Train passes through crossing with barriers up

[saaby93]

Did this make the news?
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_invest...
Sort of a corollary to another thread
Signal at end of platorm - conductor forgets to press close the barriers button before the train sets off, driver misses warning light.

[Mave]

Yes, but the system is inherently safe. If it wasn't for idiot humans there'd be nothing to worry about :-(

[saaby93]

Yes - if we deleted humans from the system the show would run without problems
Said by many a business?

[legzr1]

TPWS at the stop board would have prevented this as would Use of DRA on the unit.

However, it would not have stopped a fool on a bicycle...

[saaby93]

legzr1 said:

TPWS at the stop board would have prevented this as would Use of DRA on the unit.
However, it would not have stopped a fool on a bicycle...

I think it would be helpful if you dropped the use of fool for an ordinary person

On the other hand if we could accept we can all be fools at some time or another especially when systems lead us to act in a foolish manner.
How to change systems to prevent that?

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 7th October 15:22

[legzr1]

Someone (i.e. a normal person) acting a fool is a fool so the term stays

Barriers, yellow then red flashing lights and sirens and warning signs both at roadside and painted on the road are enough for 99.99999% of the population.

How far do you suggest we dumb down?

How long are 'we' going to blame the system before realising that some people (fools) are beyond help?

Answers on the back of an RAIB form please...

[Mave]

legzr1 said:

TPWS at the stop board would have prevented this as would Use of DRA on the unit

But it didn't, whatever those safeguards actually are :-) And if 2 trained professionals can make a human mistake at the same time, how often are those mistakes made individually?

[legzr1]

Mave said:

But it didn't, whatever those safeguards actually are :-) And if 2 trained professionals can make a human mistake at the same time, how often are those mistakes made individually?

It didn't because the system isn't fitted at that site.

Answer? Get it fitted.

Google TPWS grids if you're genuinely interested. Then google drivers reminder appliance.

Can't really answer your second point.

Is it 57?

[Mave]

legzr1 said:

It didn't because the system isn't fitted at that site.

Answer? Get it fitted.

Google TPWS grids if you're genuinely interested. Then google drivers reminder appliance.

Can't really answer your second point.

Is it 57?

I suspect it's 42. Interesting that it proposed in 1997 as a cheap alternative to more expensive systems, yet 16 years later it's not universally fitted! Also interesting that it gives a 'safe' signal when depowered - would have thought it should be the opposite way round?

[BMW3s6]

legzr1 said:

Is it 57?

45?

[legzr1]

Mave said:

I suspect it's 42. Interesting that it proposed in 1997 as a cheap alternative to more expensive systems, yet 16 years later it's not universally fitted! Also interesting that it gives a 'safe' signal when depowered - would have thought it should be the opposite way round?

The government of the time thought the public wouldn't swallow the price of full TPWS+ fitted network wide to every signal and stop board
History repeats...


I only know the basics of the system from an 'end user' perspective but its only a tertiary safety system (after driver input and AWS) - the cost in delays if a grid 'failed safe' would be horrendous - every train having to stop at a (for example) green signal because the grid had lost power could bankrupt a small country (38 a minute currently per train- add a 10 minute delay to 20 trains per hour at a busy junction for half a day and see what that does to a bank account).

Part of the joys of railway privatisation Im afraid.

[Mave]

Bloody hell. So your backup safety system is a 'might catch if it happens to be working' rather than a 'will catch because we know it's working'? :-(

[legzr1]

Mave said:

Bloody hell. So your backup safety system is a 'might catch if it happens to be working' rather than a 'will catch because we know it's working'? :-(

Eh?

First safety system - qualified competent driver with full training.
Second - AWS.
Third - TPWS
fourth - TPWS+

No system is fool-proof and anything mechanical or electrical can fail.

AWS is fail safe although a competent driver is best policy.

TPWS can and does work as proven at thousands of signals and speed restrictions around the country. Internal reports show where it's stopped trains after failure of the driver to take appropriate action (for whatever reason).
However, when faults occur it seems to be designed to fail without hindering the passage of trains.
You're then left with systems that have been proven for the last few decades.

None of them will stop a fool on a bike who thinks all the warnings apply to someone else...

Fortunately, most train drivers heed red signals no matter what the rush is

Edited by legzr1 on Monday 7th October 17:59

[Mave]

Apols, I misunderstood how you were describing the TPWS failure scenario- I thought you were saying they occurred so often it would be too expensive to stop every time they failed. Ref AWS, you didn't refer to that in the context of the OP- did it fail to work as expected, or wasn't it fitted?

[legzr1]

Automatic Warning System - not relevant in this situation as the train was at a stand and starting against a 'signal at danger' (the STOP board).

TPWS would have applied the brakes and prevented the situation.

[saaby93]

The old type of gate that swung around to either block the road or the track - cheaper than TPWS?

[Mave]

legzr1 said:

None of them will stop a fool on a bike who thinks all the warnings apply to someone else...

Fortunately, most train drivers heed red signals no matter what the rush is

Edited by legzr1 on Monday 7th October 17:59

Not all of them though :-(

[Rick101]

saaby93 said:

The old type of gate that swung around to either block the road or the track - cheaper than TPWS?

Cheaper, but unlikely to stop a train when the drivers having a heart attack.

[Mave]

So do you still maintain that railways are inherently safe?

[Rick101]

Yes, absolutely.

One of the safest methods of travel.

Working there I also know how much priority safety gets. Most folk wouldn't have the first clue about the amount of hoops you have to jump through to get a simple job done.

Edited by Rick101 on Monday 7th October 23:41