It looks as though the upcoming Blackpool route from JustTrains will not feature Rule 39A, in line with the other British TSW routes with semaphore signalling. This is extremely disappointing, and I shall explain Rule 39A to explain. Rule 39A is the historic term for the rule. Nowadays it is Rule 1.6 of GERT8000/S7 and Rule 4.5 of GERT8000/TS1. However the basic principles have not changed. For drivers, Rule 1.6 applies. It reads: For signallers, Rule 4.5 applies. It reads: Here are some diagrams to show how it works in practice, on a simple section of line with three signals (from left to right, the distant, the home, and the starter). If everything is clear, all signals are off: If the train needs to be stopped at the home signal, both the distant and the home are on: These situations TSW handles correctly. However, let us look at the situation where Rule 39A applies: Rule 39A applies when the train must be stopped at the starter. In this case the distant and home are initially on: The driver sees the distant at caution and prepares to stop at the home: Once the train has nearly stopped at the home, it can be pulled off. The driver knows this means to expect the starter to be on and can prepare to stop there: [continued in next post as I hit the image limit]
However, if the train no longer needs to be stopped at the starter, both it and the home can be cleared. The driver, seeing the clear home after the distant at caution, knows this means all signals until the next distant are clear and can drive accordingly: Now you can presumably see how this differs from how TSW does it, but for clarity here's a diagram showing how TSW does it: In TSW, if the train needs to be stopped at the starter signal, the distant will be at caution, but the home signal will always be clear. As you can see, in real life a driver finding a clear home signal would then know that the starter was clear as well, but in TSW driving realistically would put you at heavy risk of a SPAD - the only recourse is to crawl along after every distant at danger until you reach the starter signal. Implementation of Rule 39A is possible in TSC via signal scripting. I hope DTG finds a way to include it in future routes with absolute block signalling, as it is an essential part of it - I would go so far as to say at present absolute block signalling in TSW is fundamentally broken due to its absence.
This kind of post is really interesting, and also shows why the world is a much safer place with me driving with a keyboard instead of a throttle. I would never be able to remember all the things real engineers have to.
Great explanations eldomtom2, I really hope DTG can implement this at some point. I personally want the sim to be as realistic as possible, accurate signalling being one of the most important aspects for me. There's nothing more immersion breaking than poor signalling - we had to wait a while for the colour light approach control from red to be implemented, hopefully we won't have to wait as long for this rule.
A change of the signalling (which is i think done in the begin of route building with track laying), will probably not gonna happen. So what you is saying the "basic" principle rules of semaphore signalling is not setup well in tsw? As a no Hud driver i remember the situation of NTP, where the distant is showing always a "clear", i used to approach with 35mph until i saw the state of the signal after marsden. At this speed i could brake down, but the section was allowed for 60mph... Now with TSW 4 and its new features, we truely will see how devs have set up the signals. (At least we got the tools to fix their mess, whatever short cut will be taken) Quick addition: Rule 39 sounds like a very technical addition, but to me its part of the semaphores basic working principle and should be done correct
Interesting. I've been doing this whilst playing a signalling sim today (Blockpost) but never even considered that it should be in a DTG game - simply because it never has been. Thinking about it, it's not hard to implement - a block signal within a "distant section" (between distant and starter) that has the block clear after it doesn't go to off until the train is within X metres and the loco is under Y speed.
Have we actually seen a response from JT on the question of whether rule 39a will be correctly applied in the routes? I’ve seen it asked a couple of times but haven’t seen a response (although admittedly that may be a bad sign in itself as they’ve responded to everything else!) I do agree it’s important to include, as it’s fundamental to being able to drive realistically. It’s always been one of the frustrations with TSW that much time is spent on gimmicks, at the expense of things which are actually relevant to driving the train. However, JT’s approach seems to be different so I was holding out hope. It may be, though, that on this they’re restricted by a limitation of the core game.
I don't see why, it's how it worked for decades on real railways where nobody had a HUD. How would it be risky? It's risky now as you can barrel through a home that's off and came face to face with a starter that's on with no time to stop.
I mean with currents implementation. If the home signal clears, but the starter is still at danger in tsw.
From where does adding this does the game go from a 'Train Simulator' to a 'Totally accurate railways sim'. I, for one, do not care that signalling rules are not fully modelled. I play this to simulate... trains.., if the game was changed to be ultra realisitc, I'd be pushed away, and I'm sure many other users also would.
Tell me you just saw the word "realistic" and didn't take a single second to understand what was actually being discussed.
I wouldn’t worry, DTG won’t go this far for realism, and any practical implementation would likely be very simple to follow with the hud. In any case though, you are indeed playing a simulator & should expect realism.
I am still holding out a small glimmer of hope it will be something JT build upon in their future routes as it is, as said above the basics when dealing with semaphores and has resulted in many HUDless runs ending too soon on NTP especially.
