Signal Passed at Danger

[me123]

I have a quick question for some drivers and signallers out there.

Today, I was on a train which was stopped at a red signal. Nothing unusual there. As usual, after a couple of minutes, the driver donned his Hi-Vis and went onto the lineside and had a long conversation with the signalbox. (I could see the whole thing from where I was sat). He then returned to the train, and sounded his horn, before proceeding right up to the signal and stopping again. He sounded his horn yet again and proceeded past the red signal at a low speed (I'd guess about 10-20mph) until the next signal, which was double yellow, where we regained some speed. The whole thing cost us about 5 minutes delay. I have a few questions about this event.

1. I assume that he was given permission to pass the red signal by the signalbox. Would this be correct?
2. If so, was this the correct protocol? Why did he stop again just before passing the signal?
3. What reasons would there be for this?

Many thanks in advance

 

[dan_atki]

1. I assume that he was given permission to pass the red signal by the signalbox. Would this be correct?
2. If so, was this the correct protocol? Why did he stop again just before passing the signal?
3. What reasons would there be for this?

Many thanks in advance

1) Yes, judging by your description that's what happened.
2) Pass - I'm sure a driver could tell you! Although I have heard a driver readback on a cab radio 'proceed at caution and obey all other signals' is what I remember being said.
3) Maybe a track circuit failure, although I'm sure there are other reasons too.

 

[O L Leigh]

1) Yes.

2) There is a bit more to it, but essentially what you saw was correct. There is a need to do a "read-back" of all safety critical communications so that both signaller and driver know they are talking to the correct party and are clear about what is required to be done.

Not entirely sure why he stopped again, though. Perhaps he hadn't pressed the TPWS Train Stop Override and wanted to get a bit closer to the grids first before doing so (assuming the signal was fitted with TPWS).

3) Could be any number of reasons. Track circuit failure, signal failure, power supply failure and level crossing equipment failure are the most common reasons for being talked past a red, but there are many others.

O L Leigh

 

[me123]

Thanks for the info guys! That really helped explain what I saw today. Don't think I'll know what went on (we were told it was a technical failure; very specific from Scotrail there...).

Out of curiosity, if you were authorised to pass a signal at danger, what speed you travel at?

 

[Hampshire Unit]

Sorry to answer a question with a question but was there a level crossing involved?? The procedure of pulling up to the signal and stopping again is one normally used where there is a Automatic Level crossing which requires to be activated by a treadle at the signal during degraded working. Hope this helps

 

[O L Leigh]

You go "at caution". This means at a speed at which you can safely stop the train in the distance that you can see to be clear. However, given that the problem could potentially have been caused by a broken rail or some other defect that you may not see until you are right up close to it, you just go dead slow.

As for the explanation given, there's no need to give the punters all the technical guff. You'd just be there all day and they wouldn't understand it anyway. I just tend to say there's a signal fault, track fault or technical fault with the train depending on the precise cause. It seems to keep them happy enough.

**EDIT**

To pick up the crossing point, the driver may have been authorised to pass the protecting signal and instructed to stop at the crossing and only proceed over it if it is safe to do so. This would normally be the case if faulty crossing equipment was the reason why the signal couldn't be cleared and would apply to all crossing types not just autos.

O L Leigh

 

[dan_atki]

As for the explanation given, there's no need to give the punters all the technical guff. You'd just be there all day and they wouldn't understand it anyway.

Indeed. I still remember to this day a Thameslink driver being *very* specific with us a few years back: 'We're experiencing a slight delay whilst I'm trying to contact Victoria Central control' and then later on in the journey, having to terminate at Radlett owing to a security alert at St Albans: 'Ladies and gentlemen, we're now pulling into the up slow platform at Radlett, where this train will terminate. Passengers wishing to continue to St Albans and beyond should use a rail replacement bus service from here'.

 

[me123]

Definitely not a crossing involved; it was at Shields Junction in Glasgow. The explaination given was, this time, rather odd. they would usually say "signal failure" not "technical failure". Usually they're a bit more descriptive on Scotrail.

I've heard, for example, Points Failure, signal lamp failure, problems caused by a broken train; usually they try and explain what happened in very simple terms. Sounds in this case like "signal failure"; not that I'm complaining, it's just odd that they've gone for the very vague "technical failure".

