Working of Single Lines- URGENT SAFETY

[Muttley]

I`ve started this thread to bring everybodys attention to the new rule book changes with regard to "Working of Single Lines".

Currently if theres a failure of token/certain signalling equipment on a single line then a pilotman is required to be called out. He acts as the token, cannot be in 2 places at once and therefore only one train occupies the single line.

Under the new ammendments, T1b Section 21...

a form can be issued in lieu of the pilotman. This will act as the pilotman until a proper one turns up. Unfortunately, both signallers at the ends of the single line will be issued with these forms, meaning that the tiniest break down in communication could lead to two trains meeting head-on in excess of 150mph.
And worse, if its a power box area, then all drivers will be issued with the forms as standard so they can be dictated down the phone.

Network Rail has declared that this new ammendment will be brought in purely as a PERFORMANCE issue. (Currently when it all goes pear-shaped on my line theres a wait of around 50mins for a pilotman to arrive, affecting services for several hours as we get back to our rightfull positions.)

A bit of background-i`m a train driver who regularly works over ETB single line. I`ve discussed this situation with several of our signallers, and they are just as unhappy as us. (They state that one of the reasons this will be brought in is due to the cull of pilotman qualified signalling managers, being replaced with LOMs that are effectively just clerks.)

What am i doing- well, i`ve brought the situation to the notice of my managers who are fighting tooth and nail for the ammendments not to be brought in. I`ve also raised the issue with CIRAS, who are usually very good.

What can you do- those in the industry can bring the matter to the attention of those above you. Those not in the industry may like to write to their MPs.


To summarise, Network Rail are attempting to bring in a system of work that will forgo every single safety measure on single lines. And purely for financial reasons.

To give every driver a token so that theres no delay is tantamount to premeditated murder.

Abermule will become a regular occurence. Please join the fight to make sure that SAFETY comes before MONEY.
Thank you for your time.

 

[Nick W]

May I ask what the maximum speed trains can go is through the sections of single line?

 

[Muttley]

Line speed.

Which where i am is 65mph, but elsewhere could be 125mph.
Therefore a meeting point of 250mph. Ouch.


Even to bring in other rules of degraded working-ie stop short of any obstruction, would not work. The rule would have to be stop short of half the distance you can see to be clear, with both `obstructions` moving towards each other.

 

[O L Leigh]

Seems Nitwit Rail are making some very strange amendments to the rules governing signallers. Not so long back they stopped them showing a yellow flag out the window as authority for a driver to pass a peg at danger and draw up to the box which would negatively impact performance, and now this.

I have to say that I'm a little mystified by all this. Having read Module T1b Section 21 what you say certainly seems to be correct, but it would seem that there are certain situations and locations when this form of degraded working would be introduced and some where it would not. Cross-referencing this against Module P2 Working single and bi-directional lines by pilotman, it would seem that there has been an amendment to Section 5 that covers this situation.

This section used to permit trains to pass through a single-line section without a pilotman under special arrangements for tokenless block lines at locations specified in the Sectional Appendix and where there has been a track circuit, signalling or level crossing equipment failure as a temporary measure until working by pilotman could be introduced. Under this rule, the signaller would apply instruction 11 of Module TS5 Tokenless block regulations (an unrevised copy of which I do not have access to) which appears to require the issue of a form to the driver of each train to enter the section, although this could be dictated if need be. The revision to Module P2 simply seems to expand this method of working to cover lines other than tokenless block lines, although this method of working can still only be introduced at locations specified in the Sectional Appendix in the case of a track circuit, signalling or level crossing equipment failure and only as a temporary measure until working by pilotman can be introduced. Otherwise this amendment seems to suggest that there is actually very little change to the situation.

Shoot me down if you will, but if this sort of degraded working is already permitted for tokenless block lines why should it be suddenly so much more dangerous for lines signalled by other means? (Incidentally, this is as much a rhetorical question as anything and one I shall be posing to my more knowledgeable colleagues when I'm next in.)

Naturally, as a driver, I am extremely wary of degraded working. I don't like driving around without the protection of signals and other normal systems of work, so I become extremely cautious. 50mph through a TBW section...? Yeah, right!! I'm a strict "line of sight" kinda guy when it comes to judging my speed. Of course, like all other degraded working situations, this amendment is going to rely on everyone doing their jobs properly and ensuring that their communications are as clear as can be. All that said, I'm not entirely convinced that this change is going to lead to the kind of carnage you're suggesting. That's not to say that you're wrong, but just that I'd like to understand the situation better.

one TN
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just as an additional, the issue of blank forms to drivers is not tantamount to giving every single one of us a token. There are checks and cross-checks built into the rules that should be applied whether a form is handed down from the box or dictated over the radio/SPT from a remote PSB.

one TN

 

[68000]

I thought it was the RSSB who amend the Rule Book?

