When a train breaks down and the route is set over a level crossing

[brad465]

Yesterday I was travelling from Strood to Maidstone Barracks on this service, which had a fault at Aylesford and required a full train reboot before being able to resume. All the while this was going on (around 20 minutes), the 3-aspect signal at the end of the platform was green, which meant that the following two level crossings on Mill Hall and at Station road were both closed for road traffic, with the latter being particularly well used. This obviously meant large traffic jams would have built up, although I suspect some drivers gave up and tried to go around elsewhere. There were no other trains passing in the other direction until 15:40, around the time the fault was fixed on my train and then resumed.

Are there any protocol for resetting a route to danger when a train is broken down, such as to allow level crossings to reopen to road traffic, or allow alternative routes for other trains further up/down a particular line, while the subject train is fixed?

 

[Watershed]

Yesterday I was travelling from Strood to Maidstone Barracks on this service, which had a fault at Aylesford and required a full train reboot before being able to resume. All the while this was going on (around 20 minutes), the 3-aspect signal at the end of the platform was green, which meant that the following two level crossings on Mill Hall and at Station road were both closed for road traffic, with the latter being particularly well used. This obviously meant large traffic jams would have built up, although I suspect some drivers gave up and tried to go around elsewhere. There were no other trains passing in the other direction until 15:40, around the time the fault was fixed on my train and then resumed.

Are there any protocol for resetting a route to danger when a train is broken down, such as to allow level crossings to reopen to road traffic, or allow alternative routes for other trains further up/down a particular line, while the subject train is fixed?

The driver would likely have contacted the signaller to inform them of the fault. The signaller would have asked the driver how long they expected to take to rectify the fault.

Depending on the estimated duration, the driver may have suggested that, or the signaller may have asked whether, the route can be reset to allow the level crossings to be raised again. Until the route had been reset (which would likely have involved a time-out of 2 minutes), the barriers couldn't be raised, as they are interlocked with the signals.

It may be the case that the driver initially thought it would be a quick 5 minute fix (in which case there would be little sense in resetting the route and raising the barriers), but which ended up taking a bit longer than forecast.

 

[Mikey C]

I've not seen this BUT I have been on a train stuck somewhere between Weymouth and Southampton (well it was over 30 years ago) where the train was stuck at a station, and thus blocking the level crossing due to an incident between the guard and a passenger, which was going on outside the train...

 

[edwin_m]

In this situation it would probably be sensible to cancel the route anyway - if the driver fixed the problem within the 2min timeout then they could just phone back and the route could be set again. Keeping crossings closed for an excessive period risks safety violations such as people climbing over the barriers.

More problematic is if a train fails after passing the protecting signal but before reaching a crossing (of one of the MCB types). I think then it's a question of putting the crossing into manual control.

 

[Dunnideer]

Depending on the estimated duration, the driver may have suggested that, or the signaller may have asked whether, the route can be reset to allow the level crossings to be raised again. Until the route had been reset (which would likely have involved a time-out of 2 minutes), the barriers couldn't be raised, as they are interlocked with the signals.

Of course if the train has already passed the protecting signal of an MCB but not yet passed over the crossing then the barriers can’t be raised by the signaller.

If a train fails within the controls of an AHB (or AOCL/AOCL+B) crossing then it can be taken under local control by a competent Level Crossing Attendant if it’s going to be a protracted failure. That allows the barriers to be raised and the rosd lights extinguished.

 

[O L Leigh]

Not long back I had just this sort of situation arise. I’d passed the signal protecting a station and it’s associated crossing only for the train to develop a fault while in the platform. The signaller was less than impressed and was heaping the pressure on to get things moving as the gates had to remain down until the train moved away.

After some to-ing and fro-ing, which included me simultaneously talking to my control in one ear and the signaller in the other, the fault was rectified and the train was moved.

I always call up the signaller and tell him/her if I need to carry out fault finding, giving them the option to take back the signal if they need to. It’s not my decision to dictate what they should or shouldn’t do, which is why I give them my permission to do whatever they feel appropriate to the situation. Then, once fault finding has been completed, I’ll report this too. If it means I have to wait for a signal then so be it.

 

[Peter0124]

I've always thought about this when it comes to Logans Road LC in Motherwell though I do not know for sure how Logans Rd LC works as I have never used it:

Platform 2 at Motherwell extends longer than where the station signal is (M399).
So when an 11 car Pendolino pulls in and stops at the platform, probably because it stops a coach further than the M399 signal (I think 11 cars are meant to), the headcode actually ends up on the following signal berth (M387), ie past Logans Rd LC. Atleast according to railcam signalling diagrams anyway.

So therefore I assume trains calling at Platform 2 at Motherwell heading mainline towards Glasgow, especially if they are 11 car Pendolinos, all require Logans Rd LC (650 metres away) to be closed until the train leaves Motherwell and passes the LC, assuming the other side is clear too.

