• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The shadow of monarchy is preserved in British railroading

Status
Not open for further replies.

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
1,040
A very selective quote from an article about the aftermath of the Amtrak 91 fatal accident on 4 February 2018. In the introduction the author explains the “absolute block” and “manual block” operation.
When automatic signal systems are removed from service, the operating environment reverts to that existing on 40% of the U.S. rail network: “dark territory.” How very 19th century. Indeed, the train control systems in dark territory are one or another iteration of the 19th century systems of “absolute block” or “manual block,” updated with radio technology to the 20th century’s track warrant control system. All of these are the legacy of the British “philosophy” that a single train cannot collide with itself. Seriously. Apparently the British had, once again, failed to account for Yankee Ingenuity.

The original version, “token block,” bestowed a symbol of authority, a token, upon a train to utilize the track. No other train could use that section until the token had been returned. The shadow of monarchy, with its token, a scepter representing sovereign authority, is preserved in the substance of British railroading.

A single train is given absolute authority to enter and utilize a section of track. That train becomes the “sovereign” in that block. This means that all switches that might allow for conflicting movement with our “sovereign” train must be known to be lined and locked for the sovereign and against the movement of any “pretender” train to the throne of authority.
Makes me wonder whether the "token block" would have been developed if 19th century Britain had been a republic, not a monarchy :s;)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,092
I think the writer is confusing Block systems, of various sorts, with Interlocking. The Buttevant accident in Ireland, for example, was operating very traditional Absolute Block, but someone had disconnected the interlocking to the facing points and a not dissimilar accident to the Amtrak one occured.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
Not to mention that CTC ("automatic signalling") systems are also based on blocks.

Anyone remember the Professor Branestawm story where he built a railway and decided he only had one train so there was no need for signals? I think the train was divided and the two parts crashed into each other.
 

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
1,040
Anyone remember the Professor Branestawm story where he built a railway and decided he only had one train so there was no need for signals? I think the train was divided and the two parts crashed into each other.
We're getting diverted, but here we go..
What kind of signals can prevent one part of a divided train crashing into the other?
 

eastwestdivide

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
2,551
Location
S Yorks, usually
I think in associating the token with the monarchy, the author was seeing what they wanted to see, or else fishing around for a way to explain the concept.
 

TwistedMentat

Member
Joined
2 Oct 2016
Messages
151
I think in associating the token with the monarchy, the author was seeing what they wanted to see, or else fishing around for a way to explain the concept.

Agreed. I have no love for the monarchy but this seems like quite the stretch. You could just as easily attach the token to the gavel of the judiciary or the mace of the House of Representatives. It's just a thing that has convention around it.
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,352
As others have already mentioned it sounds like the author has gotten his signalling systems mixed up. What he is describing as 'absolute block' being used on certain US railroad lines sounds an awful lot like Radio Electronic Token Block to me, though that said I almost get the I impression the American Railroads haven't heard of interlocking yet which is what prevents a lot of accidents and may have prevented this one. Absolute Block in this country uses interlocking signals and points (switches to our American friends) and completely revolutionised railway safety in the 19th century, infallible it isn't but its nothing like what that article describes it is. Doesn't help he uses Token Block as example when it's completely different to Absolutely Block.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,432
These colonials do have some odd ideas!

On another forum I've just described token operation as "basically possession of a stick". :D

Hardly regal.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
What he is describing as 'absolute block' being used on certain US railroad lines sounds an awful lot like Radio Electronic Token Block to me
More like Radio non-Electronic non-Token Block. Trains are allowed to proceed on the authority of the timetable or on "train orders" radioed out by the central dispatcher. There is no mechanical safeguard whatever and it is even possible to leave switches lying in the wrong setting, as appears to have happened in the accident under discussion. RETB in the UK uses electronic messages as the authority to proceed, which are governed by an interlocking so conflicting messages cannot be given out. Points in RETB areas are used at low speed with indicators to confirm correct setting to drivers.

I almost get the I impression the American Railroads haven't heard of interlocking yet which is what prevents a lot of accidents and may have prevented this one.
America has had "interlockings" at key junctions for a long time but initially they were isolated with timetable and train order for the sections in between. However most American main lines are now under Centralised Traffic Control which is quite a lot like British track circuit block - in fact many of the older British power signalling schemes were based on American technology (the second half of GEC-General Signal was one of the major American suppliers). The extent of centralisation would make Network Rail blush - IIRC the Union Pacific controls its whole network from one room.

The accident site appears to have been fitted with CTC but it appears the regulations allow reversion to the old system when the CTC is out of use. We would only do this by hand signalling at very low speeds.

