Signalling for modellers who don't know much about signalling

[beast66606]

This I wouldn't take the instruction to look for "four reds and forty greens" as the genuine words of a LNWR driver to his fireman.

 

 

If he saw 4 reds and 40 greens then he should immediately apply the brakes and ask Rugby No.1 if his interlocking has become disarranged.

[Compound2632]

If he saw 4 reds and 40 greens then he should immediately apply the brakes and ask Rugby No.1 if his interlocking has become disarranged.

 

Sorry, yes, I got it the right way round first time - four greens and forty reds!

[Junctionmad]

I dont think the railway " industry " can take any solace in leading the way on safety , right from the early days Richard Moon and the LNWR argued vociferously against automatic vacuum brakes. and it took Armagh and more importantly legislation too compel railways to act.  This situation continued into recent  decades in my opinion, though the complexity of modern safety tends today to be referred only indirectly in modern legislation 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Junctionmad

[The Johnster]

The Railway industry resisted the technological advances provided by outside companies and promoted by the Board of Trade Railway Inspectorate for many years, with some having a worse record than others.  The GW was rather proud of itself for leading the way in this regard, with the LNWR and LBSCR being particularly reticent.  The LNW argued that automatic brakes would reduce the drivers' incentive to keep a good look out and moderate their speed, and the Brighton argued at the inquiry into the Clayton Tunnel accident, caused by inadequate block protection, that full blocks would similarly diminish drivers' regard for safety.  Most accidents in those days were caused either by driver error, but only because the systems to prevent them were inadequate.  

 

The majority of other companies fell between these 2 extremes.  Many did not really fall into line until the Government was persuaded to act and legislate after the Argmagh tragedy, itself the result of a breakdown of communication between the driver and a manager who overruled him, inadequate provision of motive power, no automatic brakes, and a permissive block.  Even the much vaunted GW had to pull it's socks up a bit away from the main lines after this!

 

Nowadays, the argument is monetary; life has a very well defined fiduciary value and is measured in terms of the cost to the TOC or NR of recompensing injured victims or the relatives or dependents of dead ones against the cost and return of new signalling systems and cab signalling in terms of road utilisation and extra paths.  It is very cold blooded, and all in the interest of 'efficiency', which is a code word for profitability and keeping the shareholders happy, ignoring the fact that some of the shareholders came to the AGM by train...

[jim.snowdon]

Up until the latter part of the last century safety improvements generally realised an unquestionable improvement at a cost that was affordable. Now, as the railways have got much safer as a consequence of those past improvements, the costs of achieving further safety improvements start to become disproportionate in relation to the benefit realised. It becomes inevitable that the value of human life ends up being factored in the cost of safety. If it wasn't, we would end up with the situation where the railways simply become too expensive and people take to less safe modes of transport, like the roads.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

we would end up with the situation where the railways simply become too expensive and people take to less safe modes of transport, like the roads.

 

Isn't that exactly where we've been for quite a considerable time?

[The Johnster]

Isn't that exactly where we've been for quite a considerable time?

 

 

No, passenger traffic has doubled in 20 years and is still increasing.  

[imt]

No, passenger traffic has doubled in 20 years and is still increasing.  

 

And should you doubt that try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain

 

You need to go down to "Annual Passenger Numbers" and on the way you pass a rail subsidy graph which also makes you draw breath.  Below it is fatalities per billion passengers miles - also relevant here.

[Compound2632]

No, passenger traffic has doubled in 20 years and is still increasing.  

 

 

And should you doubt that try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain

 

You need to go down to "Annual Passenger Numbers" and on the way you pass a rail subsidy graph which also makes you draw breath.  Below it is fatalities per billion passengers miles - also relevant here.

 

OK, I'm convinced. I think it must just be a personal perception - a long-distance rail journey seems much less affordable to me than it did thirty years ago, even allowing for having had a student railcard in those days! And when I do travel, the trains seem far more crowded.

[imt]

OK, I'm convinced. I think it must just be a personal perception - a long-distance rail journey seems much less affordable to me than it did thirty years ago, even allowing for having had a student railcard in those days! And when I do travel, the trains seem far more crowded.

 

I don't think anybody was suggesting that it was cheaper in real terms - but it is safer per passenger mile by a long, long way than any of the rivals (bus, long distance coach, air and especially motor vehicle!) this is not to say that it could not be safer - but Jim Snowdon's point about decreasing returns for further safety investment is a good one.  Again not a reason for not trying.

