Calling On Discussion

[neilb62]

Many years ago the subsidiary signal that displays two white lights at 45 degrees could have a third aspect in the spare lens (the one that shows red on a position light signal). This could display C for 'calling on' W for 'warning' and S for 'shunt' as the location dictated. Long out of use now it does though show the association of the terms with colour light signalling.

 

[carriageline]

Well you seem very very keen to put down your opinion on this thread into this incident. Position lights are not "calling on" signals. They are permissive working signals with the associated rules of permissive working.

Jesus Christ.

A position light signal isn't necessarily a calling on signal, but if a position light signal is used in a platform environment for permissive working then it's otherwise known as calling on signals. I've heard drivers, signallers, track staff call it these!

They are not "permissive working signals" either...

 

[Deepgreen]

Should actually be called a 'Calling-on Signal' - hyphenated. However, I don't wish to descend into pedantry here (that's what Private Eye is for!).

 

[MarkyT]

The term 'calling on' or 'call on' is still used formally in signalling design to define a 'class' of route (a particular locked path from one signal to the next) and to differentiate it from a 'shunt class' route. Both route classes use the same position light aspect and the Rule Book no longer differentiates between the two in colour light signalling because the driving behaviour on receiving this aspect is the same, i.e. proceed at caution able to stop short of any obstruction at maximum 15MPH. A call-on route is provided in addition to a 'main' route for entering station platforms in order that a second train or a locomotive can be admitted when the platform is already occupied for joining, run-round etc, or simply for platform sharing by two separate services. The latter use has been frowned upon for many years and shouldn't be planned for in the timetable although it is still available for emergencies. The latest signalling schemes often use additional mid platform signals or a special marker signs of some form to delimit various parts of long platforms for sharing purposes. All new installations with permissive working are very carefully risk assessed looking at sighting on approach etc. call on routes are used from a main signal to a main signal and are available for passenger trains. They are usually automatically selected by the interlocking instead of the corresponding main route when particular track circuits in the line of route are occupied. Some calling on routes have measuring track circuits at the entrance signal to prevent overfilling of the platform. This is particularly important at dead end terminals and bays where such an occurrence could result in complete deadlock of the station throat with no means of safely signalling the overlong train back out again. These measuring facilities are termed 'Lime Street' controls (after an incident in Liverpool I believe). Shunt routes are usually provided to and from sidings and and for short routes from a main signal to an intermediate ground position light not associated with a main signal. All routes from such a ground position light are classed as 'shunt'. Shunt routes are not normally available to loaded passenger trains.

 

[SPADTrap]

I can't believe this discussion happened. I use the term and I was boiled in a bag! :razz:

 

[MichaelAMW]

The term 'calling on' or 'call on' is still used formally in signalling design to define a 'class' of route (a particular locked path from one signal to the next) and to differentiate it from a 'shunt class' route. Both route classes use the same position light aspect and the Rule Book no longer differentiates between the two in colour light signalling because the driving behaviour on receiving this aspect is the same, i.e. proceed at caution able to stop short of any obstruction at maximum 15MPH. A call-on route is provided in addition to a 'main' route for entering station platforms in order that a second train or a locomotive can be admitted when the platform is already occupied for joining, run-round etc, or simply for platform sharing by two separate services. The latter use has been frowned upon for many years and shouldn't be planned for in the timetable although it is still available for emergencies. The latest signalling schemes often use additional mid platform signals or a special marker signs of some form to delimit various parts of long platforms for sharing purposes. All new installations with permissive working are very carefully risk assessed looking at sighting on approach etc. call on routes are used from a main signal to a main signal and are available for passenger trains. They are usually automatically selected by the interlocking instead of the corresponding main route when particular track circuits in the line of route are occupied. Some calling on routes have measuring track circuits at the entrance signal to prevent overfilling of the platform. This is particularly important at dead end terminals and bays where such an occurrence could result in complete deadlock of the station throat with no means of safely signalling the overlong train back out again. These measuring facilities are termed 'Lime Street' controls (after an incident in Liverpool I believe). Shunt routes are usually provided to and from sidings and and for short routes from a main signal to an intermediate ground position light not associated with a main signal. All routes from such a ground position light are classed as 'shunt'. Shunt routes are not normally available to loaded passenger trains.