The best I've heard was "points failure at Carmuirs, preventing Glasgow-Stirling trains from using the main line. We will be bypassing this failure by travelling via Polmont today". It was very simple, but he explained exactly what was going to happen; that we would continue to Polmont via Falkirk High and reverse, passing through Falkirk Grahamston before our next call at Larbert". I can't remember the exact wording, but it was clear and rather useful for passengers who would otherwise have found passing though Falkirk rather odd.

 

[O L Leigh]

"Technical failure" covers all ills.

I remember from my days as a commuter a driver giving a very long-winded explanation as to why the train was 4 vice 8. Apparently one of the units had failed on prep due to a blown suspension damper which, at the time, sounded like a very weak excuse. If he'd just left it as being a technical fault on the train or something of the sort I would have been happy. As it was it left me with the impression that they didn't really know what they were doing.

So now I just keep things vague and let the punters make their own minds up. It has certainly saved me some argy-bargy. However, I would certainly make it clear if the fault would result in any changes to the routing or stopping pattern of my train.

O L Leigh

 

[westcoaster]

with the driver stopping again it could be a number of things:

signal is off the end of the platform by some distance, but the signaller gave you permission to pass it while waiting in the station.

stopped at a station with say a 4 car and the signal is at the end of the platform say where the 8/12 car board is and the driver could be worried that the train stop overide will time out before reaching the signal.

 

[O L Leigh]

signal is off the end of the platform by some distance, but the signaller gave you permission to pass it while waiting in the station.

I would consider that VERY unusual for a signaller to do that, but then I guess anything is possible. Authorising a driver to pass a signal he hasn't yet reached while he is in the middle of his station duties sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It's far more likely that the signaller would wait for the driver to pull up to the affected signal and then make contact or, if making contact himself, warning the driver that the signal will not clear and that he should make contact when he gets to it. Heck, I've had handsignallers station themselves right up on the signal at the end of the platform rather than at the point on the platform where the trains actually stop. You feel a right tit stopping, doing your station duties, driving about 100 yards up the platform and then stopping again just so that you can hand back your TBW ticket, but that's what is required of the situation.

Do one thing and then, when you've safely finished that, do the next thing. It reduces the potential for confusion and risk of a f*** up.

stopped at a station with say a 4 car and the signal is at the end of the platform say where the 8/12 car board is and the driver could be worried that the train stop overide will time out before reaching the signal.

That's a possible, but there's nothing to prevent the override being pressed on the move. That's what I would normally do. However, I appreciate that this is just the way I'm comfortable doing it.

O L Leigh

 

[westcoaster]

just read the opening post again, and something stuk me,

He then returned to the train, and sounded his horn, before proceeding right up to the signal and stopping again

maybe the signal failed as the driver approached it, so he stopped where he was and contacted the signaller, who gave him permission to proceed to the signal( driver would sound his horn to let anyone working around the track that he was about to move(may have been S&T working on the signal)), and pass this at danger and proceed at caution and obey all other signals.

 

[O L Leigh]

No. It's just as me123 says. For him to have been able to see the driver on the signalpost phone, the train must have been right there at the signal already.

I think it's simply down to this driver's routine with the TPWS Train Stop Override. He gets permission, draws up to the grids, stops, presses the override and then sets off again. Either that or he forgot all about the TPWS until almost the last minute and had to stop so that he had time to hit the override before getting tripped up on the grids.

O L Leigh

 

[westcoaster]

No. It's just as me123 says. For him to have been able to see the driver on the signalpost phone, the train must have been right there at the signal already.

O L Leigh

if it was right there at the signal already, surely he would not have space to then draw up to the peg and then pass it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it's simply down to this driver's routine with the TPWS Train Stop Override. He gets permission, draws up to the grids, stops, presses the override and then sets off again.

O L Leigh

thats how i do things as well.

 

[O L Leigh]

Depends precisely how close he was. I normally stop about a coach length or so back, as is demanded by the company's driving policy. I'm fairly sure that even from that distance, a passenger could see me get down and use the SPT (particularly as many of our SPT's are no longer on the signalpost itself but a good distance in rear of the signal).

Even so, I don't feel confident that I could get past the peg before the TPWS override timed out so don't press it until I'm about to lose sight of the grids under the front of the train. If I wasn't confident in pressing the override on the move, I would draw up closer to the signal, stop again and press the override before actually moving past the signal.

Or, as I suggested, the driver didn't spot the grids until after he started off the first time. It's impossible to know. However, either scenario is entirely plausible.

O L Leigh

 

[westcoaster]

true enough it could be a hundred different reasons why he stopped again?

but we will never know.