On another forum I've just described token operation as "basically possession of a stick". :D

Hardly regal.
We do have a flummerous official post known as "black rod" though.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,092
Anyone remember the Professor Branestawm story where he built a railway and decided he only had one train so there was no need for signals? I think the train was divided and the two parts crashed into each other.
This is similar to the accident on the German Maglev prototype a few years ago. It was such high tech that the clever signalling communicated between Maglev trains immaculately, although as there was only one in use it was seen as not necessary on the day. Unfortunately, there was a rubber-tyred maintenance vehicle that was completely out of this loop, which was working down the line when the key Maglev vehicle crashed into it at full speed and was destroyed, killing a significant number of the engineers and managers on the project, which was shortly afterwards abandoned. There were no crumple zones or collision-dissipating strengthening of the lightweight vehicle, as of course accidents were impossible with the new technology. Any railway engineer would have spotted such control voids from the start, but of course they had been excluded from such a high-tech project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
 
Last edited:

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,187
Location
Cambridge
The author is spot on. Yankee Ingenuity continually finds new ways for trains to collide or fall off the tracks which would in the 21st century be unthinkable in most of the world, not least Britain
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,976
Location
Hope Valley
Getting back to the 'token'/train staff thing, I am sure that I remember reading in a book somewhere that it started on one of the early wagonways in Northumberland or Durham. There was a single track tunnel and it was soon found that it was rather hard to undertake 'propelling'/reverse movements with horse-drawn chauldron wagons when a subterranean meet occurred.

Somebody had the idea of breaking off a tree branch, having to carry it through the tunnel and then leave it at the far end. This was quickly adapted to a train staff, with no reference to the Royal Sceptre.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,777
As long as they continue to insist on having undetected, unsecured hand points that depend entirely on traincrew setting them correctly on their main lines the American railroads will keep having spectacular and deadly crashes with monotonous regularity. It’s a completely different culture out there and one that is very difficult to understand from a European perspective.
 

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
1,040
Somebody had the idea of breaking off a tree branch, having to carry it through the tunnel and then leave it at the far end. This was quickly adapted to a train staff, with no reference to the Royal Sceptre.
Are you sure the Royal Sceptre wasn't the inspiration for the tree branch solution?? Certainly there is some visual similarity....
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,851
Location
St Neots
As long as they continue to insist on having undetected, unsecured hand points that depend entirely on traincrew setting them correctly on their main lines the American railroads will keep having spectacular and deadly crashes with monotonous regularity. It’s a completely different culture out there and one that is very difficult to understand from a European perspective.

Why even bother having signalling in that case? It's basically line-of-sight operation!
 
Joined
9 Nov 2017
Messages
260
It's always interesting to see how far behind the mindset, let alone the technology, is in the US with regards to safety. I once had an discussion with a Yank who was arguing that signalling suspensions to carry out engineering work (creating temporary block working essentially), were an unavoidable necessity of operations. I pointed out that it would be unthinkable in the UK to intentionally degrade the safety of the signalling system in order to do the work quicker or without a possession. He just couldn't fathom this and kept saying that it would cause delays or disruption to services. We really are gulfs apart.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
It's always interesting to see how far behind the mindset, let alone the technology, is in the US with regards to safety. I once had an discussion with a Yank who was arguing that signalling suspensions to carry out engineering work (creating temporary block working essentially), were an unavoidable necessity of operations. I pointed out that it would be unthinkable in the UK to intentionally degrade the safety of the signalling system in order to do the work quicker or without a possession. He just couldn't fathom this and kept saying that it would cause delays or disruption to services. We really are gulfs apart.
"Safety first, but delays cost money" ...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
Why even bother having signalling in that case? It's basically line-of-sight operation!

As I posted above, the timetable and train order system doesn't have any signalling. It's not line of sight because the train crew are given authority by a radio message from the dispatcher to proceed as far as a particular place, and while doing so they can travel faster than they could stop from if they see an obstruction. I believe they have to write themselves a "train order" on a notepad in the cab to remind them of this limit, and the dispatcher similarly keeps records of where everything is and where it is authorised to go. Search for "cornfield meet" to find out what happens if someone slips up...

The only UK comparator I can think of is the Ravenglass and Eskdale, which introduced something similar in the 70s and I think still uses it.

It's always interesting to see how far behind the mindset, let alone the technology, is in the US with regards to safety. I once had an discussion with a Yank who was arguing that signalling suspensions to carry out engineering work (creating temporary block working essentially), were an unavoidable necessity of operations. I pointed out that it would be unthinkable in the UK to intentionally degrade the safety of the signalling system in order to do the work quicker or without a possession. He just couldn't fathom this and kept saying that it would cause delays or disruption to services. We really are gulfs apart.
It's not that much different from something like temporary single line working, which was common in the UK until the last years of British Rail. That's now rare, probably due to a combination of more trains, fewer staff with safety qualifications and general expectation of increased safety standards.