[Pacific231G]

And should you doubt that try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain

 

You need to go down to "Annual Passenger Numbers" and on the way you pass a rail subsidy graph which also makes you draw breath.  Below it is fatalities per billion passengers miles - also relevant here.

What period was the fatalities per billion passenger miles for?  Simply because fatal rail crashes are so unusual  these figures will, unless they're over a very long period, be distorted by a couple of bad accidents. It looks like he's only used the 2013 figures which include the Santiago de Compostela derailment in Spain which killed 79 people. He's also badly misinterpreted the EU data by quoting the overall deaths and serious injuries figures as "fatalities".Fatality rates for passengers are far lower than these.

The subsidy figures are also taken from a range of different sources so I'd be very suspicious of their statistical validity if indeed they have any validity at all.

 

I did look at comparative fatality statistics mainly for the EU countries a few years ago and cars were about ten to fifteen times as dangerous for their passengers per billion passenger kilometres as rail. I think that for the UK which has relatively fewer road fatalities than most outher countries cars were about ten times as dangerous as rail.

 

Scheduled air travel had slightly fewer fatalities than rail per billion passenger kilometres but was about as dangerous as road per billion passenger hours. Because the vast majority of fatal air accidents happen on take-off, approach, landing, and on the ground with a far lower risk in the cruise, long haul flights lower the overall risk so flying over the sort of distances also typical of railway journeys is therefore probably riskier both in  fatalities per distance and fatalities per hour than rail. An EU report in 2003 calculated that rail was safer than scheduled air for journeys of less than 600km but air travel was safer than rail for journeys of over 800km. If you're interested in transport safety it makes for interesting reading http://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2003_transport_safety_stats_eu_overview.pdf

though fatality levels for most forms of transport will have improved somewhat since then. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Pacific231G

[The Johnster]

Modern British rail travel is very safe indeed, but there are worrying aspects.  Overcrowding means that the casualty rate in any accident is likely to be high, especially amongst those standing and crowding the vestibules, heavy traffic means reduced headways as paths are exploited to the maximum possible, the constant need for staff to work overtime and rest days in some areas increases fatigue and reduces concentration.  A general culture of being under pressure and barely able to cope, sometimes clearly unable to cope, saps staff morale, and industrial relations are not especially good at the moment (I will refrain from comment about responsibility for this).  None of these issues are conducive to the best possible safety practices, and in any case we cannot afford the best possible safety practices.

 

Matters have improved since the Railtrack era, and NR is to be credited for much of this, but NR are under increasing pressure to perform down to a price rather than up to a standard as memories fade of the bad old days of 2 decades ago and safety becomes taken for granted.  Railways in Britain have always been seen as something that should make money, never as a public service carried on for what KIng Alfred the Great of Wessix called the 'general weal' when he charged local villagers with the upkeep of roads and bridges in their localities, for which they could claim payment from him, nor, as traditionally in some European countries, as part of the national defence network in military terms and the responsibility of government.  Privatised railways are expected to fight their own financial battles as well as satisfy the needs of their shareholders, or go under, so they feel some justification in expecting a return for their money.  Money spent on safety has to be limited to what is consistent with that return; such an approach is usually fine until the accident (which by it's nature is unplanned and unexpected), but is vulnerable to being upset by a bad accident such as Armagh (continuous automatic fail safe brakes, absolute block), Thirsk (staff working hours and staffing levels), Charfield (gas lighting), Harrow and Wealdstone/Lewisham (AWS), or Ladbroke Grove (Corporate Responsibility).  The capacity of human beings, especially human beings under pressure, to defeat the rules and systems that prevent them from running trains into each other, is remarkable!

[Junctionmad]

To try and return to the topic, the safety of plastic passengers on model railways seems to be excellent, with no recorded fatalities albeit I am aware of a few that melted !

[RailWest]

To try and return to the topic, the safety of plastic passengers on model railways seems to be excellent, with no recorded fatalities albeit I am aware of a few that melted !

...probably due to the fact that most of them never get into the carriages !

[The Johnster]

And those that do are safely superglued into position.  Check your smoothness of driving by not gluing them into their seats and see how long they stay there; a real situation that can propel passengers from their seats is a pretty heavy shunt!

[LNER4479]

Ah, we're back to models again. Goodo.

 

Here is another Grantham signal and for once we have a simple-as-can-be solo stop signal. Or do we...?