 

[me123]

Clear a few things up for you all:

• We weren't in a station platform; we were at Shields Junction
• He stopped about half a carriage length in front of the signal (at a guess)
• I could see the signal clearly from where I was
• He stopped right at the signal before starting again

 

[O L Leigh]

Thanks for that. I think we were just batting a few different scenarios back and forth and seeing what came of them without specifically tying them to the situation you witnessed. As you can see, we'll never be sure of the precise reasons why the driver drew up and stopped again, but it seems most likely that it had something to do with the TPWS override.

O L Leigh

 

[dan_atki]

Would it be feasible that a wrong route was set in such circumstances?

I'm not sure what the procedure is with regard to resetting a route and any associated timeout - if it was considered to be extensive would a signaller allow a train to pass a signal at danger (after drawing upto the junction and confirming the points were set correctly) so as to minimise delay?

 

[westcoaster]

Would it be feasible that a wrong route was set in such circumstances?

I'm not sure what the procedure is with regard to resetting a route and any associated timeout - if it was considered to be extensive would a signaller allow a train to pass a signal at danger (after drawing upto the junction and confirming the points were set correctly) so as to minimise delay?

it would take two minutes for the signal to time out, plus the points would still be set up for the wrong direction. you would never be allowed to pass a signal at danger in that circumstance.

 

[O L Leigh]

If the train had been stopped the correct side of the junction signal the routing could be changed without problem. You just phone up the box, tell the signaller what the story is and wait for the route to be corrected. There is a timeout on the signalling system so the signal will go back to danger for a while, but then it will just come off again with the correct route and away you go. There would never be any need for the junction signal to be passed at danger for a wrong routing.

Besides, I'm sure the OP would have reported this from his vantage point. However, he says the signal was at danger when the train stopped and remained at danger the whole time, so we can discount wrong routing.

O L Leigh

 

[dan_atki]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[GB]

Even when the signal/route is timing out, the route is still effectivly set. So if you did pass the signal (obviously with authority) you will end up with the route being "route locked" and not being able to swing the points for the correct way.

The train would then be required to set back behind the signal resulting in a larger delay.

 

[me123]

OL Leigh's correct. The signal in question doesn't actually have a diverging route, but I think another route joins just a bit down the line. Definitely wasn't wrong routing in this case.

 

[vitesse]

I would consider that VERY unusual for a signaller to do that, but then I guess anything is possible. Authorising a driver to pass a signal he hasn't yet reached while he is in the middle of his station duties sounds like a recipe for disaster.

That said, i've been authorised to pass a main aspect and a mid section gpl at the same time, and despite my best efforts to keep the conversation professional the signaller was really slap-dash, in place of signaller out at the end he said "cheerie bye"

Which raises another possibility that maybe there was a ground position light just beyond the signal he was required to also pass at danger hence the stop and restart with a second horn blast.

 

[kestrel]

Sounds like he stopped again to do his TPWS, the timers vary from 5 seconds to 20 seconds on our 360's from when you press the button

 

[yardman]

Hi guys,

Although i am not completely o'fay with the TPWS kit. Was just wondering if it was at all possible that the driver may well have forgotten to activate the TPWS override switch and as he approached at the light at danger the Train stop circuit kicked in. Am i right in saying that if that does occur then the train is effectively lock out for 2mins while he resets?

Just a thought. Might account for the 2nd stop at the lights. Being that he was travelling slowly at the lights the stop would be quite quick.

 

[GB]

You are right that there is a timeout after the TPWS has been activated, however a TPWS activation must be reported to the signaller before a reset which will obviously add minutes to the situation and if I understand the OP correctly, it was pretty much a stop and go after receiving instructions.

Then there is the issue of where on the train the recieving equipment is located, as if it is set behind the cab/front of train, then the train will effectivly pass the signal before the activation occurs....if only by a few feet

 

[yardman]

Thanks GB, i didnt realise that TPWS activation would have to be reported to signaller.

Naturally assuming the OP being somewhere down the train might not be absolutely sure the train was to signal. But as you rightly say if it was the case of stop and go then that rules that out.

 

[O L Leigh]

We're speculating when the OP has been very clear on what happened. Personally I can't see the need for it.

You generally can't sneak past a signal at danger without getting a TPWS activation. The TPWS receiver may indeed be a little way back from the very front of the train, but then the track loops are set a little in rear of the signal to compensate.

The timeout duration is dependent on the stock and how the emergency brake is set. Irrespective of that you'd be there a while having a pleasant chat with the signaller and filling in the appropriate paperwork.

O L Leigh