O L Leigh
Established Member
This is where a driver's route knowledge comes into play and one of the main reasons why there isn't one simple answer to the question.
With respect, you will almost never have as good a view along the line of the signalling ahead from inside the train than the driver has from the front. You may be able to see the signals flashing, but the driver will have seen them first and they may not have been flashing when they first came into view or, indeed, until the train had got quite a bit closer to them.
But again, there is a difference between "reactive braking" due to signalling and "planned braking" where you expect a reduction in speed, as I hinted before. Signalling enforces a rate of deceleration that may not be optimum whereas route knowledge means that you can choose for yourself where to brake.
Anyway, that's enough of all that.
O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think I covered this adequately. You have to drive to the signalling you can see in front of you. You hope that the junction signal will clear to a less restrictive aspect but you can never assume that it will. That would be career suicide as it invites a SPAD or, at the very least, a heavy stop.
But I can assure you that it is still faster than approach control that brings a train almost to a stand at the junction signal. As I mentioned, it's down to route knowledge. You know in your mind what the speed across the junction is and where the next red signal will be (based on the aspects you can see). Therefore you brake and control the train speed accordingly. This is commonsense as I'm sure you can agree.
O L Leigh
Take your point about whether the route was set up at all. As it happens, I was just thinking of times when I've been having a peek out of the window and the route was set well in advance, i.e. the flashing double yellow was seen.
With respect, you will almost never have as good a view along the line of the signalling ahead from inside the train than the driver has from the front. You may be able to see the signals flashing, but the driver will have seen them first and they may not have been flashing when they first came into view or, indeed, until the train had got quite a bit closer to them.
But again, there is a difference between "reactive braking" due to signalling and "planned braking" where you expect a reduction in speed, as I hinted before. Signalling enforces a rate of deceleration that may not be optimum whereas route knowledge means that you can choose for yourself where to brake.
Anyway, that's enough of all that.
O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is this talk of passing the flashing double yellow at a reduced speed a defensive driving issue based on the driver knowing that the train is taking the diverging route before the signal comes into view? If so can somebody explain exactly what the safety benefit is? It seems to me that to bring the issue of a divergence into the driver's mind at this point may create an expectation of the normal junction signal sequence and hence increases the risk of a SPAD if the junction signal fails to release from single yellow. It is also slowing the train unnecessarily early, something the flashing aspect sequence is trying to avoid.
I think I covered this adequately. You have to drive to the signalling you can see in front of you. You hope that the junction signal will clear to a less restrictive aspect but you can never assume that it will. That would be career suicide as it invites a SPAD or, at the very least, a heavy stop.
But I can assure you that it is still faster than approach control that brings a train almost to a stand at the junction signal. As I mentioned, it's down to route knowledge. You know in your mind what the speed across the junction is and where the next red signal will be (based on the aspects you can see). Therefore you brake and control the train speed accordingly. This is commonsense as I'm sure you can agree.
O L Leigh