"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

That is correct, in fact a number of TPWS installations are being removed
as some overkill occured during the original fitting.

They will nonetheless remain at terminals, will they not?

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...

Does that mean that AWS is then counted as the redundant safety system?

How doe we understand the term redundant? I understand it to mean that
something to back up the human factor in operating safety if that fails.

Or is even that not necessary? After all, not all lines have AWS.

Where are there areas that are not equipped with AWS?

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...

BR took over the GNC before TPWS was invented. Given what happened at
Moorgate immediately before BR took over there, it is somewhat
unsurprising that the dead end tunnel safety system introduced there,
known as Moorgate control, was retained for BR use.

Agreed.

So the rolling stock does carry tripcocks?

Nowadays they would
presumably be able to rely on standard TPWS and could scrap the tripcocks.
When the 313s on the GN come up for replacement (is there even a date
yet?) presumably they will consider updating the signalling at the Cross.


Sure. Pobably cheaper to use TPWS as it is less energy intensive and doesn't
contain moving parts..

I thought the main use was ECS.

ECS?

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

What is that, signals with only two lenses that use LED lamps?

No, just electrical boxes with the same 'over engineered' supporting
framework in the current NR style...

Oh.

I saw the ones that I described in my previous post at London Bridge. Are
those not scheduled to eventually replace the current operating ones?

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:


That is correct, in fact a number of TPWS installations are being
removed as some overkill occured during the original fitting.

Does that mean that AWS is then counted as the redundant safety system?
Or is even that not necessary? After all, not all lines have AWS.

IIRC they are mostly TPWS overspeed warnings associated with speed
restrictions rather than signals.

Paul

wrote in message
.. .

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

What is that, signals with only two lenses that use LED lamps?

No, just electrical boxes with the same 'over engineered' supporting
framework in the current NR style...

Oh.

I saw the ones that I described in my previous post at London Bridge. Are
those not scheduled to eventually replace the current operating ones?

I'm not even sure that what I saw is directly associated with a signal,
could be anything electrical really. The LED signals you mention do seem to
be becoming the norm for replacements and new installations, although the
Portsmouth area resignalling last year seems to have been unusual in having
conventional 3 and 4 aspect lamps fitted. Possibly a sign that the hardware
was bought some while ago and set aside. [BTW you'll only see two LED heads
when four aspects are needed, a single head can display 3 colours.]

Paul

In article ,
() wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...

BR took over the GNC before TPWS was invented. Given what happened at
Moorgate immediately before BR took over there, it is somewhat
unsurprising that the dead end tunnel safety system introduced there,
known as Moorgate control, was retained for BR use.

Agreed.

So the rolling stock does carry tripcocks?

AIUI. Not sure about the 313s on the NLL.

Nowadays they would presumably be able to rely on standard TPWS and
could scrap the tripcocks. When the 313s on the GN come up for
replacement (is there even a date yet?) presumably they will
consider updating the signalling at the Cross.

Sure. Pobably cheaper to use TPWS as it is less energy intensive
and doesn't contain moving parts..

But no change is cheapest of all.

I thought the main use was ECS.

ECS?

Empty Coaching Stock movements (to East Wimbledon depot).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
() wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...

Does that mean that AWS is then counted as the redundant safety
system?

How doe we understand the term redundant? I understand it to mean
that something to back up the human factor in operating safety if
that fails.

Or is even that not necessary? After all, not all lines have AWS.

Where are there areas that are not equipped with AWS?

Not many in London I expect, but it is not universal.

--
Colin Rosenstiel