It's more that the current implementation is impossible to drive correctly for players without the HUD.
As said, I don't particularly care. I don't think this "Rule 39a" needs to be added. I don't want to be forced to play a game as realism or nothing.
It is a simulator you bought though. There are other options out there if realism isn’t what you’re looking for. Besides, apart from making TSW more realistic, correct implementation of this rule would actually make it easier to drive under semaphore signalling.
Cant see why some players have a problem with that, it would literally change nothing except making the driving with less risk of a spad. Also im not familiar with the technical possibilities of TSWs signalling. Not even sure this could be implemented with current block signal system. So my solution as a no hud driver: When i see the distant at yellow and a clear home signal, i keep my speed rather low (35mph). So in case the starter is at danger it would be safe to brake. (Its recommend on NTP after passing marsden with 40mph direction leeds, its the known route bug, but had some really bad emergency brake applications after exiting the curve with 55mph and see the signal at danger)
Rule 39a and more accurate semaphore signalling in general would actually make driving easier, not harder. When you see a distant signal in the ON position you will know there's a reason why and will slow down. As things stand in TSW, they are mostly there as pretty-looking 2 aspect signals, apart from Peak Forest which at least tries to represent basic block sections.
I would also like to see more realistic signalling represented. I recall in TSC on the Riviera in the 50's route, the semaphores whilst looking lovely were just dressed up colour light signals, you would see signals in the opposite direction set of off when in reality they wouldn't have been. It does make the experience less immersive if the signalling isn't right. If implemented, as said rule 39a should improve the experience of the player. I agree though if you make TSW too much of a simulator, or make it so without the option of an "easy" mode there is a danger you could turn off casual gamers who just want to drive trains, which I imagine are quite a sizeable proportion of DTG's customers.
Very interesting thread. Might I ask a related question: How did the steam drivers (anyway the drivers from a bygone era) associate their track to its corresponding signals? I find that sooooo confusing on SOS and PFR. I wouldn´t dare to drive HUDless there, signal´s sometimes left, sometimes right of the track. Arrow sometimes pointing to your track, sometimes not. To complicate things even more, you might face those double signals which are placed besides the neighboring track. Are there any rules that help to figure this? And what about driving in darkness?
What precisely is different between Peak Forest's signalling and SoS's signalling? Do you have any examples?
Extreme route knowledge, basically. They knew the location of every signal and its meaning. Which is why, in steam days, depots had many "links" and drivers did not tend to work quite so far out from their home base as they do now.
Oh wow, I tip on my hat. But still, as we´re all human beings, it leaves a quite large error margin, does it not? They didn´t have a Zwangsbremsung ala PZB if they approached too fast or unintentionally SPADDed, right? Plus to think that the steam locos, at least the three in TSW, don´t have a speedometer. Respect!
I presume by "double signals" you are referring to junction signals? If so, then it's quite simple - the signal for going straight ahead on the main line is at the top, with signals for diverging routes placed lower in order of speed. They are also organised from left to right representing the directions of the routes - i.e. for a simple junction with one line that branches off to the left, there will be two signals - one lower down on the left for the diverging route and one higher up on the right for the main route. For more details, see the excellent railsigns.uk website: https://www.railsigns.uk/sect6page1.html
Yes, the error margin was significant. There was no system to stop the train if the Driver made an error, no audible warning or requirement to acknowledge a signal. It was completely reliant on the Driver peering out of the tiny window, with view heavily obstructed by the boiler, and often by steam, smoke, fog, smog and/or darkness, to spot the signal or its tiny, dim oil lamp. The signal could be either side of the line, and often had a very short viewing distance. In these conditions, trains were operated at speeds of 100mph+ and intensive commuter operations ran with trains running at short headways on multiple tracks. There were certainly more accidents than there are now, but none the less train travel was still an extremely safe mode of transport compared to any other. I was about to say ‘it’s a miracle there weren’t more accidents’ but of course, if was nothing to do with godly intervention or luck - it was down to intense concentration, skill and knowledge of thousands of railway employees, and the systems, processes and training in place to ensure they had those skills and that knowledge, and knew exactly how to apply them. P.S. I recommend LTC Rolt’s book ‘Red for Danger’ about the accidents that did take place. It gives a really good explanation of the safety systems of measures which were - and were not - in place, and just how reliant railway safety was on the individual. Very often the thing that leaps out at you is “how did that not happen more often?!” A lot of the lessons learnt are very relevant today, and are what resulted in the implementation of modern safety systems.
Reminds me the accident of harrow & wealdstone (As i remember the driver of the colliding train spaded twice):
Funnily enough before I got to the post above, just thought of Harrow. Red For Danger essential reading as also is OS Nock’s Historic Railway Disasters.