I think the OP is a bit sensationalist. Premeditated murder??

 

[Muttley]

I was on a safety brief last week, and the subject of comms came up. I`m going to be deliberately vague here to save blushes.

A driver had got on the phone to ONE `box, had started with all the right comms... Two Mike Six Three at Sierra Seven signal... the signaller authorised him of a TCB failure and to pass that signal. Our boy did nearly everything right, read back the message except for the headcode. He passed the signal, came round the corner and was presented with a set of taillights. He stopped short naturally, otherwise you`d have learnt about this incident from the Sun way before me.

Signallers fault-he THOUGHT he was talking to the train in advance.

Now take the same set of circumstances and introduce a single line with a train coming the other way, at full tilt.


We all make mistakes. We`re all human. But to remove every single safety precaution is folly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought it was the RSSB who amend the Rule Book?

I think the OP is a bit sensationalist. Premeditated murder??

Corporate manslaughter then.

Still as dead.

 

[68000]

You are talking about having 2 sets of faults in action to cause a collision

1. The signalling system is faulty
2. The signaller or driver make a mistake that causes an accident

Have you done a risk assessment to come up with the scare mongering?

 

[O L Leigh]

Comms comes up on every safety brief.

As for human error; yes, mistakes happen. Almost every single operational incident can be traced back to a mistake of some sort and at some level. But is the railway so very different from any other industry or area of life...? That's not to say that we should just accept things as they are and become complacent. Far from it.

However, I have to wonder that your reaction is slightly alarmist. This manner of degraded working is not so very different from TBW except that the trains are not all heading in the same direction. As I mentioned already, it has been permitted on tokenless block lines for years, so why should it suddenly be dangerous now when it failed to raise an eyebrow before? What is it about other signalling systems that makes it less safe than on tokenless block lines?

one TN

 

[Muttley]

Scaremongering and risk assessments...

You are aware why we no longer send trains on the time elapsed system??? That went out because people died. Are you aware why token working was introduced ??? That`ll be because people died.


Tokenless block....

The clue is in the question. There are other systems implemented so that a token isn`t needed.
As to TBW, we`re all going in the same direction at 50 mph, not closing each other at 2x50mph.

 

[O L Leigh]

The clue may be in the question, but it seems that the answer is not forthcoming.

There are other ways of signalling single-lines that don't require a token that are not tokenless block, such as track circuit block which is the system used on the single-lines I drive over. So why should there be a method of degraded working available and considered safe for tokenless block but not track circuit block?

The similarities that I was trying to draw between TBW and this working of a single-line without a pilotman have more to do with the method of working. Neither use any form of token to prevent more than one train entering the same section and both rely on good communication between the person in overall control of train movements, the person controlling the entry to the section, his counterpart controlling the exit from the section and the driver of each train.

I'm not trying to have an argument just for the sake of it. I want to know why it is that you feel this method of working is just so unsafe, particularly when it is neither new nor especially novel. At the moment all I'm getting is the secondhand concerns and rumours from your local signallers and emotional histrionics. Please can we have something a wee bit more substantial than this so that I can understand exactly where you're coming from, compare it to the existing rules and come to a conclusion about whether or not this is a situation I am happy about.

With respect...

one TN

 

[TheSlash]

I have to side with One TN on this, i feel Muttley has blown this out of all propotion
What you have quoted, Muttley, is the provision to get one train of out of the **** by allowing them to pass through a single line section where the 'interlocking' is in a state of failure.
This system would be an absolute last resort, where no other option was available.
It is not an invitation to continue running trains as normal, issuing virtual tokens left right and centre.
I would think that before such an operation is cleared, the signalman at least would have his or her work 'checked'. I believe you can't authorise a train to pass any signal at danger until the route ahead has been checked by somebody different to the person setting the route.
I also understand that clearing anything other than the main signal, gives the driver various instructions that always include "Be prepared to stop short of any obstruction" so a driver doing 125mph isn't prepared to stop short of any obstruction

 

[Metroland]

First of all, the signaller has always been able to tell the driver to pass the signal at danger on a single line if 1) the protecting signal has failed on Track circuit block when all the track circuits are clear. 2) Authorised in the sectional appendix with TCB OR 3) with arrangements with single line working, with an assisting train. All with potentially a train coming the other way...There's not really much difference between two signallers coming to a clear understanding at each end of a single line, or say one observing track circuits are clear and allowing the train to enter the single line. You can of course override traditional absolute block and course a collision on a double line, by failing to come to a clear understanding when cancelling trains and operating the Welwyn block.

The signalling system is overridden everyday, maybe 100s of times a day. And all drivers/passengers place their lives in the hands of the signalling staff - Whether that’s during failures or involving level crossings or out of course working. Single line working is potentially dangerous in any case, should points and signals not be worked properly, which is one of the reasons of course for detonators.

