Re: Signaller causes SPAD

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

Steve <pracys@eisa.com.au> wrote in message
8pm8kj$qtc$1@news.eisa.net.au">news:8pm8kj$qtc$1@news.eisa.net.au...
> Well yet another piece of useless drivel by the signal engineer.
> The SWU`s provide for the returning to stop of signals but the person
> returning the stick is to inform the driver of the intention to do so!!!!!
> Sometimes this is not possible as things happen out of the blue so to
speak.
> The driver is to make every attempt to stop at the stick that has been
> returned to stop.

It's a real shambles, sometimes signals restore in the face of trains
DESPITE the signallers. It's the benefit of a fail safe system.

If part of the system fails, the signal will restore. The signaller isn't
always the reason for the restoration.

> This would include putting the brake in emergency.
> The driver has no idea why the stick has been returned to stop, therefore
he
> must make every attempt to stop his side of the stick, may be a serious
> condition ahead affecting the line etc..

That's right. Somtimes the signal restores because some idiot didn't pay
attention to the aspect he was given. The signal restoring can save lives.


> signal_spotter@my-deja.com wrote in message
<8pk1gi$u6q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Again all you've done is snip bits of my reply and then take them out
> >of context to form your arguement. I accept constructive critism from
> >drivers, not whinges. And lastly, I did not develop the signalling
> >systems in use throughout the world. When I design a layout I have to
> >follow the standards and principles in use for that system. Your
> >system. So if you have a gripe about signalling in UK then take it up
> >with Railtrack. And no I did not design Central or Jubilee lines, but
> >all you're doing is whinging about it anyway.

Oh come one Ian, you built it, you're responsible :-)


In article <8pjvvn$sfn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, (Frank?)

> Well, silly me. I forgot as a designer you would not be concerned about
> little old ladies breaking a leg because the train was tripped and brought
> to a sudden halt not to mention the stress caused to the drivers.
>
> Where I come from we regard a signal passed at danger as a signal
> passed at danger regardless of whose fault it is.

Yes, but if a signal is passed at danger because the signal restores in the
face of the driver,
we call it a RIFOT (restored in the face of train). Some people here keep
thinking that the
signaller is the primary cause of this. Non signalling people of course :-)


> This sentence just about sums up your attitude. I must ask some signal
> engineer friends of mine what they think of signal designer engineers.

Signal Design engineers should be thanked if a signal restores due to an
unsafe condition.

Signal Design Engineers should not be thanked if their new beastie keeps
falling over.


Peter Dwyer