11-03-2014, 09:44 PM
Good question; off the top of my head I don't actually know the answer but I will find out.
However when I was looking at the data relating to SPADs some 10 years ago it was clear that some of the most significant SPADs were actually those at GPLs (primarily because the main running signals protecting junctions were TPWS fitted whereas the GPLs were not). In and around major stations there were quite a few cases where drivers made mistakes when executing moves shunting to / from the sidings, turning back services and shunting between platforms etc- typically these were relatively infrequently made moves and hence unfamiliar but utilised at times of service disruption. Whereas the GPL move is slow, the train on the signalled route with which it might collide could be moving much faster.
Hence whereas I don't know the answer for sure, I think that there is quite a strong argument for including.
However when I was looking at the data relating to SPADs some 10 years ago it was clear that some of the most significant SPADs were actually those at GPLs (primarily because the main running signals protecting junctions were TPWS fitted whereas the GPLs were not). In and around major stations there were quite a few cases where drivers made mistakes when executing moves shunting to / from the sidings, turning back services and shunting between platforms etc- typically these were relatively infrequently made moves and hence unfamiliar but utilised at times of service disruption. Whereas the GPL move is slow, the train on the signalled route with which it might collide could be moving much faster.
Hence whereas I don't know the answer for sure, I think that there is quite a strong argument for including.
(11-03-2014, 04:49 PM)jenni.joseph9 Wrote: As per ssi discussion paper, when a spad is detected at a signal, all d protecting routes/signals in that area will be placed to danger. Does the spad at a GPL signal should also be considered and should replace protecting signals?
PJW