While I’m not fully aware of this new rule book amendment (having left the industry some years ago now) I would image it’s fully risk assessed and quite honestly isn’t any more risky than instances described above – provided everyone does their job properly - which is no different than any day of the working week, in my opinion of course.

TBH I wouldn't suggest anyone outside the industry write to their MPs in any case as with all due respect they are not abreast of the intricacies of railway working. However, staff should bring up any concerns with managers.

 

[O L Leigh]

What you have quoted, Muttley, is the provision to get one train of out of the **** by allowing them to pass through a single line section where the 'interlocking' is in a state of failure.
This system would be an absolute last resort, where no other option was available.
It is not an invitation to continue running trains as normal, issuing virtual tokens left right and centre.

To be entirely fair to Muttley, the amendment to the rule book module does not read that way. It makes no mention of getting a train out of the mire, although it is a long way short of allowing this method of degraded working to be used to keep the service running as normal.

I would think that before such an operation is cleared, the signalman at least would have his or her work 'checked'.

Indeed.

This is not something that a signaller can just do right off his/her own bat but something that needs to be authorised by "the responsible person" and recorded. Even before the signaller reaches for his stack of blank forms and pen, there are a heap of checks that need to be carried out to ensure that such a movement can be carried out safely. It is also required to be carried out on a train-by-train basis, so the authority would come for the signaller to move that particular train but he/she would need to come back for permission again if another train required to be moved, and the whole process would start over again.

one TN

 

[Metroland]

Hmn, not sure about every train - although not seen the amendments. Normally it's to authorise special arrangements such as single line working or signalling disconnection, then it's up to the staff on the ground to carry out safe working. This happens every day, and drivers than are not happy with the arrangement are really in the wrong job. Yes things can happen, but because so few things do is a testament to the safe working and professionalism of the staff.

Regarding points failures, points operators are appointed by the signaller during a complex failure (such as double slips or multiple point ends). The idea being someone walks through the route, but again, in theory a wrong route could be set up and a train authorised into the path of another.

With respect I get the impression somehow this is all something very new that the safe working of the railway is suddenly in the hands of humans! It always has been, as has the safety of roads and aviation.

As I said, it's gone on for years with TCB. So long as the track circuits are clear, the driver can be talked by the signal...and it theory at that time you could signal another one into the section the other way!

 

[Muttley]

one TN- i`d like to come back at some point re tokenless block, i`ve never done it and don`t know anywhere in the country that operates it, so i`m trying to do a bit of homework.

TheSlash- i think you`re mixing up working of single lines with single line working. In the latter there is provision for the first train to "overtake" the failure either to directly assist or clear a path for assistance to get through. When this occurs (single over double working) it is indeed done at a speed to stop short, but in the former we`re cleared for line speed.

The new form is issued with a definitive stop time, which will then either need re-issuing or the pilotman will have arrived. The form is NOT a one train only, get the section clear situation, it could be used all day.

Metroland- re the safety of the railways being in human hands. Thats the point, its not. Its upto all the mechanical/electrical interlocking that has been proved to be essential. (No offence intended to the S&T and P-way men who do stirling work.)




Some questions-
1) if its a safe system of work why is the pilotman not allowed to ring up the driver and dictate a form and meet him when he arrives?
2)if its safe why is there an end time when the pilotman takes over? Surely theres no need for a pilotman at all?

 

[Metroland]

Tokenless block is found on SW line west of Salisbury-Exeter, Oxford-Claydon, Highland main line and other Scottish branches among others.

If you have the exact rule book change, post it up word-for-word if you, be easier to comment on.

Well signalling interlocking provides a certain amount of protection during normal course of working, except with regard level crossing mishaps. During engineering and failures its always been up to staff to work within the rules to ensure safe working. Of course the debate is how much goes over to the human element, but I have seen pretty much everything done when there is an emergency to get out of situations. The rule book provides quite a lot of flexibility.

Most things are 'reasonably safe', but I understand single lines cause concern. The other main area is intermediate track circuit failures, and on some areas they used to clear the signals when the TCs had cleared for a while. Which I always thought was a strict no-no, just in case of a broken rail.

 

[O L Leigh]

There are two problems with posting the rule change up verbatim. The first is that the rule book is a working document for those who need it and is clearly marked as such and that it is not for publication. Needless to say it is available online if you know where to look for it.

The second problem is that reading this rule in isolation does not give the full picture and needs to be read in conjunction with the other associated modules from the rule book. As I have been at pains to point out, this might appear to be a brand new rule if you only read the one module, but it is actually an existing rule that has been expanded to allow it to be applied to other situations.

one TN

 

[Metroland]

Yes, always amusing when they say these things are not for publication but typing Railway Rule book in Google brings it up...