Collingwood IECC - Creating a Prototypical IECC for a Model Railway

[The Stationmaster]

Looking at Issue 3  of GE/RT 8000/S5 applicable from 5 June 2010 the Rules in respect of passing at danger an automatic signalsare is basically  unchanged from Issue 2 as far as the  principle of a Driver being authorised to pass the signal (under specified circumstances) on their own authority is concerned.

 

Issue 3 appears to be current with no warnings similar to those shown on Issue 2 in respect of it being superseded.  There might well have been alterations in a subsequent supplement of course.

 

I can certainly see the point regarding autos protecting possessions (because in terms of the Rule Book they can't be relied on for that purpose).  But in any case unless things have really gone backwards the extent of a possession and the places at which protection should be placed should be agreed and published in advance except in the case of a possession taken at short notice.  But even in the latter case I would have hoped it was obvious that limits of a possession and where the protection is placed should be pretty clear (although not necessarily to Per Way staff).   Having an extra controlled signal clearly makes sense in long auto sections but even then if there is apossession it should be protected at the extremities of any section which a movement could enter otherwise yo could have trains running towards a possession when they can do nothing but stop and go back the way they have come.

 

Looks like I might find it interesting to read the latest versions of possession and protection related Rules!

[St. Simon]

35 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Looking at Issue 3  of GE/RT 8000/S5 applicable from 5 June 2010 the Rules in respect of passing at danger an automatic signalsare is basically  unchanged from Issue 2 as far as the  principle of a Driver being authorised to pass the signal (under specified circumstances) on their own authority is concerned.

 

Issue 3 appears to be current with no warnings similar to those shown on Issue 2 in respect of it being superseded.  There might well have been alterations in a subsequent supplement of course.

 

I can certainly see the point regarding autos protecting possessions (because in terms of the Rule Book they can't be relied on for that purpose).  But in any case unless things have really gone backwards the extent of a possession and the places at which protection should be placed should be agreed and published in advance except in the case of a possession taken at short notice.  But even in the latter case I would have hoped it was obvious that limits of a possession and where the protection is placed should be pretty clear (although not necessarily to Per Way staff).   Having an extra controlled signal clearly makes sense in long auto sections but even then if there is apossession it should be protected at the extremities of any section which a movement could enter otherwise yo could have trains running towards a possession when they can do nothing but stop and go back the way they have come.

 

Looks like I might find it interesting to read the latest versions of possession and protection related Rules!

Hi Mike,

 

From Issue 4 of S5 (in force December 2013, so I was wrong on the dates, but I think the first consultation was from 2010) only allows a driver to pass a signal at danger under their own authority from a Intermediate Block Home Signal, not Automatic or Semi-Automatic. This is still the case in Issue 12.1, the current (as of now), issue.

 

It’s not the protecting of a possession that is the problem, I think I’ve led you down the wrong path, it’s been the inconsistency in the setting / cancelling of routes between the two types. The problems of this have manifested themselves when signallers have been protecting UWCs or Line Blocks**

 

A CI is purely for ensuring a consistent method of route setting
 

Simon

 

**I might be wrong with line blocks / possessions, I’m trying to remember the brief I was given.