Re: Signaller causes SPAD

["Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au>]

<antstig@my-deja.com> wrote in message 8q3rf6$tki$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8q3rf6$tki$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi Peter,
> I'll check out the relays design with some of my signal engineer
> friends. Maybe we have a different design but I'm sure if a signal goes
> back in the face of a driver (as opposed to being thrown back) then
> that signal will have to fail just as the driver is approaching the
> signal concerned.

That's almost right, however, with the common designs of UK and QR, I
can tell you if the Route Checking relay loses it (or CBI related function),
your signal will restore.

> As regards breath testing in my company, I have never heard of anyone
> been breath tested for SPAD either signaller or train operator (driver).

We don't do it in QR either, it's a mexican thing.

> All I can repeat is that most signals that go back in the drivers'
> faces are due to error on the part of the signallers. This is not
> contested by the control room and sometimes an item is booked against
> the signaller (especially if the driver kicks up a fuss or I suppose
> Bill Bolton would say that is whingeing), sometimes it is covered up.

It is important to distinguish between SPADs & RIFOTs. Where our control
systems extend hundreds of kilometres up the coast, a transmission failure
will restore signals.

The idea of recording the number of SPADs occurring in a railway is to
highlight
just how close your railway is coming to a fatal accident. The focus on
SPADs
is to work out just WHY they are occurring, driver fatigue, poor sighting,
excessive
speed etc, etc.

A RIFOT means that it wasn't up to the driver, therefore not to be
considered in the
same category. A focus on RIFOTs is usally due to a concern about the
reliability
of the signalling system.

> The trouble is that there are so many times that drivers get stitched
> up for incidents/delays in order to cover up for signallers' error.
> That's fact and if I did not "whinge" about this to the authorities I
> would have had several delays etc on my record that had nothing to do
> with me.

Where we use our computer based systems, the controllers/signallers actions
are
logged (except for frames). In fact the system is also used in SPAD
investigations.
It's easy to quickly determine whether the Signaller or the Driver is
responsible.


Seeya!