Thanks for this - very interesting. So what's the story at a station such as Nottingham that was resignalled a couple of years ago and has multiple occupation of most platforms every hour on a routine basis? Is it simply what you have said, that the risk assessment has decided it's acceptable, e.g. because the platforms are largely straight, hence good visibility, and the speed is only 15mph.

 

[MarkyT]

Thanks for this - very interesting. So what's the story at a station such as Nottingham that was resignalled a couple of years ago and has multiple occupation of most platforms every hour on a routine basis? Is it simply what you have said, that the risk assessment has decided it's acceptable, e.g. because the platforms are largely straight, hence good visibility, and the speed is only 15mph.

I expect that is the case. I haven't seen the detailed signalling plans but I understand each of the long platforms is split into several shorter track circuits that are separately indicated on the control screens so the signaller can judge the space available accurately. These are the only track circuits on the scheme apparently which otherwise uses axle counters for train detection. Track circuits are used in the platforms to overcome a known reliability problem with axle counters where a section can sometimes remain falsely occupied after a wheel has stopped directly over a sensor then moves away again in the other direction.

 

[455driver]

If I called a position light a "calling on" signal in my summary assessment I'm pretty sure I would fail that question. You may refer to them as "calling on" signals but it's not what the rule book refers to them as.

Does it refer to them as dots, dollys, dummy, cats eyes etc etc?
These are all terms used for position light signals, if I was asked to go behind any of these things I would know what was meant (clear understanding and all that) and would be able to comply with the instruction.

You carry on in your perfect little pedantic world if you like!:roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Does it refer to them as dots, dollys, dummy, cats eyes etc etc?
These are all terms used for position light signals, if I was asked to go behind any of these things I would know what was meant (clear understanding and all that) and would be able to comply with the instruction.

You carry on in your perfect little pedantic world if you like!:roll:

I really don't know why I even bothered at all. I challenged a post by someone who I thought was trying to put their own spin on a bad incident and mix a few facts and rumours into the mix of their posts, and I get attacked for being pedantic? Just goes to show what a state this forum is in now. I totally give up now.

But if you would rather attack me for being in my "perfect little pedantic world" then that's up to you.

 

[bramling]

I really don't know why I even bothered at all. I challenged a post by someone who I thought was trying to put their own spin on a bad incident and mix a few facts and rumours into the mix of their posts, and I get attacked for being pedantic? Just goes to show what a state this forum is in now. I totally give up now.

But if you would rather attack me for being in my "perfect little pedantic world" then that's up to you.

I really don't see the need for this thread to have degenerated into a farce.

Yes it's quite clear what the Rule Book says, and this is freely available for anyone to look up should they wish.

Equally it's plainly obvious everyone knows what is meant by the term "calling on", even if it isn't strictly relevant to the type of signaling in use at the location in question. There are terms which the industry uses which are either slang, superseded, or not strictly correct. Provided they don't form part of a safety-critical conversation, which this forum isn't, then there's no issue.

Our thoughts should be directed towards the driver. Whether the incident turns out to be due to any error on his part or not, it will have been an unpleasant experience, both in terms of the collision, the aftermath, and the investigation which will inevitably drag on for some time as far as he is concerned, with all the uncertainty associated with that. As always let's hope his management (and colleagues) are giving him the support he deserves.

 

[Dave1987]

I really don't see the need for this thread to have degenerated into a farce.

Yes it's quite clear what the Rule Book says, and this is freely available for anyone to look up should they wish.

Equally it's plainly obvious everyone knows what is meant by the term "calling on", even if it isn't strictly relevant to the type of signaling in use at the location in question. There are terms which the industry uses which are either slang, superseded, or not strictly correct. Provided they don't form part of a safety-critical conversation, which this forum isn't, then there's no issue.

To be honest I don't care any more. One person is seemingly allowed to get away with putting their own spin on what they think happened as long as they mix a few facts in with it. Yet if you dare to challenge the terminology you are attacked for being pedantic.

 

[bnm]

who I thought was trying to put their own spin on a bad incident and mix a few facts and rumours into the mix of their posts

You thought wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest I don't care any more. One person is seemingly allowed to get away with putting their own spin on what they think happened as long as they mix a few facts in with it. Yet if you dare to challenge the terminology you are attacked for being pedantic.

