Wonga, Dosh, spondoliks, PPP, these are the reasons why it will take
years to change the signalling system, ATO has been mentioned but again
don't hold your breath.

Boltar wrote:
In effect you are right, the signaller will know when a train has left
the affected section and be able to authorise a train to pass the
affected signal BUT not over the train radio, BUT when passing a signal
failure red the train will then be stuck doing "a speed at which you can
stop short of any obstruction" in other words the train will be doing
under 10 mph (if you try to exceed 10mph the brakes will come on), 5mph
or less is more likely (There's an alert noise if you go over 7mph,
doing 5mph keeps the cab noise down!) this is for 2 correctly working
signals, if the next one is also failing (not uncommon) then the whole
process has to be started again.


Sounds like the system needs to revised then, or perhaps put some
backup sensors in the system or perhaps the block the signal controlled
be taken over by another signal so you have a double sized block
allowing
trains to pass and allowing the duff signal to be taken out of service
and
repaired. Its not beyond the wit of man to come up with a solution that
doesn't involve incoveniencing thousands of people when you've had over
a century to think one up.

B2003

Its the fault of the press and compensation culture for the inability
of LUL to deal with a signal fault, utter ********.

Kevin

? am I the only one confused by this post!

wrote:
Its the fault of the press and compensation culture for the inability
of LUL to deal with a signal fault, utter ********.

Kevin

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:

I think a whizzy high-tech moving block system can avoid these problems,
though; the system would (or should) have a battery of redundant sensors
and communications links, so it can keep accurate tabs on every train at
all times.

Until they fail or give contradictory results, in which case you have ...
a red signal (or in-cab equivalent) that trains must not cross !
Just like boltar2003[*] is whinging about.

Nick[*] isn't he a couple of years behind the times now ?
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

"Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote ...

Its not beyond the wit of man to come up with a solution that
doesn't involve incoveniencing thousands of people when you've had over
a century to think one up.

The problem surely is not the whole of the last 100 years, but the last
5-10
when the press have become so obsessed with certain aspects of public
safety
and the appearance of the compensation culture that these very stringent
measures have had to be adopted.

Blame the press, not LU.



The Underground have long had backup safety procedures such as this in place
to work trains through sections safely in the event of signal failures. The
procedure described (trains travelling at very low speed until having passed
two known working signals) has been in place at least since the 1970s and
indeed possibly far earlier, nothing to do with the press becoming obsessed
with public safety in recent years.

Andrew

Having read all the replies to this thread, my feeling is that as soon
as LUL start dealing with a "light stuck on red" then the more worried
I will be about safety.

The term "signal failure" is a bit of a misnomer - it indicates to the
general public that the signal mechanism isn't working, when, according
to TfL, it means that the signal has failed to go back to green.

The current system strikes me as fairly robust, and I think it would be
difficult to solve it all at once.

On 26 May 2005 05:16:14 -0700, wrote:

That it what I thought, air traffic controllers can manage it. They can
put a satalite on the moon of Jupiter without actually having to be
there to see it.

I don't think air traffic controllers have ever done anything remotely
resembling that.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/ps10754877.html
(British Steam Locomotives (main line))

On 26 May 2005 15:36:17 -0700, ONscotland wrote:
The term "signal failure" is a bit of a misnomer - it indicates to the
general public that the signal mechanism isn't working, when, according
to TfL, it means that the signal has failed to go back to green.

Exactly. The signal hasn't failed, because its primary purpose is to
prevent a collision. It has succeeded. Given the choice between being
dead or slightly delayed, I feel most commuters would elect delayed.

However, an efficient railway need not be unduly delayed by such a
failure. If only the signalling mechanism has failed, then it's going to
be cost-effective to dedicate a couple of staff to operating the system
the old fashioned way until the problem can be rectified. It's the lack
of mamnagement imagination needed to see that which irritates people.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680076.html
(73 126 on a mixed freight working at Worthing in 1985)

In message , General Von
Clinkerhoffen writes

In effect you are right, the signaller will know when a train has left
the affected section and be able to authorise a train to pass the
affected signal BUT not over the train radio, BUT when passing a signal
failure red the train will then be stuck doing "a speed at which you
can stop short of any obstruction" in other words the train will be
doing under 10 mph (if you try to exceed 10mph the brakes will come
on), 5mph or less is more likely (There's an alert noise if you go over
7mph, doing 5mph keeps the cab noise down!) this is for 2 correctly
working signals, if the next one is also failing (not uncommon) then
the whole process has to be started again.

73 stock doesn't have the sounder at 7mph, but you will still come up in
a heap if you try and go faster than 10mph in slow speed.

Also, the next bit of the rule that you didn't quote also shows how
things get held up: "past the next two stop signals showing a clear or
caution aspect.".

Last time I had to apply the rule at a failing signal it took me 10
minutes just to get through the affected section and a total of 15 mins
from stopping at the failing signal to resuming normal line speed. This
with a 2-3 minute interval service, you can see why the job is fubar in
very short order.

That is why 1 signal failure can FUBAR the whole Met, Hot & Cold, &
Circle line.

And that's just for an automatic signal - it gets worse if there's
points involved as they have to be secured too.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Just like boltar2003[*] is whinging about

You'd whinge too if you were stuck in a hot carriage for 20 mins
with a hundred other sweaty victims.

[*] isn't he a couple of years behind the times now ?

Not as far behind as LU.

B2003