Re: [NSW]-Question about signal phones

[Eddie Oliver <eoliver@efs.mq.edu.au>]

With reference to the debate quoted below, and things that others have
said, I suspect we may have a problem of defining what we're talking
about. If it helps, I will withdraw and apologise (at least until we
decide just what the terms of reference are!) for what I had written
about statements being rubbish, in case I misunderstood the intended
context!

There seem to be several different possible contexts:

1: the actual safeworking rules.
2: formal signal design standards.
3: what generally happens in designs even though there are not formal
requirements.
4: what drivers etc may be taught or believe.

To help resolve this, may I ask Tezza to be more specific about what he
was taught, and what he believes the associations are between signal
types and phone placement? That way we will at least have some common
ground for what we're talking about.

Eddie

Tezza wrote:
> 
> <signal_spotter@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> 91bdcs$eou$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:91bdcs$eou$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Drivers,
> >
> > Is there a convention with signal phones that if it's mounted on the
> > actual signal then that signal is 'permissive' (ie may be passed at
> > stop under certain conditions, autos and accepts) and if it's mounted
> > on a post beside the signal then that signal is 'absolute' (ie may not
> > be passed at stop, homes and starters). There seems to be this
> > unwritten rule which someone came up with years ago and we've seemed to
> > follow but upon speaking to drivers about it, they're response
> > was "That's news to me". So somewhere along the line it hasn't filtered
> > through. Or has it?
> 
> All signals can be passed at stop. The position of the phone does change
> though as you point out, depending on the kind of signal. One of the first
> things we learnt in Safeworking years ago was using the placement of the phone
> to help determine what kind of signal it was.