Procedure for reversing onto mainline.

This post id about mainline procedures when a failure requires a train to be reversed onto a mainline:
On Tuesday 11th Sept., I travelled on the Cathedrals Express from St Albans to Carlisle. The northbound train as far as Hellifield consisted of:
WCR 47760, hauling Stratford Group 47580 and a rake of 11 assorted MKI & MKII coaches.
On the return journey, the locos weren't turned so 47580 led with 47760 coasting.
All was well until just after the first drop off at Chesterfield (near Clay Cross) when the train stopped. It was announced that fitters on board werre wttending to the failure. About 20 minuites later the train drew forward slowly for a mile or two and then stopped again. Shortly after, an announcement was made that the loco had failed and as the train had moved onto the goods loop (at Stonebroom) it would be uncoupled and following Network Rail giveing permission, the train would back onto the mainline and then continue it's journey. This permission took 50 minutes whist a stream of freight and passenger trains passed us on the mainline. Eventually, a guard walked through to the rear of the train and the reversing started. There was a northbound freight held before the exit of the goods loop and another southbound freight beyond it. The stricken train reversed over the crossover onto the northbound line to clear the loop entry points. Then the trains proceeded southbound, 2 hours late.
Now, after all that background, here is the point of the post. Several passengers were concerned about reversing onto the mainline having seen a string of southbound trains pass us. I had faith in the signalling operating safely but wondered if the positioning of trains either side of the crossover was a protection measure to compensate for what seemed like limited overlaps, or whether the trains were so stacked up that they had already got to those locations before the reversing move started.
Any explanation would be gratefully received.

Those trains won't be used for protection - the signalling system does that using signals placed at danger. Those trains will have stopped at those danger signals.
Sometimes the signalling system may require a train to be 'proved' to have stopped at a danger signal by occupying a track circuit for a minimum amount of time before allowing a conflicting signal to clear, where there may be reduced overlaps for example.

Surreytraveller said:

Those trains won't be used for protection - the signalling system does that using signals placed at danger. Those trains will have stopped at those danger signals.
Sometimes the signalling system may require a train to be 'proved' to have stopped at a danger signal by occupying a track circuit for a minimum amount of time before allowing a conflicting signal to clear, where there may be reduced overlaps for example.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I assumed that ultimately the signals were there providing the protection, but the short overlap did seem to be quite unreal given the nature of the line.
The upturn was that such a delay meant that the WCR train had missed it's path south of Leicester as there was an overnight possession south of that so the train had to run the loco round to take off at Syston and run round the Melton Mowbray to Corby loop, taking another 50 minutes in total.

AM9 said:

Several passengers were concerned about reversing onto the mainline having seen a string of southbound trains pass us.

Click to expand...

This sort of thing baffles me. Why do people second guess professionals who have years of training and experience? People do it with airlines all the time, also, suggesting that pilots shouldn't have done something, or that it was "too rough" to be safe, etc etc. These people have trained their entire lives to make a safe decision and implement that in a safe way, and yet members of the public seem to think they know better.

Intermodal said:

This sort of thing baffles me. Why do people second guess professionals who have years of training and experience? People do it with airlines all the time, also, suggesting that pilots shouldn't have done something, or that it was "too rough" to be safe, etc etc. These people have trained their entire lives to make a safe decision and implement that in a safe way, and yet members of the public seem to think they know better.

Click to expand...

To be fair it could equally be a brand new signaller with only 12 weeks signalling school and maybe 12 more weeks of learning their workstation or panel and this was their first (big) failure to deal with just after passing out. There is quite a big range of experience out there in the grade now. I work i a large ASC and newbies are always assisted one way or another (whilst on their P plate to use a car based analogy) until their confidence improves.

Intermodal said:

This sort of thing baffles me. Why do people second guess professionals who have years of training and experience? People do it with airlines all the time, also, suggesting that pilots shouldn't have done something, or that it was "too rough" to be safe, etc etc. These people have trained their entire lives to make a safe decision and implement that in a safe way, and yet members of the public seem to think they know better.

Click to expand...

To be fair, if you watch the aircraft investigation programs on Nat Geog, most of the accidents are down to human error by pilots, air traffic controllers, engineers etc. Very few are caused by mechanical failure, weather, etc.

Same with trains, most collisions seem to be due to driver error (Mostly SPADs), and maintenance issues (Grayrigg) - again few are genuinely not human caused.

If humans were so good at not making mistakes, you wouldn't need the failsafe systems!

In case any here are offended that some passengers were concerned, it wasn't a big thing. They didn't mention it to any onboard staff, - they just raised eyebrows and looked a bit surprised. I don't think that they were enthusiasts.
What did surprise me and others was the sheer number of freight trains on the MML. I thought that the volume had shrunk much more over recent years. The MML at St Albans is about 1.5 miles from here and even in the quiet at night, whilst the motor whine of the class 700s can sometines be heard, diesel locos and freight trains are rarely audible.

Intermodal said:

This sort of thing baffles me. Why do people second guess professionals who have years of training and experience? People do it with airlines all the time, also, suggesting that pilots shouldn't have done something, or that it was "too rough" to be safe, etc etc. These people have trained their entire lives to make a safe decision and implement that in a safe way, and yet members of the public seem to think they know better.

Click to expand...

To be honest, some people's attitude to flying is bizarre. They don't aprreciate that driving from their home to an airport is far mare hazardous than any scheduled flight, even Garuda or Aeroflot! It seems to be some naïve sense of being in control. Rail doesn't bring such an irrational fear of death, except it seems when something unusual happens en route.

