Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some questions
#1
Someone (who may not want to be identified so I have not done so) has asked me the following questions in an email. I think it best to reply in public since I suspect many others may be interested. Few are actually easy answers!

Quote:Dear Sir,
I have some basic doubts.

Please Clarify the following:
1. As TPWS is not giving any warning to the driver - Why we are calling as Train Protection And Warning System?
2. If the signal has both TPWS And AWS,normally which one will be faced by train first?
3. Why there is no control table for POSA?
4. When Two Red Rule will be preferred?
5. What is the alternate solution instead of fail safe design?
6. How the driver identify If controlled signal is passable signal?
7. How the road user identify AHBC from ABCL?


1. Very pertinent question.
TPWS would perhaps be more accurately called- "SPAD Risk Reduction System. Although it does intervene and give a level of protection it falls well short of a true Protection system. It certainly gives no warning before it acts. Therefore I agree that "Protection and Warning" is a double misnomer; however it is the name it has been given. I have no idea why (aprat from Public Relations / politics)- we just have to accept it.

2. The TPWS TSS loop is just beyond the signal (to act AFTER the SPAD) whereas the AWS is on the approach (generally 180m) to give a warning at a time that the driver can take a further look at the signal having been alerted that it is not at Green. Therefore the answer is AWS.
However where a TPWS TSS is insufficient, then one or more TPWS OSS loops are provided to act as a speed trap prior to a signal at Red. An OSS is almost certainly further from the signal than the AWS and therefore for such signals the answer is TPWS:OSS! [Of course unless the driver is driving inappropriately, passing over TPWS loops has no effect so are "invisible" whereas an AWS always gives eithr a bell or a horn.]

3. There are actually practically no POSAs yet on NR; the only ones I know of are on CTRL line (see current IRSE News article) which was not implemented to tradiitional NR standards anyway. I would expect a Control Table (albeit very simple content) for POSA aspects- these have yet to feature in IRSE Mod 3 layouts for the exam (though have come up in written essay type questions).

4. oooh- very political..........
Double Red arguably improves safety at the expense of performance. It is needed on relatively high speed lines where TPWS cannot otherwise stop a train within the Safe Overrun Distance beyond the junction signal and the resultant collision would be high consequence; hence the signal on the approach to the junction signal is held to red as well. Dead Double Red is now certainly felt to be too draconian; Conditional Double Red (whereby the outer signal is allowed to clear after a train has already passed over its OSS) is how we'd generally implement. Unlikely that the IRSE Control Table layout would feature such a scenario; again more likely to be an essay type question I think.

5. TPWS is indeed the alternative to fail-safe design. Brakes are applied only if the train picks up the relevant frequencies- there can be on-board failures or trackside failures that would prevent, so certainly NOT failsafe. However such failures are quite rare, the trackside is reasonably well self-proved and this checked in the aspect of the signal in rear, the on-board performs a self-test each time a cab is opened so that faults cannot develop and remain undetected for a long time.
It therefore can be assumed to be present and effective for the vast majority of the time and hence provide extremely useful risk mitigation; it cannot be absolutely relied upon. AWS is generally regarded as pretty much fail-safe; but there are failure modes that are not........to be honest the whole concept of the "black and whiteness" that fail-safe implies is really not how we should view the world in 21st century.

6. By a plate (black bar on white background) that is still generally called "Auto plate".

7. The road user does not actually have to; not relevant to them.
The educated railwayman when driving their car can however tell, primarily by looking whether there is a floodlight for the road surface (so rail driver can see whether the crossing is clear) and a Driver's Crossing Indicator light for the rail driver (that confirms the road lights are adequately displayed etc)- if these are present then it is clearly an ABCL. Another hint may be the quality and alignment of the rail track / speed of passing rail traffic (as ABCLs can only be utilised at low speed whereas AHBC may be used at up to 100mph).
PJW
Reply
#2
I felt the doubts are silly so I asked through the email.Thank you very much for the information given.
Please clarify some more doubts:
1. Whether Lime street control and clearing a call on class are one and the same?
2.Similarly soft calling of points and flank point means the same?
3.Can you explain (What is the alternate solution instead of fail safe design? ) with some other example?

Sugavanam
Reply
#3
(10-03-2009, 09:22 AM)sugavanam nagarajan Wrote: I felt the doubts are silly so I asked through the email.Thank you very much for the information given.
Please clarify some more doubts:
1. Whether Lime street control and clearing a call on class are one and the same?
2.Similarly soft calling of points and flank point means the same?
3.Can you explain (What is the alternate solution instead of fail safe design? ) with some other example?

Sugavanam
Certainly not silly questions and exactly the sort of things people should be asking!

In brief (I can add more info perhaps next week)

1. Lime Street control is a specific case for calling-on moves into a terminal platform; actually for various reasons not generally implemented nowadays. "Huddersfield" is different but applies (primarily) to call-on moves into through platforms. Lime Street is not just proving that the permissive section is occupied (as for all call-ons) but to attempt to measure the train to know that the new one will fit in the remaining space. This worked well with a known form of rolling stock of a particular type and when drivers were prepared to go right up to the entrance signal; however there is now more of a mix of tain types and defensive driving means that the front of the train is in a less predictable position so can be more trouble than worth.

2. Soft calling of points can certainly be applied to points on the flank of a route but for which calling and LOCKING as flank is not possible without unduly restricting layout flexibility. Soft calls mean that IF the point can go to the requested position then it is called, but if not then not regarded as too important; point isn't locked so can subsequently be calleed away by some other route. Givces protection if practicable, but not otherwise.

3. This is probably more of a subject for the module 7 topic area, so when I get a chance I'll put there. However compare the TSS to a mechanical trainstop- these need no power to stay in the raised "tripping position"- I think that it is usually compressed air that lowers them when the signal can clear. Almost any credible failure results in the arm being raised (obviously it potentially could jam, seize up, the spring can fail but the whole thing engineered such that these failure mechanisms should be extremely rare). Hence overwhelming probability that the failure mode will be "Up when should be down" = Rightside rather than "down when should be up" (that would be wrongside). Hence pretty well "failsafe"- no doubt much of the residual risk could be mitigated by ensuring that arm does indeed return to be up each and every time train passes signal prior to allowing another train to approach it.
Whereas a TSS loop is proved to be intact and transmitter giving an output frequency before the signal in rear can clear, power could potentially then be lost and the TSS would be rendered ineffective. Also it requires some electronics on board the train to be working etc; conversely in the case of a mechanical trainstop there is very little that could possibly happen to prevent a raised trainstop physically opening a mechanical valve to cause the brakes to be applied. In reality nothing can ever be 100% failsafe, but it is generally true that the more basic and simple a system, the more it is possible to engineer it to be so for all practicable purposes.
PJW
Reply
#4
Quote:1. As TPWS is not giving any warning to the driver - Why we are calling as Train Protection And Warning System?
On-board, TPWS is a single system where "WS" comes from AWS and "TP" from TPWS [sic]. The systems differ in that AWS does provide a reminder indication (visual and aural) to the driver for a non-green aspect and/or speed restictions. The TP part is used as a non-fail-safe system to control the train if the train is doing something incorrectly (overspeeding or passing a red aspect).

Quote:6. How the driver identify If controlled signal is passable signal?
Can you define what is meant by passable? On CTRL, for example, certain signals may be passed even when red (at reduced speed and under very specific rules). The terminology for those comes from France which is "franchisable" meaning passable.

Regards, Jerry
Le coureur
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)