red box that a driver can't pass a signal at danger in a possession witout the authority of the PICOP or the ES if inside a worksite. Has this always been the case or is it a recent update?

It also used to be treated as a Cat A spad if you passed a signal protecting a CCTV level crossing without the signallers permission, is this still the case as there is no reference to it in the T3 module?

 

[tirphil]

I always thought that if you were travelling within a T3 possession the driver could pass signals at danger under his own authority providing they were not protecting a CCTV MCB crossing that was not under local control?

Have just read module T3 (latest update June 11) and it states in a big red box that a driver can't pass a signal at danger in a possession witout the authority of the PICOP or the ES if inside a worksite. Has this always been the case or is it a recent update?

It also used to be treated as a Cat A spad if you passed a signal protecting a CCTV level crossing without the signallers permission, is this still the case as there is no reference to it in the T3 module?

Hi,
With regard to the first issue I was taught that you had to treat all signals as stop signals no matter what aspect they were displaying unless instructed otherwise by the ES (in a worksite) or PICOP (in the possession) And I would ask on a move by move basis as personnel and circumstances would change.

I believe it is a Cat A SPAD if you pass any signal protecting any crossing unless informed of alternate arrangements at the site brief.

However it is some time since I last worked a possession train and in my current position I did not need to receive a new T3 module.

 

[142094]

Treated as a SPaD up here on the Metro too.

 

[Old Timer]

The rule book states that the Driver must be instructed to disregard the normal meaning of an aspect shown in any signal except for a signal showing a red aspect, for which he must have obtained the permission of the PICOP, when within the Possession.

The PICOP should therefore give detailled instructions to the Driver to that effect, as on some occasions, when for example there were diverging routes and junctions within the Possession I would run a train to a nominated signal and sometimes hold it there whilst one was then run across the junction.

With regards to level crossings the Driver should be given clear instructions which will obviously relate to the level crossing. Again it is for the Driver to obtain the authority of the PICOP before he passes a signal protecting a CCTV or MCB crossing. Normally the PICOP should arrange with the signalman controlling the level crossing the precise arrangements to be applied. This should normally require the Driver to contact the controlling signalman from the protecting signal to obtain his confirmation that the crossing is closed and that it is OK to pass the signal at danger. The PICOP should of course have advised the Driver to do this when the movement started.

Generally a good dose of common sense ensured that everything ran smoothly. The devil as with most things is in the detail, and making sure that all parties involved have reached a clear understanding. I doubt anyone in their right mind would ever object to a clarification from a Driver before passing a red signal in a Possession.

Remember however that the ultimate authority rests with the PICOP NOT the Signalman and the PICOP should make this clear.

 

[GB]

Thanks guys.