FF60

[TMBA]

I need to have a moan about FF60's - FF60's as you know is at Barking on the east its the first signal you come to after going under the westbound C2C flyover, you know the big signal after Barking creek, the signal after the 'X'.
Why o why do they keep this signal at danger and then clear all the signals into the platform? I have on many occasions contacted the signalman to tell him I am there and he has apologized for not seeing me but it seems that its a common thing now.
I have spoke to D.M.Ts before now and they normally just ignore it.
I know its petty but I would rather be stopped at FF59's ( the next one ) and see what is happening ( you can see the station from there ) than be stopped at 60's and not see anything.
I hope this all makes sense to you.

[Deleted]

You are well within your rights to have a whinge about that one! I must admit I've been held there quite a bit recently and never thought about it!

[Colin]

Just so we know the area:

Is this not something to with the bay road? I say this as I happen to know that Barking cabin can have a nightmare selecting routes manually if trains are not held back far enough.
Should a train be allowed up to FF59, the cabin then cannot select the bay road should it become neccesary - so you are held back (at FF60) till the route into the eastbound main is available.

[TMBA]

colin said:

Is this not something to with the bay road? I say this as I happen to know that Barking cabin can have a nightmare selecting routes manually if trains are not held back far enough.
Should a train be allowed up to FF59, the cabin then cannot select the bay road should it become neccesary - so you are held back (at FF60) till the route into the eastbound main is available.

Agreed Colin and knowing Barking cabin from my Box Boy days then of course the signalman should know what trains are approaching, of course we all know that this doesn't happen and frequent wrong routes are given because of this lack of or incorrect information from Whitechapel, so hence having to get on the phone to the signalman after waiting the appropriate time.
This is also the same scenario at the outer homes at Earls Court westbound seeing an empty platform 3 & 4 and then clearing the lot into the platform but of course we are now talking a different language, that language being the Program Machine.

[Deleted]

tmba said:

Why o why do they keep this signal at danger and then clear all the signals into the platform? I have on many occasions contacted the signalman to tell him I am there and he has apologized for not seeing me but it seems that its a common thing now.

As Colin correctly says, if you draw the train up to FF59, the route for the bay road cannot be selected (even if te signal is red) unless you take a release.

Holding you back at FF60, is a very good way of leaving your options open, as if you were then shut down for some reason on the EB main, the bay road could then be utilised.

You will find this practise in a lot of other places, however all the signals dropping at once are not normally viewable, due to local geography.

IT is annoying yes, but nothing DMTs can do!!

[TMBA]

metapprentice said:

tmba said:

You will find this practise in a lot of other places, however all the signals dropping at once are not normally viewable, due to local geography.

Viewable?

[Deleted]

that is not strictly true met app when the signalman has pushed the button marked FF60.59(1) and if by any chance the signal does not pull off (59) he does not have to take a release as theres a circuit called a early blacklock release installed once the train has sat on the berth track to the signal for longer then 4 1/2 secs he is able to pull up on the button and the push the button marked FF59(2) and this will clear the reason why he can simply pull up on the button is that because the signal did not show a green he is not approached locked.
see it all depends what button the signalman has pressed as the likely one would be FF60.59(1).58 so this would cause the problem mentioned above

[Deleted]

now regarding earls court its usually when the signalman is not paying attention to the programme machines and then he puts the machine in FCFS (first come first serve) then the machine will route trains

[TMBA]

So take for instance today, I leave Whitechapel right time and get to Plaistow right time, I leave Plaistow and can see all the way into East Ham and there is nothing in front of me, absolutely no red lights no trains nothing, I leave East Ham and go round the corner and FF60 is at danger. I stop at FF60 for 30 seconds and the whole lot clear right into Barking platform he wasnt regulating me for the service because the station starter was clear as I was approaching the platform.
That is what happens all the time, not just to me but other drivers as well, I would understand if he say was asleep or missed me on the diagram but its every day.
Excuse me if I'm going on about this but I'm trying to make a point about how frustrating it is and your perfectly right in what you say about the DMT's not being able to do anything, but every day? come on.