 

This signal guards the entrance to Peascliffe tunnel which was - and indeed still is(!) - a mile or so north of the station, in open countryside. Signals at the entrance to tunnels were / are by no means uncommon; if it were a long-ish tunnel then it made sense to make it (the tunnel) part of the block section and have boxes either side. Signalboxes in the middle of (long) tunnels were not the most practical of working arrangements. (Stands by for an avalanche of pictures of signal boxes inside tunnels...)

[Photo by Tony Wright]

 

This view shows the preceding signal on the down main, which has already been featured. On the model, the distant arm on this latter signal relates to the signal by the tunnel which can also be seen in the picture, about nine feet and 90deg away.

 

Issue is, by chopping out a mile or so of prototype railway, we end up with a compromise arrangement. In reality, the distant on the signal at Grantham North related to the next box along at Barrowby road. There was then a further box at the south end of the tunnel which in reality controlled the signal by the tunnel. So I've chopped out a whole block section and two signal boxes and fused the tunnel signal to be part of the North Box level frame, even though it has a distant signal relating to it, which implies two separate boxes.

 

Thing is, it works fine as an operational arrangement for the layout and the operation of both this (stop) signal and the related distant arm operate correctly in their own right. An acceptable compromise (typical when a modelling project tries to replicate something which is impossibly large), or too large a credibility gap? Any views of interest (although I won't be changing it anytime soon).

 

As an historical side note, the signal by the tunnel and associated box were replaced in 1937 by a colour light signal as part of a cost saving exercise. You can see the new c/light signal (hooded) waiting to be commissioned.

Edited November 9, 2017 by LNER4479

[RailWest]

>>>Signalboxes in the middle of (long) tunnels were not the most practical of working arrangements. (Stands by for an avalanche of pictures of signal boxes inside tunnels...)...

 

Apart from the obvious examples of 'undergound' railways, IIRC there was a box in the tunnel near St Pancras, but I'm not aware (yet!) of any others.....

[iands]

>>>Signalboxes in the middle of (long) tunnels were not the most practical of working arrangements. (Stands by for an avalanche of pictures of signal boxes inside tunnels...)...

 

Apart from the obvious examples of 'undergound' railways, IIRC there was a box in the tunnel near St Pancras, but I'm not aware (yet!) of any others.....

I don't have a photo (but I'm sure someone will post one), Totley tunnel had a signal box within it (Totley East). It wasn't in the "middle" (i.e. equidistant from each end), but closer to Sheffield and the 'eastern end' of the tunnel - hence its name.

 

Regards, Ian.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I don't have a photo (but I'm sure someone will post one), Totley tunnel had a signal box within it (Totley East). It wasn't in the "middle" (i.e. equidistant from each end), but closer to Sheffield and the 'eastern end' of the tunnel - hence its name.

 

Regards, Ian.

Totley Tunnel East box is in the cutting outside the tunnel Edited November 9, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[iands]

Totley Tunnel East box is in the cutting outside the tunnel

TheSignalEngineer,

 

Many thanks, I realised about 5 minutes ago I was talking rubbish re Totley East but couldn't get the retraction done in time. I think I need to go and lie down in a dark room for a while.

 

Regards, Ian.

[TheSignalEngineer]

There was a box in the tunnel between Kings Cross station on the Widened Lines and Dock Junction. It was accessed by a spiral staircase at the West side of St Pancras station. There was also a box in the tunnel at the Farringdon end of Snow Hill station. I remember getting into that tunnel via a staircase behind a door in the wall by Smithfield Market.

[St Enodoc]

There was a box in the tunnel between Kings Cross station on the Widened Lines and Dock Junction. It was accessed by a spiral staircase at the West side of St Pancras station. There was also a box in the tunnel at the Farringdon end of Snow Hill station. I remember getting into that tunnel via a staircase behind a door in the wall by Smithfield Market.

Try this link:

 

http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2316

[St Enodoc]

There were also signal boxes at each station on the Great Northern & City line http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7944 but it seems that these were at the stations rather than in the tunnels themselves. I suspect that there must have been several underground signal boxes on other parts of the Underground too.

[beast66606]

>>>Signalboxes in the middle of (long) tunnels were not the most practical of working arrangements. (Stands by for an avalanche of pictures of signal boxes inside tunnels...)...

 

Apart from the obvious examples of 'undergound' railways, IIRC there was a box in the tunnel near St Pancras, but I'm not aware (yet!) of any others.....

 

River Bed on the Mersey was not only in a tunnel - it was under the River Mersey ! (The Mersey was mixed underground and overground but never wombling free)

[RailWest]

Try this link:

 

http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2316

That's the one I had in mind :-)

Edited November 9, 2017 by RailWest