Sunset route said:

There is quite a big range of experience out there in the grade now.

Click to expand...

Of course. Certainly though I think you would struggle to find an accident where a passenger could reliably predict it and doing so would've prevented the accident. The ICE crash is the exception to this rule.

underbank said:

To be fair, if you watch the aircraft investigation programs on Nat Geog, most of the accidents are down to human error by pilots, air traffic controllers, engineers etc. Very few are caused by mechanical failure, weather, etc.

Click to expand...

Again, very true. However I think to fear the unlikely is a huge problem in our society. The amount of fear caused by terrorist attacks which are less frequent than lightning strikes is my favourite example. People live in fear of things that will rarely, if ever, happen to them and do not appreciate the risks of things that are incredibly common, like driving a car. This misdirection of appropriate emotion is the source of a lot of problems!

AM9 said:

In case any here are offended that some passengers were concerned

Click to expand...

Not offended - just find it extremely curious. Of course everybody has a right to their own thoughts and concerns, I just wish they were more appropriately directed.

Intermodal said:

This sort of thing baffles me. Why do people second guess professionals who have years of training and experience? People do it with airlines all the time, also, suggesting that pilots shouldn't have done something, or that it was "too rough" to be safe, etc etc. These people have trained their entire lives to make a safe decision and implement that in a safe way, and yet members of the public seem to think they know better.

Click to expand...

The professionals aren't always right. You wouldn't believe the flouting that goes on in the maritime industry. Aviation still suffers from "the wrong stuff".

Out of interest was the train 'top & tailed' with a loco at each end of the working? If the move could not continue forward and the train had to return to the previous station then there is no issue with that, but it may be the move was unsignalled. This may have required the operation of a ground frame set of points to be set for the movement undertaken - which would require a member of trained response staff to attend the points/frame. That would inevitably cause a delay to other services, beyond the initial train failure.

High Dyke said:

Out of interest was the train 'top & tailed' with a loco at each end of the working? If the move could not continue forward and the train had to return to the previous station then there is no issue with that, but it may be the move was unsignalled. This may have required the operation of a ground frame set of points to be set for the movement undertaken - which would require a member of trained response staff to attend the points/frame. That would inevitably cause a delay to other services, beyond the initial train failure.

Click to expand...

My understanding, from the events described, is that the train was signalled inside at Morton Jn, the (failed) leading loco, then the good loco propelled the whole lot back out onto the Down side behind the turnback signal before crossing back over to the Up to continue the journey. All signalled moves, at least unless the failed loco was propelled forward to be dumped out of the way, and seemingly a relatively simple situation to get out of!

GrimShady said:

You wouldn't believe the flouting that goes on in the maritime industry.

Click to expand...

Point taken very well. I was at sea for 3 years

Intermodal said:

Point taken very well. I was at sea for 3 years

Click to expand...

If only they knew mate!

Also if it's possible to do so, you can give extra train protection for the train shunting on the mainline, by setting the points in a way, to stop any oncoming SPAD from crashing into the train.

Statto said:

Also if it's possible to do so, you can give extra train protection for the train shunting on the mainline, by setting the points in a way, to stop any oncoming SPAD from crashing into the train.

Click to expand...

The signals wouldn't be able to be cleared unless that had been done. That's what interlocking is for.

A shunt move coming out onto the mainline, propelled or otherwise, isn't really any different to a running movement signalled out of a loop or a converging route at a junction. If it's clear of the overlap of the protecting signal(s), then all is well, and if "extra protection" is deemed necessary then it'll be enforced or provided by the interlocking, e.g. conditional double reds.

The only difference, really, is the additional risk with it being propelled, and that relates to the shunt movement itself rather than the risk of other trains overrunning protecting signals. Broadly, you don't want to give it authority to start the movement until the route's set right through, and there's no conflicting movements immediately beyond the limit of the movement, because the driver's reliant on someone else to control the movement which increases the risk of it sneaking past a signal at danger.

A reversing move out of a loop over a crossover is then on the "right line" so can carry on until it gets to a red signal (and given the amount of delay the preceding train is probably miles away). Reversing out of a loop not over a crossover would be "wrong line". If signalled at all the move would have to stop before the limit of shunt. That's just two small red lights on the ground and there might be a risk of missing it with the driver at the wrong end and people involved probably not being too familiar with an unusual move. Not a high risk but more risky than what was actually done (but not necessarily the reason for doing that).

One of the last emergency NRN broadcasts I heard was aimed at a shunt move out of a yard that had gone on a bang road adventure beyond the limit of shunt...

the sniper said:

One of the last emergency NRN broadcasts I heard was aimed at a shunt move out of a yard that had gone on a bang road adventure beyond the limit of shunt...

Click to expand...

I presume this would be treated as a SPAD for the driver?

Intermodal said:

I presume this would be treated as a SPAD for the driver?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Tomnick said:

My understanding, from the events described, is that the train was signalled inside at Morton Jn, the (failed) leading loco, then the good loco propelled the whole lot back out onto the Down side behind the turnback signal before crossing back over to the Up to continue the journey. All signalled moves, at least unless the failed loco was propelled forward to be dumped out of the way, and seemingly a relatively simple situation to get out of!

Click to expand...

Aye, fair enough. Thanks.

Just come across this thread. I was driving the north bound freight that was held to let the failed train propel onto the mainline.
Just wondered if the passengers could hear my 'oh FFS!'
To be fair the signaller said that I was held for a failed train so might be there some time, when in fact it only took about 15 minutes.