[Deleted]

well if you do go into the bay road with a barking t/d the signalman gets a bell warning when the train gets to FF60 so theres no excuse there that he has forgotten you but if you have straight route t/d then god knows why they hold you there as most of the time the site is worked in king (auto working)

[q8]

I would say that this problem is down to a lazy signalman who does not know his job. Obviously he cannot be bothered to do things the easy way and makes more work for himself and others by his methods. If that is the case he should be hoiked out ASAP as he is costing the firm money.Also he is one of these guys who doesn't look at the other man's perspective and plays trains.

Edit. As a matter of fact he CAN let you straight into the bay from 59's. This was often the case in the 60/70's when a train was in the main with no crew for it and you were a sidings reverser. So this piffle about having to get a release doesn't hold water.

[TMBA]

A couple of years ago we never used to get this problem at all, it was round the corner and held at 59's until the train in front left, but now its most of the time

[q8]

Well follow it up and complain in writing to the guv'nors. All of you drivers. If it is a dozy bobby he won't stay there long. I suspect that he's getting overwhelmed with HC reverser's all day now which may also have a bearing on it.

[Tom]

q8 said:

Edit. As a matter of fact he CAN let you straight into the bay from 59's. This was often the case in the 60/70's when a train was in the main with no crew for it and you were a sidings reverser. So this piffle about having to get a release doesn't hold water.

Of course he doesn't need to take a release if the signal has never cleared for the previously selected route.

If however FF59 has cleared and the signal operator subsequently changes his mind, if the signal has cleared a release must be taken on FF59 rte 1.

The early backlock release of FF60 requires Delta 929E up for 15 secs with LB track clear i.e. if FF59 has been called for, not cleared and the signalman subsequently changes his mind.

The 4.5 sec figure relates to the clearing of FF59 (2) for all routes, and is normally absorbed in the time it takes for an early backlock release to take effect.

[Tom]

tmba said:

A couple of years ago we never used to get this problem at all, it was round the corner and held at 59's until the train in front left, but now its most of the time

It's all related to the FF60 timing section installed two years ago, which was designed to protect a possible compromised overlap on FF59.

The platform track circuit is in the selection for FF60 but can be cut out by FF60 timing section. If the train approaches FF60 over 58kph with a train in the platform, the first shot timing section will not be completed and the train will be forced to satisfy the second shot section (which includes standing at FF60 for 5 seconds) before FF60 will clear.

If the train which is in the platform then starts to move off, as soon as it is clear of the platform FF59 will clear, and if the departing train continues to accelerate away FF58 a/b will behave in a similar fashion.

Hence why you get held at FF60 then all the other signals into the platform are clear.

[TMBA]

Thank you Tom that clarifies why we get held when we're following another train. eventually you know they will shut this railway down with all the compromised overlap stuff, especially when they start modifying the station starter overlaps

[Tom]

I hate to think you'd be right - but 'they' are my colleagues and the reason it has come about is because some of your colleagues can't keep to speed limits.

[q8]

That all shows you that this damn one block per wheel and rheo braking is nowhere near as good as the old 'clasp' type we had. So much for improvements and efficiency. Bean counters should learn that the more you chase money the further away it get's

EDIT: With reference to Tom's comment about speed limits some of the old stock was as fast or faster than the 'D' stock and most certainly heavier. That was definitely taken into account when those signals were installed in the late fifties. The overlaps therefore should be more than adequate for a train at speed.

If that is the case it is proof positive that the brakes on the newer stock are not up to the job.

[TMBA]

I'm sorry if Ive upset anybody but I was just trying to make a point for everybody to understand, I of course understand now why FF60 is held on and thank everybody for making me aware of this.
I am now wondering if when the 'D' stock was introduced and Q8 you might remember that when they first came in they didn't have any governors on the motors and the D's used to be able to get up to speed in excess of 65 to 70 mph Elm Park to Dag's and Barking to East Ham with quite a good acceleration as well, (and we all knew what the unmodified ones were by the little Metro Cammell sticker on the lower offside cab front near the tripcok reset cord ) but that was 25 odd years ago.
Did they think at the time about compromised overlaps then I don't think so, and yet a 6 car all motored COCP could outrun the BR from Elm Park to Daggers, Can you remember that Q8?

