New pole at West Ham

They are making some minor alterations to the Plaistow area regarding the signalling and this is to get ready for the West Ham bay road i beleive they are removing one of the signals and moving one back towards West Ham but as im off sick I'm just trying to remember what was said via emails about 3 months ago now

With regard to the blocking back on the eastbound approaching West Ham, some bright spark has worked out that there's a compromised overlap (potential for a train passing a signal danger at full speed to hit a train standing in the platform); so to mitigate the risk, we are held at signals further back.

As you rightly say though, whenever a Plaistow reverser is around it does make the problem worse.

I'd like to think that because changes to the signalling in the area are necessary for the centre siding, the compromised overlap would be sorted, but given that there'll be even more Plaistow reversers from December I don't think there'll ever be an improvement in the area.

And of course once the siding is built and commissioned, that will potentially add even more delays through the area [whilst trains are tipped out].

I knew i had it somewhere



DISTRICT/HAMMERSMITH AND CITY LINE – EASTBOUND (Between Bromley By Bow & Plaistow)


West Ham Centre Siding Enabling Works – Stage 2


As part of the future West Ham Centre Siding enabling works, the existing signalling arrangements are to be altered on the eastbound road between Bromley By Bow and Plaistow.

Stage two signalling alterations will be brought into commission on start of traffic 14th September 2009.

Below is a summary of the alterations:


• Signal A909C (West Ham Inner Home signal) Limit of Control will be reduced in length in accordance with current standards.
• Signal FRFC11A will be removed.
• Signal FC11A and SPT will be moved 35m in rear of the current location and the Limit of Control will be extended to reflect signal FC11B removal. Signal FC11A will be approach cleared on FCX911 replacing track.
• Signal FRFC11B will be removed.
• Signal FC11B will be removed.
• Signal FRFC11B.8B.10 will be removed.
• Signal RFC11B.8B.10 will be installed in the current location of FRFC11B.8B.10.
• Signal FC11C.8B will be renamed FC11B.8B.

No you may not ... in keeping with current lunacy thinking I suggest an unnecessary 10mph speed limit over an absurdly long length of track.

I note from those plans for Plaistow, we seem to loose the Fog repeaters for FC11A and FC11C, I assume we no longer care about fog anymore .... or that Fog Repeaters should stay illuminated to assist with SPAD prevention.....the fog repeater for FC1 dissapeared a few months back.....Oooo... I know let's put another insulting 10mph speed limit in, in case some driver might have a SPAD for some reason totally unrelated to speed!

That's an interesting comment, given that it's the first I've heard of A939 being a multi SPAD signal in my five years driving on the District line - and it's not mentioned in any of the current SPAD material.

The ones that are:
A681
A791
WM5
EC10
A598
A784
EC31b
OB46
FF49
ED151

There's a chart on intranet which covers the period 2007/8 up to 2008/9 period 3 and A939 is shown as having never having a SPAD in that time.

For the last two periods in 2009, the following were SPADed on the District line:

Period 5:

WK1a
FE11
EC36a
GB14

Period 6:

GB17
OB41
FC11a
OB46
EC13

I can't find any info on period 4, and we are currently in period 7 - I'm told A939 may have had a SPAD recorded for period 7 but as we're still in it, the data is not yet available.

So like I say, I'm rather surprised to see A939 mentioned as multi SPAD signal....

I would add that the number of SPADs we're currently having on the District are higher than average, so please don't read too much into the number of them shown above!!

I had a feeling I should have mentioned it before someone asked!! ;D ;D ;D

4 weeks

OB46 was SPADed only last week and EC13 has been SPADed twice this week, so those signals are well up in the charts.

The fairly new plunger in Plaistow bay road should help with this (please note I said should!) as the driver of a reversing train presses it when they are ready to depart which avoids delays with the signal clear when the train is not ready to go - which shuts down both roads.

I think the point of A939, with respect, has been taken at an irellivent tangent and run with. The point is not how many SPADs there have been, but that it (the compromised overlap) should have been dealt with when the track was relayed a few weeks back and it wasn't!!! The failure to deal with it affects headways. The reason for it not being sorted seems to be that the various parties concerned don't speak to each other and those responsible for the track relaying programme seemed totally unaware of the issue. I am aware it was subsequently raised by someone with senior management.

The relevance to this thread is, of course, that there is a simmilar compromised overlap resulting in signal A909c remaining at danger (affecting headways by preventing a train berthing at West Ham), however it is more difficult to deal with this one (because the station starter at West Ham can not be relocated) and the relocation of signal FC11A to a location in rear will make that even more difficult.

Whilst it is the case that A939 and A909c are both what we call "SPAD traps" the cause is the same (signal held on because signal in advance has a compromised overlap) but the reason they are a trap is different (A939 because the train in front has to be over a killometer beyond A939 before it clears and the straightish nature of the track means you can see the their is nothing ahead, mentally fooling the unaware into thinking an Auto will be green) (and A909c because it's view is obscured by A909B which will be green, following the yellow repeater on A909A which repeats both A909B and A909c .. so the sequence is effectively Green, Yellow, Green, Red ... again a trap for the unwary) As Instructors both these signals are subject to specific detailed training. Both have been hit relatively recently, as I always make a mental note when a "SPAD trap" signal is hit. (The fact the "SPAD traps" are at the forefront of ones mind, actually means they are not generally the same as the "Multi-SPAD" signals, but are actually worthy of and get far more instruction which is why they are not "Multi SPAD".

As for the questionable (both in content and accuracy) "spam flyers" that have been appearing for drivers about SPADs, well I best refrain from commenting in public. I think the fact that no Instructors sit on the "Signal Sighting Committee" or "The SPAD Prevention Committee" speaks volumes!

The fact that the track on the Westbound was relaid two weeks ago and will have to be closed again and cut up to put the new West Ham siding in, in a few more weeks time, also justifies questions over communications between departments and their abilities or willingness to work as a unit to a common goal!

As for EJ100 being ok for the "second shot" again, the point being missed here, is that the second shot requires the train to have stopped at it. This is a "SPAD trap" (because the first timing circuit should work and the signal clear) and again affects headways. EJ100 whilst this defect persists will always be red unless the signaller manually clears EJ1. EJ100 has also been hit a few times recently.

Frankly these things are all most frustrating.

spoken like a true manager who has never driven a train (but apparently is an expert in these things) ;D ;D ;D

Contrary to popular belief SPADs are not on the up (compared to years ago), just reporting of them. The overall trend even for current times is down, although we are slightly up on the year on year for this year at this point.

Your comment that "tripped in the vicinity" is in fact a SPAD that is not being owned up to, is not really appropriate. If it's a SPAD then it must be proved. The driver may very well not know why they were tripped, and a lot of trippings are not caused by trainstops. Remember a driver only gets a very modest number of safety related incidents (of which SPAD is just one such) before they get reduced in grade and pay to CSA (a substantial loss of livelyhood).

There are way more possible reasons for a SPAD than you list and signal sighting is high amongst them. There are also plenty of other "SPAD-traps" - qv above!

Naturally the training is superb ! ;D ;D ;D

However .. we are veering off topic for West Ham !

you should read again i said im NO EXPERT spoken like a true ****

I don't see the problem with A598. It might not have much sighting time, but at the end of the day it doesn't move, and is repeated twice. Alertness and adherence to the 25mph PSR are the only 'mitigation' measures required to avoid hitting it.