Therefore if dispatch delays, passenger delays for example affected a mainline Glasgow bound train at the station, the LC 650m ahead would remain closed? I've always wondered why the signal at Motherwell isn't at the very end of the platform like at most stations. Would this also mean the signal can't be put back to red because the train stopped a coach further than it?

Can anyone please correct me if I am wrong cause I am feeling unsure and my knowledge of level crossings is very minimal. Would the crossing be closed anyway if a train calls at Motherwell heading that direction, even if it doesn't stop ahead of signal M399?

 

[MadMac]

I've always thought about this when it comes to Logans Road LC in Motherwell though I do not know for sure how Logans Rd LC works as I have never used it:

Platform 2 at Motherwell extends longer than where the station signal is (M399).
So when an 11 car Pendolino pulls in and stops at the platform, because it stops a coach further than the M399 signal, the headcode actually ends up on the following signal berth (M387), ie past Logans Rd LC. At least according to railcam signalling diagrams anyway.

So therefore I assume trains calling at Platform 2 at Motherwell heading mainline towards Glasgow, especially if they are 11 car Pendolinos, all require Logans Rd LC (650 metres away) to be closed until the train leaves Motherwell and passes the LC, assuming the other side is clear too.

Therefore if dispatch delays, passenger delays for example affected a mainline Glasgow bound train at the station, the LC 650m ahead would remain closed? I've always wondered why the signal at Motherwell isn't at the very end of the platform like at most stations. Would this also mean the signal can't be put back to red because the train stopped a coach further than it?

Can anyone please correct me if I am wrong cause I am feeling unsure and my knowledge of level crossings is very minimal. Would the crossing be closed anyway if a train calls at Motherwell heading that direction, even if it doesn't stop ahead of signal M399?

Ex-Motherwell tech support here.

I don't believe the layout has changed since my time there, but 399 can't be cleared along the Down Main unless Logans Road Barriers are down. If the train is so long that it has to pass 399 to get fully into the platform, you're stuck until it moves on. Not sure how they work it now from West of Scotland, but Motherwell SC wouldn't start the barriers until a stopping train was near the station. There's also the complication of the crossing interacting with the traffic lights, which would have to run a sequence before the barriers start.

 

[Watershed]

I've always thought about this when it comes to Logans Road LC in Motherwell though I do not know for sure how Logans Rd LC works as I have never used it:

Platform 2 at Motherwell extends longer than where the station signal is (M399).
So when an 11 car Pendolino pulls in and stops at the platform, probably because it stops a coach further than the M399 signal (I think 11 cars are meant to), the headcode actually ends up on the following signal berth (M387), ie past Logans Rd LC. Atleast according to railcam signalling diagrams anyway.

So therefore I assume trains calling at Platform 2 at Motherwell heading mainline towards Glasgow, especially if they are 11 car Pendolinos, all require Logans Rd LC (650 metres away) to be closed until the train leaves Motherwell and passes the LC, assuming the other side is clear too.

Therefore if dispatch delays, passenger delays for example affected a mainline Glasgow bound train at the station, the LC 650m ahead would remain closed? I've always wondered why the signal at Motherwell isn't at the very end of the platform like at most stations. Would this also mean the signal can't be put back to red because the train stopped a coach further than it?

Can anyone please correct me if I am wrong cause I am feeling unsure and my knowledge of level crossings is very minimal. Would the crossing be closed anyway if a train calls at Motherwell heading that direction, even if it doesn't stop ahead of signal M399?

Yes, trains which are longer than 228m which call at platform 2 at Motherwell (e.g. 11 car Pendolinos) need to stop beyond signal GMM399 to be fully accommodated on the platform.

Accordingly a route must be set from GMM399 for such trains to call at the station (said route would usually be towards Uddingston via Logans Road LC, but it can also be towards Mossend, albeit with approach control).

If the route from GMM423 to GMM399 is set without any forward route being set from GMM399, GMM423 will be held at danger unless and until the approaching track circuits measure that the train is less than 228m long. This is to prevent an overlength train from being allowed to enter the station without an onward route set.

So yes, for trains which run via Logans Road LC and which are more than 228m long, the LC needs to be lowered before the train can arrive at Motherwell. And in the case of a delay on any such train, manual intervention would be required to allow the LC to be raised again, as the train would have passed GMM399 before coming to a stand and thus the route cannot be reset.

The reason why GMM399 isn't at the end of the platform is that this allows for a reduced overlap before the junction with the lines to/from platforms 3 and 4. That reduced overlap can be used to signal a train into platform 2, using a warner route, at the same time as an arrival and/or departure from platforms 3 and 4. There would be insufficient room for such an overlap if the signal were right at the end of the platform, and hence no warner route would be available.

In effect the positioning of GMM399 is a tradeoff, allowing simultaneous movements whilst only blocking Logans Road LC for exceptionally long trains. Given that few trains longer than 228m stop at Motherwell platform 2 anymore (there are just 6 Avanti northbound calls per day, not all of which would necessarily be formed of an 11 car Pendolino) I think the design gets that balance right.