|
|
Post by londonstuff on Dec 29, 2012 12:07:10 GMT
This month's LURS discusses the Northern line upgrade and its similarities to the Jub. Mentioned is the feature of remote securing of points and how this will minimise delays in the event of failure of points. Obviously it implies that someone doesn't physically need to go to the location but could someone explain how the system works and where else it is in place?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 29, 2012 12:19:38 GMT
It's also available on the Central line. Don't know about the technical aspects though.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 29, 2012 14:47:30 GMT
This month's LURS discusses the Northern line upgrade and its similarities to the Jub. Mentioned is the feature of remote securing of points and how this will minimise delays in the event of failure of points. Obviously it implies that someone doesn't physically need to go to the location but could someone explain how the system works and where else it is in place? If all goes to plan, there will be two forms of remote securing under TBTC. The remote secure system (already in use at certain locations on the Northern Line since the 1990s) displays a visual to the Train Operator indicating the points are set & locked in a particular direction. This is preferable as it gives the Train Operator visual proof that the points are set, though unlike a signal the RS visual gives no message regarding whether or not there is a train in the section ahead. This system is used where there is no defect with the points (i.e. indications are available) but for some other reason the signal cannot clear. This will work in the same way under TBTC, except that all points will have the system for TBTC signalled moves. Additionally, if a RS visual cannot be illuminated but a points indication is still available, it will also be possible for a train to be authorised over the set of points. Verbal confirmation must be received from the VCC operator regarding the status of the points. The computer terminal used by the VCC operator, located in the Highgate control room, is sufficiently robust to be used for safety-critical decisions, whereas the screens used by the controllers and signallers are not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2012 19:10:15 GMT
Older cabin sites call this route card working and once already said can only be used if the signaller has confirmation of point indications. Control rooms tend not to have point indications
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Dec 29, 2012 20:48:24 GMT
The Picc has long had Remote Securing operated either from signal operator desk or locally from IMR.
Of course the details are not to be discussed here.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 29, 2012 21:01:53 GMT
Of course the details are not to be discussed here. True, but I think it's worth commenting that the whole point of remote securing is to save time and obviate finding someone to go down onto the track - isn't it? Clearly, this is a gross oversimplification, but covers the general principle. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Dec 29, 2012 21:34:01 GMT
Of course the details are not to be discussed here. True, but I think it's worth commenting that the whole point of remote securing is to save time and obviate finding someone to go down onto the track - isn't it? Clearly, this is a gross oversimplification, but covers the general principle. While I know and understand the circuitry and the principles, practices and procedures behind it I can neither confirm nor deny your comment although I did maintain and test it and deal with incidents where it had been invoked. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Dec 29, 2012 23:43:59 GMT
My understanding is that remote securing was a requirement of OPO conversion of underground sections of tube lines. The reasoning was in connection with dealing with a stalled train with an incapacitated train operator. The most expeditious means of dealing with such an incident in a single track tube tunnel is to bring the following train up behind the first, passing signals at danger as required, and for the train operator of the second train to investigate and deal with matters as best he can. It was envisaged that in the worst case scenario the stalled train would be positioned such that there would be points behind the train and that the train itself would prevent the signals reading over these points from being cleared. In this situation the points would need to be secured before the second train could be allowed to draw up behind the first. Remote securing was introduced to remove the inevitable delay in assistance reaching the stalled train that manually securing the points would cause.
Remote securing was not deemed necessary on sub surface lines or on open sections of tube lines as in this case assistance can most readily be given from a train travelling on the opposite line, which would not have to pass any signals at danger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 18:41:47 GMT
Of course the details are not to be discussed here. True, but I think it's worth commenting that the whole point of remote securing is to save time and obviate finding someone to go down onto the track - isn't it? Clearly, this is a gross oversimplification, but covers the general principle. As Harsig mentions also Remote Secure is only in tunnel sections and for the normal direction of travel. |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Dec 30, 2012 22:27:02 GMT
Thanks for this, all.
So basically under normal conditions signals associated with points only clear once the route has been set and proven (to a very small tolerance if I remember something Tom wrote on here years ago). Remote securing is a way of making one less dependent on the other where the points can be set and proved regardless of the associated signal aspect.
Is that about right?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2012 23:10:51 GMT
Pretty much. Harsig's explanation is the reason I was given for it's introduction, from one of the designers who first worked on it when it was introduced to the Piccadilly Line in 1986-87.
However, it was quickly identified as being rather useful for track circuit failures as well, hence it was extended on the Bakerloo and Central line resignalling projects so as to no longer be confined to tunnel sections.
|
|
