Re: Signaller causes SPAD

[antstig@my-deja.com]

In article <8q40ui$1161@inetbws1.citec.com.au>,
  "Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au> wrote:
>
> <antstig@my-deja.com> wrote in message 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.

I am distinguishing between SPADs and RIFOTs. RIFOTs on my line are as
rare as hen's teeth.
>
> 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.

Which I agree with and every signal thrown back in a driver's face is a
SPAD except the signaller does not come under the same scrutiny as the
poor driver.
>
> 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.

Agreed.
> > 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.

We have an antiquate system which is only computerised on one end of
the line and uses pianola type (yes honest!) programme machine rolls on
the other end.

Regards

Frank
> Seeya!
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.