[Tom]

q8 said:

EDIT: With reference to Tom's comment about speed limits some of the old stock was as fast or faster than the 'D' stock and most certainly heavier. That was definitely taken into account when those signals were installed in the late fifties. The overlaps therefore should be more than adequate for a train at speed.

If that is the case it is proof positive that the brakes on the newer stock are not up to the job.

Q8, that is what I would expect from someone stuck in the past with the opinion that anything new is bad.

When the site was designed a different overlap formula was in use (the 1959 formula) which will result in a different calculated overlap from one worked out using the current formula.

Anyway, regardless of the different characteristics of the stock, there is a speed limit which should be observed. If the train operator exceeds this limit, it is more than possible that should a SPAD occur, the train when tripped is travelling at a rate faster than the overlap is good for. If the train operator is not responsible enough to obey the line speed then compromised overlaps can occur with the attendant risk of collision. This gives the signal engineers no choice but to assure the safety of trains by forcing drivers to slow down through timing sections.

[q8]

tom said:

q8 said:

EDIT: With reference to Tom's comment about speed limits some of the old stock was as fast or faster than the 'D' stock and most certainly heavier. That was definitely taken into account when those signals were installed in the late fifties. The overlaps therefore should be more than adequate for a train at speed.

If that is the case it is proof positive that the brakes on the newer stock are not up to the job.

Q8, that is what I would expect from someone stuck in the past with the opinion that anything new is bad.

When the site was designed a different overlap formula was in use (the 1959 formula) which will result in a different calculated overlap from one worked out using the current formula.

Anyway, regardless of the different characteristics of the stock, there is a speed limit which should be observed. If the train operator exceeds this limit, it is more than possible that should a SPAD occur, the train when tripped is travelling at a rate faster than the overlap is good for. If the train operator is not responsible enough to obey the line speed then compromised overlaps can occur with the attendant risk of collision. This gives the signal engineers no choice but to assure the safety of trains by forcing drivers to slow down through timing sections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh such piffle from a competent person! The signals were designed for higher speeds that the present stock can achieve so there must be adequate space for emergency brake application and stoppage.

You make it sound that drivers belt about with the intention of hitting signals at full speed to see if the overlap is sufficient? I'll not have someone from other grades decrying drivers down like that. A driver is a responsible person who may sometimes spad a signal due to no fault of his own.

All you are doing is rear covering for a badly designed stock with insuffiecients brake power and shifting the blame at the most obvious person. The driver. You try dragging 250 tons of metal about for 8 hours a day under all conditions in all weathers and see how it feels?

If it's so damn compromised then put a timing control on the first signal [FF60] and stop making drivers job more difficult by playing trains.

[Deleted]

All the more need for ATO and continuous ATP then

[Tom]

As I posted last night - there is a timing section on FF60 which protects the overlap on FF59. If the train operator approaches too fast and fails the first shot timing, the train is held by the second shot for 5 seconds at FF60, which then clears for a run into the platform, as do FF59 and FF58a/b.

As it happens the first shot has been 'tweaked' slightly to allow the more aggressive drivers a chance to pass on the first shot. If a train gets held at FF60 (which seems to be happening) then they are passing over the first shot too fast.

Of course drivers don't aim to SPAD and test overlaps, but they can speed for various reasons - due for relief and in a hurry, running late etc etc. And yes, while drivers never intend to pass a signal at danger, there are two main reasons why SPADs occur: either the driver can't see the signal, or he isn't paying attention to it. The latter is very difficult to blame on someone else.

Oh, and you'll not have someone from other grades decrying drivers down like that? Yet you were trying to do something very similar to the Barking Signal Operator earlier in this thread.

[Colin]

Keep it friendly gents

[q8]

tom said:

Oh, and you'll not have someone from other grades decrying drivers down like that? Yet you were trying to do something very similar to the Barking Signal Operator earlier in this thread.

