A new signal to me.

[big jim]

It's green, you can tell by the pigs ear on the side.

 

As you say, there is no bonus points for aesthetics, I think they look alright, I have been to loads of meetings with both safety and signal sighting representatives of various TOC's and gone on Cabrides, having asked the question on how people feel about these signals, I have yet to encounter a rigid hate them stance, yes one driver said they are a little bright, but he said that it's not too bad in his opinion.

 

Remember it is the signal sighting committee (this includes drivers of all the TOC's in the area) that decides on what signal type is used, not the designers,

 

Simon

 

What's the point of the "pigs ears" on these signals, if you have stopped so close to the signal that you can't see the main aspect (due to the poor viewing angle) then you have to ask yourself if your driving to your companies 'defensive driving policy'!

 

I do think sometimes when reading your posts that you have this ideal view of the railway (drummed into you by your bosses) that in reality is nothing like what actually happens, as royaloak says 90% of his work mates hate these signals, but they still get erected, the feedback from my drivers is they are too bright and make judging distance difficult, but nothing will be done about it, signal sightings committees to me do nothing more than sit in an office with a computer model of a route and using complicated mathematical equations decide to "put signal X there so there is X amount of sighting time" sod the fact that signal X is a stop aspect 1/2 way up a pretty steep bank on a curve (and yes I have an example of that), I would be surprised if many of them have ever actually seen the front of a train on a route or spoke to drivers before deciding where to place signals

 

EDIT: Looking at your last post too "Ive met some very negative drivers in meetings", Was their opinion considered or just dismissed as being negative (rather than realistic)?

[royaloak]

   I've met some very negative voices amongst drivers in meetings, so it is there.

 

Simon

And universally ignored because the designers know best!

The spec is not drawn up by drivers (obviously),

Drivers are not involved in drawing up the spec at all,

Any negativity from drivers is ignored,

Any reports about poor sighting on corners is ignored 'because it is within spec',

They are very directional and can only be viewed head on (which is blinding at night), but you lose sight of them as you get close hence the need for the pigs ear/ hot strip,

I could go on, but that is enough moaning from a bloke who has to drive past these things every working day!

[big jim]

I think royaloak has just written my next post for me!

 

Couldn't have put it better myself

[royaloak]

If those are what they have replaced the old bulbs/oil lamps in the semaphores at shrewsbury with then they are fantastic, not too bright to make judging distance difficult but certainly bright enough to see from a good mile and a half away as opposed to the old 1/4 mile away when they were oil/filament lit, makes approaching shrewsbury from gobowen so much faster and smoother as you don't have to brake so early and then release when you can see the signal is off

 

I have however encountered problems with them in cold weather though at caverswell, March last year, got a green at the outer distant and a single yellow at the next (should have been a double yellow as a minimum), stopped at the box who informed me his panel was showing all signals off (green aspects), proceeded at caution to the next signal which on the panel was green only to find it at danger, those were all freshly replaced LED bulb signals which had failed due to the cold weather, had to pass 2 signals at danger that morning (but not before the barriers at Blythe bridge had been down for over 20mins!!), then to top it off my 56 decided to die at scropton with a water leak blocking the north staffs line for 4 hours before being rescued by a DRS 37!

That has been sorted by ensuring the supply voltage is set very accurately, of course you could question why the voltage needs to be so exact (bearing in mind the environment these things will be operating in) and why the lamp proving relay is incorrectly showing the as proved when it obviously isnt.

I think royaloak has just written my next post for me!

 

Couldn't have put it better myself

I got on the soap box first! 

[Southernman46]

On the Southern many signals are located right on a platform end next to the "S" board (particularly for 10 & 12 car trains) and the pigs ear enables/d drivers of such trains to check the aspect before pulling away or if pulled right up under a multiple track gantry (Waterloo etc) the pigs ear gives a better indication of the aspect particularly when the Y-G / Y-G-Y might be hidden by the hood of the red aspect (those on the SR used to be very long back in the day)

[Jaggzuk]

What does the white aspect on P266 signify please?

 

 

Sorry not the best photo, a bit of a cheap site camera on full zoom.  It was a green aspect.

 

From a modellers perspective, these VMS signals will be very hard to model in 4mm as they are so thin and flat to a single LED will not look right.  At least with the Unipart Dorman range of LED signals they still resemble a traditional filament coloured light signal with the back board shape, lens hoods, they have a bit of bulk to the signal head and even though they are LED, they still have lens in front.

