Re: Signaller causes SPAD

["B." <gunzel412@dingoblue.gunzel.net.au>]

<antstig@my-deja.com> wrote in message 8q8tdk$s20$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8q8tdk$s20$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8q8iht$esk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> signal_spotter@my-deja.com wrote:

>>> Then comes the scary bit. The Signaller instructs the
>>> driver to proceed over points even though they have not
>>> being scotched and clipped (we are not talking about
>>> remote securing points here). Even scarier is that many
>>> drivers obey this instruction.

>> The points would be held by 1)APPROACH LOCKING, 2)ROUTE
>> LOCKING and 3)TRACK LOCKING. Scotched and clipped (or
>> clipped and locked in NSW) is just a 'belt and braces'
>> safeworking requirement. The safety of the system would
>> not have been compromised by the signaller instructing
>> you to proceed.

> That's an interesting point which no doubt my signal
> engineer friends will confirm. However I don't know of any
> driver being disciplined for insisting on points being
> scotched and clipped.

> Also a green signal confirms that the points are locked
> whereas if a signaller throws a stick back the signal could
> fail (rare admittedly) at the same time as the signaller
> threw back the stick.

If this signal should fail just as the Signaller replaced it, even this
would not release the locking on the points.  If the approah locking, track
locking or route locking fails, then the points will still remain locked.
That means your points have failed.

What it does mean is that the scope for error by a signaller is much less
than for a driver.  Indeed trained monkeys could be employed as
signallers... |-)

--
B.

Email - gunzel412 at dingoblue dot net dot au
ICQ#  - 82329734
Phone - long, long, short, long.