Then score is even and matter solved. However if there is a timer at FF60 why do drivers have to come to a dead stand at it and then have the whole bunch clear together? To aid drivers get it right and to prevent bad feeling between the signaller and driver why isn't there an illiminated speed restriction sign on RFF60 in rear that is lit up when 60's are at danger?

If A driver sees, say '30' staring him in the face he'll slow down and that signal [FF60] will clear accordingly thus letting him up to 59's

[Tom]

Timing sections work on a two shot principle - the train gets two attempts to clear the signal. IIRC there is a position detector on 929a track and the first shot runs from there to the 929a/b blockjoint.

If there is a train in the platform ahead, a second train will be forced to pass FF60 under speed control.

If the train travels over the first shot timing too fast for the timing section, there is a second shot over 929a track up and 929b track down, once the timer is proved to have zeroed. This requires a train to draw up to within 7m of FF60 in order to be off 929a track and the second shot to run.

The reason the all the homes clear together is because in the time taken to bring the train to a halt and wait at 60's the first train has now started to leave the platform. So as the second train approaches FF59 the first train will have moved far enough away to enable it to clear and if the first train continues to accelerate towards Upney then 58a/58b will also be clear.

What I'm not 100% on is why there isn't an illuminated speed restriction sign. My guess (and if my DVD player was working I could confirm it) is that the area may well have been included in the recent project to provide additional PSR signs.

[TMBA]

tmba said:

So take for instance today, I leave Whitechapel right time and get to Plaistow right time, I leave Plaistow and can see all the way into East Ham and there is nothing in front of me, absolutely no red lights no trains nothing, I leave East Ham and go round the corner and FF60 is at danger. I stop at FF60 for 30 seconds and the whole lot clear right into Barking platform

Still doesn't answer the above though does it? and you might think I'm being petty or my usual cynical self but maybe Q8 is right about a lazy signalman! maybe also there is a train in the platform that the signalman is regulating for service and I hope that this is the case, but whatever way it is I do now hope maybe someone somewhere might be reading this and think well maybe we made a cock up at Barking eastbound and we should have something to tell the drivers that they are in a timing section, but of course we are just drivers and the buck stops with us as usual.

[Tom]

I think it depends on when it happens. If it's midday with not much around and you sit there having drawn up to within 7m for longer than 10 seconds or so then I could well believe the signalman theory, as there is a single push button for 60.59(1).58. But if you're following a Barking Sidings reverser, it could be that the train is taking a while to detrain, another area where procedures and the time taken have changed in the last few years.

There is some debate as to the merits of telling staff about timing sections etc; on the one hand it stops T/Ops complaining about signal operators but on the other hand you can know too much - there is a speed controlled signal between Barons Court and Earl's Court EB Picc that everyone knows about and gets SPADed because the train ops know it's speed controlled and are anticipating it clearing, when in fact it's at danger for another reason.
However, you do of course have somewhere to read about it - section 1 of the traffic circular. And as this is a mod which affects how the signal behaves in respect to the drivers there would have been a T/C entry (as other mods which were part of the same project have had).

EDIT: And I've done some working out of the timing sections and speed issues: The full speed overlap on FF59 is good for 55mph, the speed controlled one (i.e. after a speed check at FF60) is 45mph and the average speed through the FF60 timing section so as to pass the first shot should be 35mph. But note that this is the average speed: passing through at 35mph is not the correct approach, the train should be braking to stop at FF60.

[TMBA]

On the other hand it could also be that maybe the timing section doesn't work on the east bound between Olympia and Earls court, EC100 I believe the timing doesn't work so we have to stop at EC1
( I think thats the signal numbers coz we don't do many Olympias at Upminster )
and for a number of years WD40 west into Hammersmith never used to work, so maybe this is the case at Barking! it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
One point is though WD400 and EC100 and EJ100 have all got a delta track to activate the following signals even coming from hanger Lane to Ealing common the outer home ( 100 ) signal has got a delta track but FF60 hasn't? Why is this?

[Deleted]

colin said:

Keep it friendly gents

I think Tom had one too many "Frulis" at the forum meet! ;D