 

http://www.unipartdorman.co.uk/trackside-signals.html

 

On the point of aesthetics, how about the signal gantry at the top of this PDF !

http://www.unipartdorman.co.uk/assets/lightweight_signalling_flyer-.pdf

 

As for design vs bean counters, I guess there is a growing financial reason why LED signals are now preferred, see the last section "The benefits"

http://blogs.unipartrail.com/external/readmore.aspx?ID=168

[TheSignalEngineer]

The problems highlighted by the last few posts in this thread are those of the fragmented railway. When we were all one family we discussed these issues widely, for instance most of my design staff in BR days used to do the old Safe Working of Trains course, Stationmaster will remember those. When I originally did it the weekly sessions were led by a District Signalman's Inspector of over 30 years experience. Our group included drivers, passenger and goods guards, station staff and operating staff as well as technical and supervisory staff from engineering departments. 

 

Some of the Divisional Engineers I worked for always took a member of the Design Office out on inspection tours. His specific tasks were to check the state of panels and illuminated diagrams, and to check that the wiring diagrams on site were in good condition and matched up with office records. It also meant that he/she got to ride in the front of the saloon and see problems of sighting first hand. 

 

As far as signalling positions were concerned, well before a plan left me on its way for approval I would discuss it with the local Signalling Maintenance Supervisor, an Operations man and a Traction Inspector to look at the theoretical signal positions and see if these were the best solution from a practical point of view. We would mark what we thought were the best places if necessary arrange a cab ride to check any positions we thought were marginal.When this sort of thing was frowned on by the Beancounters and "we're Railtrack, you don't know what you are talking about" imports from the oil industry et al I was glad to be in a position to take early retirement and got out of that side of the business.

 

I still strongly believe in the theory taught to me by an old-school engineer, then middle manager who went through the ranks to the Kremlin, who told me as a young designer "Get your boots on the ballast right at the start of the job, you can't design a good working railway on the drawing board. If you try that all you will end up with is an effin' big bang" 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

What do track workers feel about these new signals, if it's difficult to see them other than head on?

[Jaggzuk]

So are these the "pigs ears", the little group of LEDs on the right hand side of the the head?  And why called such?

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaggzuk]

I still strongly believe in the theory taught to me by an old-school engineer, then middle manager who went through the ranks to the Kremlin, who told me as a young designer "Get your boots on the ballast right at the start of the job, you can't design a good working railway on the drawing board. If you try that all you will end up with is an effin' big bang" 

 

This is so true for any railway engineering discipline whether it be Signalling, E&P, P.way, Civils etc.  You cannot design effectively/efficiently/safely without having seeing the site for real.  Even someones else photos do not guarantee 100% that something has been missed that could have been designed better.

[russ p]

Pigs ears sums up most of the railway these days!

 

However the original use of the tern was for small lenses on the side of colourlights so the aspects could be observed when stood almost opposite the signal. These small auxiliary lenses had small shades over them which resembled pigs ears

[Jaggzuk]

I guess I should have Googled Pigs Ears. http://www.railsigns.uk/photos/p_clsig1/p_clsig1.html.  Never seen this before, I have to say.

[TheSignalEngineer]

What do track workers feel about these new signals, if it's difficult to see them other than head on?

Never trust what a signal is showing to tell you if there is a train coming up behind you.

[The Stationmaster]

Aren't they the most horrible signals you've ever seen. Unless you were designing routes for train sim about 15 years ago

 

I'm afraid all these 'fold down' signals cause me a degree of concern as it is necessary to 'take away' the signal in order to maintain it.  While that shouldn't occur very often (as long as they are self-cleaning) it still means either shut the railway or lead to chaos and confusion as a landmark is removed, especially where signals are alongside each other.  Shutting the railway to maintain a single signal strikes me as rather daft to say the least in an era when traffic is increasing

 

Also every example I've seen seems t be unduly bright at night - not a clever design point as overbright signals have long been recognised as a SPAD hazard at night as they aren't particularly easy to place as you run towards them ready to brake to a stand.

 

My final concern is how they will stand up to snow being driven against them although I presume this had been tested before they were approved for use?

