On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message ,
writes
I tentatively think this focus on the lack of signals is a bit
misleading. Ultimately, all safety on non-ATO lines depends on drivers
correctly responding to signals (barring tripcocks - am i right i
thinking these are only present at a fraction of signals?). If we
accept that stopping at a red is an acceptable part of the safety
mechanism, why can't we also accept that stopping at the absence of a
green, or the absence of any signal, is?
Tripcocks are present at all home signals on LUL lines.
You meant to say:
Tripcocks are present at all stop signals on LUL lines.
Didn't you?
Naturally.
Does 'stop signal' mean 'signal capable of telling a train to stop', ie
anything that can go red, as opposed to route indicators etc? If so, i
hadn't realised that, i stand educated, that's a very good thing, and i'm
surprised there wasn't something along those lines protecting the
wrong-way move that was possible here, some sort of always-on tripcock
alongside the board saying YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY.
tom
--
Give the future a chance!