Care to name that person and point out their spin?

 

[Bromley boy]

The term 'calling on' or 'call on' is still used formally in signalling design to define a 'class' of route (a particular locked path from one signal to the next) and to differentiate it from a 'shunt class' route. Both route classes use the same position light aspect and the Rule Book no longer differentiates between the two in colour light signalling because the driving behaviour on receiving this aspect is the same, i.e. proceed at caution able to stop short of any obstruction at maximum 15MPH. A call-on route is provided in addition to a 'main' route for entering station platforms in order that a second train or a locomotive can be admitted when the platform is already occupied for joining, run-round etc, or simply for platform sharing by two separate services. The latter use has been frowned upon for many years and shouldn't be planned for in the timetable although it is still available for emergencies. The latest signalling schemes often use additional mid platform signals or a special marker signs of some form to delimit various parts of long platforms for sharing purposes. All new installations with permissive working are very carefully risk assessed looking at sighting on approach etc. call on routes are used from a main signal to a main signal and are available for passenger trains. They are usually automatically selected by the interlocking instead of the corresponding main route when particular track circuits in the line of route are occupied. Some calling on routes have measuring track circuits at the entrance signal to prevent overfilling of the platform. This is particularly important at dead end terminals and bays where such an occurrence could result in complete deadlock of the station throat with no means of safely signalling the overlong train back out again. These measuring facilities are termed 'Lime Street' controls (after an incident in Liverpool I believe). Shunt routes are usually provided to and from sidings and and for short routes from a main signal to an intermediate ground position light not associated with a main signal. All routes from such a ground position light are classed as 'shunt'. Shunt routes are not normally available to loaded passenger trains.

Out of interest, where do you get the 15mph requirement? I understand an off subsidiary signal to simply mean "proceed at caution but able to stop short", leaving the actual speed to drivers' discretion (although in practice this often may be considerably less than 15mph).

Quite an important point because there are areas where PoSA subsidiary signals are used where the line speed is higher than 15mph eg Thameslink core.

 

[ExRes]

Out of interest, where do you get the 15mph requirement? I understand an off subsidiary signal to simply mean "proceed at caution but able to stop short", leaving the actual speed to drivers' discretion (although in practice this often may be considerably less than 15mph).

Quite an important point because there are areas where PoSA subsidiary signals are used where the line speed is higher than 15mph eg Thameslink core.

I remember taking a unit into Victoria in my first week of minder driving and thinking how clever I was knowing all about the 15mph, after my minder had shredded my ears I realised the difference between a maximum speed and a proceed at caution but able to stop short, I must say that lesson stood me in very good stead for all the loco hauled work I didn't then know was on my horizon

 

[Bromley boy]

I remember taking a unit into Victoria in my first week of minder driving and thinking how clever I was knowing all about the 15mph, after my minder had shredded my ears I realised the difference between a maximum speed and a proceed at caution but able to stop short, I must say that lesson stood me in very good stead for all the loco hauled work I didn't then know was on my horizon

Those delights are in the near future for me (Victoria, not the loco-hauled work, sadly). Worryingly the 15mph limit is not mentioned in any of my TOC's training materials. Trying to find a rule book reference...

 

[Tomnick]

I'm not aware of any specified maximum speed for "caution" (other than examining the line for a track defect or in a tunnel!). There's so many factors involved - and not just in the context of running into a permissive platform. Whether some TOCs specify it in their policies or company instructions, I don't know, but I'm not sure that'd be wise.

 

[driver_m]

I'm not aware of any specified maximum speed for "caution" (other than examining the line for a track defect or in a tunnel!). There's so many factors involved - and not just in the context of running into a permissive platform. Whether some TOCs specify it in their policies or company instructions, I don't know, but I'm not sure that'd be wise.

You've just got to be able to stop short. That's what I was taught. An instructor I know got VERY grumpy at having to adhere to a set speed limit in these sort of situations. Said the main issue should be the 'feel' for getting it right every time. He'd have gone mental if anyone had started quoting maximum speed limits for being called on etc. His view was you should not be looking at speedos, you look in front.

 

[Phil.]