[russ p]

In the past even in the privatisation era before equipment was accepted TOCs and FOCs were asked for their opinions before widespread use of an item. This no longer seems to apply Network rail just imposes equipment on the network

[big jim]

Mike, your final point is one I've been concerned about and raised earlier in this thread too

 

As for 'pigs ears', the signals in the mainline side of the met have them fitted, that's the first place I ever come across them

[The Stationmaster]

The problems highlighted by the last few posts in this thread are those of the fragmented railway. When we were all one family we discussed these issues widely, for instance most of my design staff in BR days used to do the old Safe Working of Trains course, Stationmaster will remember those. When I originally did it the weekly sessions were led by a District Signalman's Inspector of over 30 years experience. Our group included drivers, passenger and goods guards, station staff and operating staff as well as technical and supervisory staff from engineering departments. 

 

Some of the Divisional Engineers I worked for always took a member of the Design Office out on inspection tours. His specific tasks were to check the state of panels and illuminated diagrams, and to check that the wiring diagrams on site were in good condition and matched up with office records. It also meant that he/she got to ride in the front of the saloon and see problems of sighting first hand. 

 

As far as signalling positions were concerned, well before a plan left me on its way for approval I would discuss it with the local Signalling Maintenance Supervisor, an Operations man and a Traction Inspector to look at the theoretical signal positions and see if these were the best solution from a practical point of view. We would mark what we thought were the best places if necessary arrange a cab ride to check any positions we thought were marginal.When this sort of thing was frowned on by the Beancounters and "we're Railtrack, you don't know what you are talking about" imports from the oil industry et al I was glad to be in a position to take early retirement and got out of that side of the business.

 

I still strongly believe in the theory taught to me by an old-school engineer, then middle manager who went through the ranks to the Kremlin, who told me as a young designer "Get your boots on the ballast right at the start of the job, you can't design a good working railway on the drawing board. If you try that all you will end up with is an effin' big bang" 

 

And back in those days the Ops folk would always (on the WR at any rate) carefully check scheme plans discussing them as necessary with folk who knew the sites before they were signed off by the Regional Ops Manager.  Like SE I often get the impression that the 'disintegrated railway' does not do itself any favours and that people unfortunately lack the broader experience and background that could be developed in the past.  I was attending Signal Sighting Meetings - out, on the site where the signal would be placed, long before I ever became involved in SPAD risk assessments meetings and that experience stood me in good stead as had the process of developing scheme plans alongside the signal engineer designing them.

 

As far as these particular signals are concerned, and what I have seen of them let alone what Drivers are seeing, I find it difficult to understand that any experienced footplate folk are recommending them for anything - for the reasons already outlined above by several Drivers.

[The Stationmaster]

In the past even in the privatisation era before equipment was accepted TOCs and FOCs were asked for their opinions before widespread use of an item. This no longer seems to apply Network rail just imposes equipment on the network

Absolutely correct - we always made sure at the (older style of) SPAD risk assessment meetings that we got experienced footplate Inspectors from the relevant TOCs etc.

[57xx]

So are these the "pigs ears", the little group of LEDs on the right hand side of the the head?  And why called such?

 

R 20130710_143045.jpg Y 20130710_143134.jpg  G 20130710_143023.jpg GJ 20130710_143023.jpg

 

Because the made a pigs ear of the design?

[Suzie]

 

This picture gives an indication of why they are called 'Pig's Ears'. The things sticking out to the right. You can just see the green one lit. 

A pig with ears for comparison!

 

[Grovenor]

I guess I should have Googled Pigs Ears. http://www.railsigns.uk/photos/p_clsig1/p_clsig1.html.  Never seen this before, I have to say.

Pigs ears are an old solution to the problem of close up indication, for the most part they were replaced by lenses with a built in 'hotstrip' which diverted part of the main beam to become the close up indication.

Regards

[43110andyb]

Peter Kazmierczak, on 24 Jul 2016 - 11:14, said:

What do track workers feel about these new signals, if it's difficult to see them other than head on?

 

Never trust what a signal is showing to tell you if there is a train coming up behind you.

One of the first rules you are taught on the railway - don't rely on the lookout using signal aspects for your protection.

As for an opinion -We haven't any of the fold down signals yet on our patch, but it would certainly avoid the huge furore we are currently going through about working at height on signal structures by removing the need to work at height and following the first rule of working at height - to remove the need to work at height wherever possible.

But saying all that I'm still a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to signal structure design and the 'type' of light they should emit.

[St. Simon]

What's the point of the "pigs ears" on these signals, if you have stopped so close to the signal that you can't see the main aspect (due to the poor viewing angle) then you have to ask yourself if your driving to your companies 'defensive driving policy'!

