Re: Signalling in Victoria

[David Langley <del@ancc.com.au>]

MarkBau1 wrote:

>
>
> And that is precisely what GCOR gives you. If there is more than one diverging
> route you get another light for that track, (top to bottom, left to right) On
> GCOR you always know exactly which track you are to go on. Many roads even
> eliminate "low speeds". If you have to pass a defective signal or get flagged
> on top of another train the instructions state which track you are to go on. In
> every case you know which track you are to travel on. If thats not route
> signaling I don't know what is! On GCOR roads you determine speeds by local
> route knowledge/timetable. For instance, the speed into the loops on the Moffat
> vary from 10 MPH to 30 MPH, despite the fact that you always get a R/Y into
> them. How could that possibly be called "speed signalling" The signals are just
> telling me to proceed along a specific route and I find that speed in the
> timetable.

Hang on, if you get a medium speed aspect because of a loop coming up surely the
medium speed is dependent on local regulations, i.e. its accepted medium speed
unless the book instructs us of a modification for this (or that) location. That
then is speed signalling. If there are only two possible routes ahead then each
light will give you route knowledge but that surely is just a coincidence because
if there are three or more medium speed routes ahead then the one medium speed
aspect applies to all.

In Victoria we sometimes add a route indicator to avoid the enormous holdup to
traffic if a train wrong routed, e.g. at North Melbourne on the down east line.
Here the junctions are even out of sight round the corner so it is helpful to the
driver if he knows that the correct route has been set up. I also assume that the
painted arrows that existed in a couple of places were merely a guide to drivers
whether the signal was off for the correct route, i.e.. only worked where there was
just one diverging move. The best example was Footscray.

The signalling that we are talking about has always been known he, at least to my
knowledge, as three position signalling which just happened to indicate the speed
that a train could travel at when it passed each signal.

> I don't know who you know in the US but for your information, I've never heard
> any train crew, road foreman, train master etc ever talk about "route" or
> "speed" signalling. Although I would hope that signal designers are at least
> familiar with international conventions. Even in Victoria, the brass, from
> Cousins on down, referred only to places where you got an extra indication
> behind a red as speed signaling.
>
> Your defintion of route signalling would be a little confusing in Victoria due
> to the existence of quite a few 3 pos. signals which do tell you exactly which
> route you are taking by means of a route indicator.
> Using your definition, VR 2 pos signaling was not route signalling because
> discs could take you many places and at some locations a home signal could take
> you to more than one location.

You have to be careful trying to translate ideas between 2 and 3 pos signalling in
Victoria. You have a point about Eddie's definition but as we know it was route
signalling. Of course discs that applied to a number routes were always (probably
always but I'll bet someone has seen different) provided in conjunction with point
indicators giving the exact route that had been set.

David Langley.