You've just got to be able to stop short. That's what I was taught. An instructor I know got VERY grumpy at having to adhere to a set speed limit in these sort of situations. Said the main issue should be the 'feel' for getting it right every time. He'd have gone mental if anyone had started quoting maximum speed limits for being called on etc. His view was you should not be looking at speedos, you look in front.

What an eminently sensible man. I'm glad to know that there's still people about with common sense rather than rigid rules.

 

[TDK]

To clear this mess up with all you people bickering "Calling on" is a phrase used by many to describe a time when you are "called on" into a permissive platform the signal is actually called a subsidiary signal and cannot display a stop aspect it can only display a proceed aspect and is "always" associated with a main aspect signal that will remain at danger.

A subsidiary signal is not always used for "calling on" but also used for shunting purposes.

A position light signal can in most cases display a stop aspect that is either 2 red aspects side by side or a white and a red aspect side by side, there are others that will display yellow but I won't get into that as it is irrelevant to the thread.

So there isn't really a calling on signal as a subsidiary signal can be used for shunting and calling on.

If you approach a signal and the subsidiary signal clears and you are entering a permissive platform you are expected to encounter that platform occupied however you can still receive a subsidiary signal if the train ahead has left the platform but is still in the overlap of the proceeding signal, in semaphore days you would get a "C" for calling on and a "W" if the train had left but was still in the overlap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What an eminently sensible man. I'm glad to know that there's still people about with common sense rather than rigid rules.

Sometimes common sense can lose you your job

 

[ExRes]

You've just got to be able to stop short. That's what I was taught. An instructor I know got VERY grumpy at having to adhere to a set speed limit in these sort of situations. Said the main issue should be the 'feel' for getting it right every time. He'd have gone mental if anyone had started quoting maximum speed limits for being called on etc. His view was you should not be looking at speedos, you look in front.

Have to say that I'm not that sure of an instructor/minder who gets 'very grumpy' at having to obey the rules

Certainly you drive by feel, any driver will agree to that, but you should be capable, as a matter of course, at watching the speedo and your front at the same time

He'd have had to think up a very good excuse for ignoring the speedo, but not seeing oil spillage on the rails, which caused him to slip into another train while the OTMR showed he was exceeding the speed limit

Tea anyone?

 

[LowLevel]

I suspect you'll get a significant difference in opinion here perhaps between newer drivers in some areas, and between those who maintain and operate the signalling who will deal with the function and signalling. I can say (albeit as a guard rather than driver) I've never been dressed down for referring to calling on in terms of permissive working (though admittedly if asked to draw a diagram of such a signal I'd label the 'cats eyes' as a position light). Our competency managers and assessors are rather more of the old school though.

However from a signalling perspective with knowledge of those rules and regulations, and some knowledge of the principles, they're firmly in my head as a call on as in operating them you need to bear in mind things like the regulation that you can't clear a signal to set a call on route when the section is occupied by a train and the signal at it's exit is off - I would imagine most layouts wouldn't let you now but you never know with older ones.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . the regulation that you can't clear a signal to set a call on route when the section is occupied by a train and the signal at it's exit is off - I would imagine most layouts wouldn't let you now but you never know with older ones.

There's a corresponding control that prevents clearing of the platform starter until an already cleared call on has completely arrived at the platform.

Known as 'Huddersfield controls' after an incident there. I think the idea is that the second train may come in less cautiously if the train in front is already moving off. Danger then arises if the first train suddenly comes to a stand again. Signalling schemes from the late 1980s onwards I think have these safegaurds.

There was a similar event at Reading when I worked there in the 1980s where a DMU coming empty out the depot ran into the back of a London bound HST departing platform 5.

 

[MichaelAMW]

There's a corresponding control that prevents clearing of the platform starter until an already cleared call on has completely arrived at the platform.

Known as 'Huddersfield controls' after an incident there. I think the idea is that the second train may come in less cautiously if the train in front is already moving off. Danger then arises if the first train suddenly comes to a stand again. Signalling schemes from the late 1980s onwards I think have these safegaurds.

There was a similar event at Reading when I worked there in the 1980s where a DMU coming empty out the depot ran into the back of a London bound HST departing platform 5.

