Re: [General] Stopping at signals - simple question

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

<eikkert@my-deja.com> wrote in message 8m0jf9$ioc$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8m0jf9$ioc$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Because the signals are often failing, and to leave the train there
> > until the signal is fixed would mean that the railway would have to
> > send in weeks worth of food and beverages for the passengers.
>
> I don't think he is referring to failed signals. I think he is
> refferring to the numerous incidents of drivers passing red signals then
> having a train derail due to catch points.

Agreed, but it was far too simplistic a statement. Based on his reasoning, a
train would never ever ever pass a signal displaying a red indication, when
there are times where that is clearly necessary.

There are other reasons for SPAD's as well, such as the signal being
difficult to see due to the sun (mainly in the early am or pm peaks),
although this is a design error which, if the system is designed properly,
should not happen, sighting distances, etc. All of this needs to be taken
into account when asking why trains pass through signals at stop. To merely
make a statement like "red means stop" is oversimplifying what is a
complicated matter.

Dave