Remember also that the main business of the US railroads is shifting heavy and profitable but relatively infrequent freight trains with passenger operation being insigificant on most lines, so to put it crudely there are likely to be fewer people at risk if an accident happens. And if you want to do a Sunday closure in Albuquerque then you have to stop trains leaving Chicago and Los Angles sometime around Friday evening.
 

etr221

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
1,054
As I posted above, the timetable and train order system doesn't have any signalling. It's not line of sight because the train crew are given authority by a radio message from the dispatcher to proceed as far as a particular place, and while doing so they can travel faster than they could stop from if they see an obstruction. I believe they have to write themselves a "train order" on a notepad in the cab to remind them of this limit, and the dispatcher similarly keeps records of where everything is and where it is authorised to go. Search for "cornfield meet" to find out what happens if someone slips up...
'Timetable and Train Order' is NOT 'on sight' and is NOT a block system - and so alien to British minds. It developed in the 1850s from pure timetable operation (trains could run when and how the timetable said they could) by adding 'train orders' sent by telegraph from a dispatcher (controller) to re-arrange the running of trains, according to what became an elaborate system of pro forma orders and rules which granted rights and superiorities to trains - inferior trains had to keep out of the way of superior ones: and if they couldn't had to put out flagmen to warn of their presence. In the second half of the last century radio replaced telegraph and train order stations (where they were passed to trains), and as passenger trains went, timetables ceased to have any train times in them (and public passenger timetables would have the notation 'This Timetable does not grant timetable authority'), everything being by orders. Flexible and sophisticated, but cumbersome and reliant on everyone knowing what the orders meant, so what to do - and doing it. As I understand it even at its height, it was never universal - while good for infrequent services through sparsely populated areas, inadequate for dense traffic (and population would provide for signalman), and there were various forms of block working (with automatic signalling from the early 20th century). and later CTC, in use - though these were normally in conjunction with T&TO.

But now it has - I understand - been (largely if not completely) by a 'Track Warrant System' - which is a form of block working - in which warrants are granted (one at a time) to authorise a train to occupy a section of line - and which will be written (or printed) by the receiving train. (My understanding is that R&ER uses a variant of this).

And both these systems assume that points (switches) will be left - locked with a padlock - correctly set.

If T&TO isn't enough for you as a different way of running a railway, the Chicago L used sighting boards - a sophisticated form of on sight operation - for intense operations up into 1970s...
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,072
Location
St Albans
Bure Valley Railway in Norfolk (also 15inch gauge) also uses a radio control system. Train crews fill in details of their trip at each crossing place and the completed ticket is handed in at the end of the trip to the signaller/controller.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
The Buttevant accident in Ireland, for example, was operating very traditional Absolute Block, but someone had disconnected the interlocking to the facing points and a not dissimilar accident to the Amtrak one occured.
Wasn't this because the points were being replaced? So they couldn't be connected to the signal cabin?

Although I'm sure I read they had been out of use for some time, not just a few hours.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
Wasn't this because the points were being replaced? So they couldn't be connected to the signal cabin?

Although I'm sure I read they had been out of use for some time, not just a few hours.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1354
47.2 The facing points were installed about four months before the accident but had not yet been connected to the Signal Cabin. During the two months prior to the accident these points were used a number of times to accommodate ballast train, light engine and mainteance train movements into, and from, the Down siding. Procedures drawn up locally to cover the operation of these points and the control of movements over them were inadequate and were not in compliance with relevant CIE rules.
So yes they were unconnected but they were being used as non-interlocked facing points on an otherwise signalled line which was open to normal traffic. Resulting in something similar to the situation with points in timetable and train order zones in North America, although the report notes that it was in breach of the rules.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,157
Location
Cambridge, UK
But now it has - I understand - been (largely if not completely) by a 'Track Warrant System' - which is a form of block working - in which warrants are granted (one at a time) to authorise a train to occupy a section of line - and which will be written (or printed) by the receiving train.

Correct, and commonly these days the 'Track Warrants' are generated by a central computer system to reduce the possibility of human error in the system. Train crews receiving one as a voice radio message have to write it down then read it back to the dispatcher as confirmation - and of course have to release it back to the dispatcher when the train leaves the section. Note the concept of the single 'central authority' in this system (the dispatcher), compared a 'telephone block' type system where block authorisations are negotiated between persons at each of a block section (which I think is still in use in some parts of mainland Europe).

In the UK we would call 'single-track CTC' remotely controlled 'tokenless block' colour-light signalling.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,398
Location
0035
the train crew are given authority by a radio message from the dispatcher to proceed as far as a particular place, and while doing so they can travel faster than they could stop from if they see an obstruction.
Is it much different from air traffic control, where verbal instructions are given over the radio, with no form of interlocking or protection system to prevent two planes crashing into each other if someone makes a mistake?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
Is it much different from air traffic control, where verbal instructions are given over the radio, with no form of interlocking or protection system to prevent two planes crashing into each other if someone makes a mistake?
No. However aircraft have the possibility of the pilots seeing each other and taking avoiding action, as well as the fact that the "block of sky" is larger than the aircraft itself so they might just miss each other with nobody being any the wiser. In recent years this has been supplemented by a system (TCAS) which detects if another plane is on a collision course and instructs both to take appropriate evasive action.

However if two trains are put on the same track, going at a significant speed, then there are few defences remaining and the probability of collision is very high. Therefore it's appropriate for trains to have extra safeguards to offset this extra risk. Fortunately it's relatively easy to detect the presence or absence of a train by track circuit and link it to the signalling, and the fact a train can shut down and stop in the event of a problem without falling out of the sky is also helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top