In either case is there also a "read through" risk, where you see the platform starter "off" but don't realise there's a short train hidden behind a building?

 

[LowLevel]

In either case is there also a "read through" risk, where you see the platform starter "off" but don't realise there's a short train hidden behind a building?

That's what's happened in several accidents - I believe at Stafford where an empty EMU crashed into the back of an XC service about 30 years ago it was reckoned that the driver had got the position light into the occupied platform, saw the platform starter was off and drove straight into the back of the other train under power having not seen it. The driver was killed so it was never ascertained but evidence from the guard and platform staff earlier in the evening suggested somewhat that he may not have been fully alert.

 

[driver_m]

Have to say that I'm not that sure of an instructor/minder who gets 'very grumpy' at having to obey the rules

Certainly you drive by feel, any driver will agree to that, but you should be capable, as a matter of course, at watching the speedo and your front at the same time

He'd have had to think up a very good excuse for ignoring the speedo, but not seeing oil spillage on the rails, which caused him to slip into another train while the OTMR showed he was exceeding the speed limit

Tea anyone?

I posted it in that manner as I knew it would get a response. Most of you will be aware that trains didn't always have speedometers so would have had to drive by feel. The instructor I mentioned is one of the best, with a huge variety of traction, work, locations and knowledge. I'd trust him totally. An example of this is driving into platforms. We used to have a specified speed in, not any more. It was something like that what annoyed him as it meant not looking at what you should be doing which is stopping in the correct place. To infer that he would ignore rules deliberately is an insult to him. It's the emphasis on the speed rather than the action required that annoyed him.

 

[TDK]

I posted it in that manner as I knew it would get a response. Most of you will be aware that trains didn't always have speedometers so would have had to drive by feel. The instructor I mentioned is one of the best, with a huge variety of traction, work, locations and knowledge. I'd trust him totally. An example of this is driving into platforms. We used to have a specified speed in, not any more. It was something like that what annoyed him as it meant not looking at what you should be doing which is stopping in the correct place. To infer that he would ignore rules deliberately is an insult to him. It's the emphasis on the speed rather than the action required that annoyed him.

To be fair here, you said he got grumpy, many do not agree with some of the ridiculous rules set out and will have a moan about them but wouldn't breach them this guy you refer to seems to be one of these and there are many about who have the same thoughts. The drivers rule book in effect is an insurance policy and the TOC's PDP is a back covering publication.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm not aware of any specified maximum speed for "caution" (other than examining the line for a track defect or in a tunnel!). There's so many factors involved - and not just in the context of running into a permissive platform. Whether some TOCs specify it in their policies or company instructions, I don't know, but I'm not sure that'd be wise.

Not to labour a point. But from what I've read in the rule book/TOC training materials and the comments above I think this is right. The previous point about a blanket 15mph restriction when operating under subsidiary signals/calling on whatever people want to call it is not right. The requirement is just to travel at a speed from which you can stop short of any obstruction - notwithstanding any unmarked points that may be present which is perhaps where the confusion comes from.

 

[Johncleesefan]

The rule book defines caution as a speed you can stop short of any obstruction taking into account track curvature, weather, train brake capabilities etc. There is no set speed on subsidiaries, other than permissible line speed, other factors may be tpws grids set to activate above a certain speed under subsidiaries.

 

[dk1]

Goodness me. As somebody who has been on the railway for 32yrs including being a signalman & now as a driver, I never realised something so straight forward could be made out to be so flipping complicated. It's just being called on into an occupied platform but be prepared to stop short of any obstruction. The odd remote incident, which is exactly what this is & in these very very safe times, seems to cause an irrational response. Of course I hope all involved have a speedy recovery but let's keep things in perspective.

 

[moggie]

So, what we've all learned is that Drivers who's bible is the Rule Book no longer use the term Call On officially but many still recognise the term from days past.

Engineers of the signalling fraternity DO however use the term to identify a specific class of route to an occupied section (not necessarily a platform but typically so) and also to decide on the track proving controls in the interlocking as described earlier by Marky T to enable a position light signal associated with a main signal to clear to two white lights (OFF). Engineers will find the term Call On described in various Railway Group Standards / Network Rail Principles and standards.

In other words.......calm down, it's only a bloody forum!

So