Stafford Signalling Failure

[Sanatogen]

Very easy to end up with 2 in a section when the signaller is talking passed multiple signals especially if track circuits have failed.

 

[455driver]

I believe there it's a bit more than a proposal down that way now, and it's more of a recognised trial? I think the documents regarding it are on the RGS site if you are interested in it.

It is a strange step as you say. I suppose if it saves on delay minutes, and gets trains on the move, then that will prick a lot of ears up!! Is the SWT area exceptionally plagued with signalling problems, so much so that they NEED to implement TBW a lot of the time? I would say no, and there is a few places where they regularly have the panel light up like a Christmas tree with faults!

At the moment a train will have to stop at every (defective) signal, contact the signaller and get talked past them in turn, look at it from the signallers point of view where he has 2 or 4 lines to deal with, this would be a huge workload with far to much margin for error and, as long as the driver can get through on the radio, this will take about 20 minimum.

The new proposal is for the signaller to tell the driver to pass SG1, SG3, SG5, SG7 at danger, stop at SG9 and report back (same as TBW now).
Train sets off at 30mph and gets througnh the section in 10 minutes.
This also has less margin for error as the signaller can treat the whole thing as one long section from SG1 to SG9 and their workload is substantially reduced. This would also be the same for trains on other lines as well.

Overall I think the principal is good but I dont want to see it used any more than absolutely necessary and definitely not replacing TBW and hand signalmen etc as a long term solution.

 

[Tomnick]

On reflection, I suppose it's not a bad idea in principle, as long as it is only used for as short a period as possible (and certainly not as a means of saving money by not calling for handsignalmen!). The resulting reduction in workload, and minimising the opportunity for confusion by having drivers calling in from each of SG1, SG3, SG5 and SG7 (the more recent accident at Castlecary - the Scottish one - is relevant here, I believe?), is a good point too.

 

[bengolding]

My Glasgow service from Euston on Mon morning was diverted via Stoke and then crawled to Crewe behind a stopping service. Resulted in a 30 delay. On my return a few hrs later, the VT from Crewe ran to time. Staff said the problem on Mon was different to that causing disruption on Sun.

Do VT Voyagers and XC not sign via Nuneaton (obvious reversal) from Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham? Given significant delays via Stafford, could this have been a viable divert?

 

[33056]

I expect the Sleepers are being routed Colwich Junction to Crewe via Stoke on Trent & Alsager & vice versa?

They were last night (except 1M16); not sure what is happening tonight but things appear to be moving a lot better though Stafford now.

 

[455driver]

On reflection, I suppose it's not a bad idea in principle, as long as it is only used for as short a period as possible (and certainly not as a means of saving money by not calling for handsignalmen!). The resulting reduction in workload, and minimising the opportunity for confusion by having drivers calling in from each of SG1, SG3, SG5 and SG7 (the more recent accident at Castlecary - the Scottish one - is relevant here, I believe?), is a good point too.

before I went in for the briefing I had about 5 questions I wanted answering (length of time it was allowed to be used etc) and all were answered so overall I think (hope) this will help everyone when things go base over apex.

 

[deltic]

On reflection, I suppose it's not a bad idea in principle, as long as it is only used for as short a period as possible (and certainly not as a means of saving money by not calling for handsignalmen!). The resulting reduction in workload, and minimising the opportunity for confusion by having drivers calling in from each of SG1, SG3, SG5 and SG7 (the more recent accident at Castlecary - the Scottish one - is relevant here, I believe?), is a good point too.

why isnt saving money an acceptable reason if the procedure is safe?

 

[Tomnick]

Because it's not intended as any more than an emergency method of working until full TBW can be implemented - it increases the signalman's workload substantially, and I'd suggest that there's rather more opportunity for an error to be made without handsignalmen to deal with the tickets and assist with keeping track of what's where.

 

[J123]

Trains from my local station Swanwick were subject to major delays this morning because of signalling equipment struck by lightning.