I do think sometimes when reading your posts that you have this ideal view of the railway (drummed into you by your bosses) that in reality is nothing like what actually happens, as royaloak says 90% of his work mates hate these signals, but they still get erected, the feedback from my drivers is they are too bright and make judging distance difficult, but nothing will be done about it, signal sightings committees to me do nothing more than sit in an office with a computer model of a route and using complicated mathematical equations decide to "put signal X there so there is X amount of sighting time" sod the fact that signal X is a stop aspect 1/2 way up a pretty steep bank on a curve (and yes I have an example of that), I would be surprised if many of them have ever actually seen the front of a train on a route or spoke to drivers before deciding where to place signals

EDIT: Looking at your last post too "Ive met some very negative drivers in meetings", Was their opinion considered or just dismissed as being negative (rather than realistic)?

 

 

And universally ignored because the designers know best!

The spec is not drawn up by drivers (obviously),

Drivers are not involved in drawing up the spec at all,

Any negativity from drivers is ignored,

Any reports about poor sighting on corners is ignored 'because it is within spec',

 

No, I don't have an idealised view of the railway, there are things I don't agree with on the railway, and it's not perfect, I'll happily agree with that.

 

Neither am I saying that all drivers like the signals, it's just that there hasn't been any reports of it in the meetings I go to, there's obviously disagreement on these signals, but it is out of the schemes designers hands.

 

Signal Sighting committees are made up of very experienced drivers who drive the routes they sight almost everyday, we have come away from meetings with thoughts from drivers to say that this signal can't be placed there because of XYZ and we have done our best to accommodated the thoughts of the drivers, unfortunately sometimes it can't be done due to spacing constraints, loading gauge constraints, constructablity etc. But, at least in my office, we listern to drivers and take on board what they say.

 

Negative views are considered and if we can do something about, we try, but sometimes we can't and when we explain why, the negative view sometimes goes away.

 

When a scheme is approved, both in principle and for construction, it's the TOC's that say yes or no, as well as others, and it can't be signed off unless everybody agrees.

 

Simon

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

When a scheme is approved, both in principle and for construction, it's the TOC's that say yes or no, as well as others, and it can't be signed off unless everybody agrees.

 

 

The problem nowadays is that many of the people sent to do the sign-off suffer from tunnel vision based on their own job prospects / company commercial interests and do not have the broader experience of interfacing across several disciplines. 

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

 

No, I don't have an idealised view of the railway, there are things I don't agree with on the railway, and it's not perfect, I'll happily agree with that.

 

Neither am I saying that all drivers like the signals, it's just that there hasn't been any reports of it in the meetings I go to, there's obviously disagreement on these signals, but it is out of the schemes designers hands.

 

Signal Sighting committees are made up of very experienced drivers who drive the routes they sight almost everyday, we have come away from meetings with thoughts from drivers to say that this signal can't be placed there because of XYZ and we have done our best to accommodated the thoughts of the drivers, unfortunately sometimes it can't be done due to spacing constraints, loading gauge constraints, constructablity etc. But, at least in my office, we listern to drivers and take on board what they say.

 

Negative views are considered and if we can do something about, we try, but sometimes we can't and when we explain why, the negative view sometimes goes away.

 

When a scheme is approved, both in principle and for construction, it's the TOC's that say yes or no, as well as others, and it can't be signed off unless everybody agrees.

 

Simon

 

But unless things have changed greatly Simon the TOCs etc are only signing-off under Network Change procedures and they are only signing a plan - not for such things as individual types of signal head by manufacturer/design or indeed in respect of signal sighting.  It then depends very much on who looks at the plan within the operating company concerned and whether or not they actually understand such documents and - even more importantly - can relate what's there on paper to real world operations.

 

I know of two people who have risen to very 'senior' ( a word I use advisedly) positions in TOCs who wouldn't even know if a signalling plan is the right way up let alone understand its contents.  One of them would no doubt immediately admit his lack of experience in dealing with such stuff because he is BR era and realises his limits and need for expert advice, the other most definitely would not because he hasn't got the first idea (as instanced by comments from another poster some time back on a thread about a totally different matter).  Sign off by operarting companies bears no resemblance at all to the old BR operating dept sign-off (although that anyway covered a wider range that TOC matters).

 

We also hear of changes to approved schemes, being made to  by Project Managers - some of whom have no railway operating or any sort of engineering experience at all - although that ought not to include changes to signalling.