Temporary Block Working

[Six Bells]

A question for TC block signallers!

Given the rise of Emergency Special Working in recent times (In events leading to the failure of multiple signals on a TC block line) is it likely that Temporary Block Working will be phased out in the future?

Given the streamlined nature of ESW (Instructing the driver to pass several defective signals) as opposed to the more cluttered nature of TBW (Instructing hand signallers to inform the driver / distribute and collect tickets etc) should ESW become the new way of working?

I have asked TCB signaller colleagues, who have stated that TBW remains an option for them as not all locations are authorised to instigate ESW; however should this become the case, or are there compelling reasons for keeping TBW in the Rule Book?

 

[WestRiding]

It'll get phased out as the railway do away with staff. TBW relies on staff numbers.

 

[Supercoss]

T B W will remain an option as a performance benefit as you can spilt the section intow to (or more), which you can't do for E S W so where long sections are affected TBW can pass more trains per hour split in half with intermediate handsignaller performing both (1st section) exit and (second section) entry roles

 

[Annetts key]

In my area, although the company have often tried to use TBW in the past after the service has ground to a complete halt due to significant signalling failures or loss of the power feed to the signalling, they have normally completely failed to do so. Unlike in the past when there were ‘standby’ signallers, or enough MOMs. Now there is a lack of signallers, no ‘standby’ signallers, and the MOM covers a silly large area.

Plus, there are less Permanent Way staff who are qualified as a hand signaller, and these staff are often on nights so can’t be called on during the day.

The end result is line closure and rail replacement buses, with affected train services cancelled or terminated short.

ESW is the company’s ‘quick fix’. But as with any system that relies completely on humans, is subject to the same problems as any human based control system. IMHO, it’s no better than drivers passing red signals under their own authority (which is what was possible in the past).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2021 ==

T B W will remain an option as a performance benefit as you can spilt the section intow to (or more), which you can't do for E S W so where long sections are affected TBW can pass more trains per hour split in half with intermediate handsignaller performing both (1st section) exit and (second section) entry roles

Yes, in theory. But where, in a ‘modern’ railway, are you going to get all these staff. Some years ago before there were less signallers, when a complete loss of 650V power knocked out 16 miles of signalling on a main line double track railway, the initial plan was to set up TBW.

Because two trains were trapped at a major station in the middle section of this outage, operations wanted two TBW sections on the up, and two TBW sections on the down.

In the event, they couldn’t even find enough staff to set up ONE TBW section. So the trains stayed trapped.

Eventually, the D&P arrived with an emergency generator set. Only once power was restored did any of the stuck trains move.

 

[QueensCurve]

It used to be the case that when a signal failed the driver would be authorised to "pass this signal at anger, proceed with cautions, obey all other signals". In the days of the droplight and signal-post telephones the driver could be heard reading it back. Does this not happen any more?

Is the implication of ESW that drivers can be authorised to pass through several sections at once? If so, how is it confirmed that the sections are all clear? Do trains proceed with caution?

 

[4F89]

It used to be the case that when a signal failed the driver would be authorised to "pass this signal at anger, proceed with cautions, obey all other signals". In the days of the droplight and signal-post telephones the driver could be heard reading it back. Does this not happen any more?

Is the implication of ESW that drivers can be authorised to pass through several sections at once? If so, how is it confirmed that the sections are all clear? Do trains proceed with caution?

TBW is for more than 2 sections. Needs handsignallers.

ESW does away with the handsignaller. Driver calls signaller when at exit signal and confirms he is out of section. No caution necessary.

No need to use SPT, GSMR does the job.

 

[Six Bells]

It used to be the case that when a signal failed the driver would be authorised to "pass this signal at anger, proceed with cautions, obey all other signals". In the days of the droplight and signal-post telephones the driver could be heard reading it back. Does this not happen any more?

Is the implication of ESW that drivers can be authorised to pass through several sections at once? If so, how is it confirmed that the sections are all clear? Do trains proceed with caution?

My understanding (I'm only AB trained however) is that a driver can be authorised to pass two signals at danger in the same authority (For example, a signal held at danger due to the next signal being defective) but any more than two require TBW or ESW.

If authorising to pass two at danger, caution is not specified, although the driver is reminded to obey the 3rd signal.

 

[endofthetunnel]

One of the bonuses of ESW vs TBW is that points with correct detection do not need to be manually secured.

With TBW someone needs to secure all points in the route, even those which are still functioning correctly, which can be a lot of points in a long section and adds a whole other few people to the job, as well as hand signaller at each end.
ESW allows the signaller to rely on the indications of points as usual, plus no handsignallers.

 

[Sunset route]

Having worked TBW many times and ESW very recently for the first time, I much prefer the less convoluted ESW over TBW any day to getting the job up running and passengers moving.

 

[CC 72100]

My understanding (I'm only AB trained however) is that a driver can be authorised to pass two signals at danger in the same authority (For example, a signal held at danger due to the next signal being defective) but any more than two require TBW or ESW.

If authorising to pass two at danger, caution is not specified, although the driver is reminded to obey the 3rd signal.

They can - this came in at the most recent Rule Book change, but I am sceptical on how many occasions the passing two signals at danger in the same movement/conversation will be used, due to the preconditions required (such as signal no.2 not being fitted with TPWS, not when there is a main aspect distant signal inbetween...)

 

[Kraken]

They can - this came in at the most recent Rule Book change, but I am sceptical on how many occasions the passing two signals at danger in the same movement/conversation will be used, due to the preconditions required (such as signal no.2 not being fitted with TPWS, not when there is a main aspect distant signal inbetween...)

Agreed, it seems to be one of those rules that everyone thought would save a load of time and effort but once all the caveats were added to make sure it was safe it can’t really be used in practice. Like the crossing of the line regulations which I think can only be performed at exact location in SBSIs and by named people in SBSIs, seems a bit of a faff and you may as well just take a 30 second line block.