Thanks to everybody for exhaustive explanations, book recommendations and useful links. Very appreciated!
Indeed - two danger signals protected by one distant signal. It was later estimated that the distant signal would have been visible to the Driver for 4 seconds. A 4-second lapse - 112 lives lost. The accident greatly accelerated the implementation of what was to become AWS. Who knows how many lives that system has saved since - we don’t hear about the accidents which don’t happen.
Yes, modern UK rail safety systems are pretty impressive, although there was one incident I recall recently where somehow a train went through a slow speed (35mph?) turnout at pretty much full linespeed south of Peterborough station (100 ish?), heading north and remarkably stayed on the tracks. So it seems that there are still a few very rare instances where the Swiss Cheese holes can line up.
There are certainly still plenty of holes in the Swiss Cheese, and one of the things emphasised to UK train drivers is that TPWS does NOT prevent you from having a SPAD, nor a collision, nor derailing due to excessive speed. It reduces the chances of it happening, but it doesn’t prevent it. In the case you mention, the Driver reacted correctly to a red signal, and therefore passed over the TPWS equipment below the trigger speed. When the signal cleared the Driver failed to spot that it was accompanied by a route indicator showing that the train was being routed off the main line, through points with a lower maximum speed. The Driver was used to being routed along the main line at that location, and saw what he expected to see. He took full power, and the train accelerated rapidly, such that by the time it reached the points (which were some distance beyond the signal) it was travelling well in excess of the maximum speed, almost resulting in a derailment. Worth a watch:
Nonetheless, in the 25 years of the Big Four there were 63 fatal rail accidents in the UK. In the past 25 years there have been 11.
“Harrowing” indeed, and frightening that only a few months back, more than twice the number of Harrow victims met their unfortunate fate in Odisha, India.
Blimey, scary stuff, I can't imagine the drivers confusion and horror for those few seconds after seeing the banner on and the points switched for the turnout. Amazing that the train and track could handle those forces, great engineering.
Peak Forest’s signals are touted to be split up into authentic block sections to approximate those that existed at the time. If you see at distant signal in the ON position, you can expect the home and/or starter signals to also be ON (at danger). I’m probably being hard on SoS as it did get some attention in this area, but not as much as PF, although it was way better than NTP!
I'm a bit unclear as to what you're talking about. Wouldn't "authentic block sections" just be a matter of signalling placement and not signalling logic? I'm certain that PF still has the issue I talk about in this thread, of distant on-home off-starter on.
No, PF does not have Rule 39a but I believe more attention was paid to block section (signal) placement as I mentioned. Perhaps one day someone will script this in future routes.
I won't explain it all again as that's already been done, but what I will say is that junction is a real bugger as in normal conditions that indicator can be hard enough to see, so any sunlight, fog etc can create problems. Mixed in with the fact this train should have gone straight through, the rocket like acceleration of the 80xs and it was the perfect storm which had been predicted for years. Not the only incident at the location but certainly the closest to being a disaster.
Home = first stop signal controlled by signal box Starter = last stop signal controlled by signal box
Where or how did you form that impression; please? Do you really mean "section" signal or do you mean signals in general? For further qualification on the home/starter usage: Outer(most) Home Inner Home [Site of Signal Box] Starter Advanced Starter In modern parlance, whatever is the most advanced Starter has been replaced with "Section Signal" - for whatever signal controls the entrance into the section. If there was a need for further signals to be interposed through station limits "intermediate" tended to be used between outer/inner and starter/advanced; that also applied to distants outer, inner or outer, intermediate, inner. The LMS also used numbers Home 1 Home 2 Home 3.
No, train signalling is independent generally of station duties other than where the signal at the end of the platform is held at danger (usually at large locations) to prevent locking up the route for other movements prematurely. In that instance a “Train ready to start” plunger is operated by station staff which annunciation or displays in the signal box. The terminology starter/section signal as stated simply indicates the final signal of the block post controlling entry into the next block. Train despatch is done by station staff or the Guard and would (or should) never be done against a red signal, only when a proceed aspect is shown. This is why traction units in the UK in modern times have been fitted with the DRA as further mitigation against this happening.
Yet, that is the origin of the term - back in the bad old days, the signal to start would be given by the station master - for some railways (as evidenced even now on the Iberian Peninsular that would be a rolled-up red flag), in the UK it was either a raised arm or the T-semaphore in the middle of the station. The starter is the first signal that initiates the movement into a section; the homes are the signals that control the movement from a section. Obviously that is overlaid with inner/outer and advanced et al, but those are the most general principles. "Home" was used in the sense of "near" (in contradistinction to "Distant", which in turn grew out of "auxiliary" - which split into outer home and distant as speeds increased).
Thanks for joining the thread, MRFS. I wonder whether you can comment on Rule 39a - whether there’s anything preventing it being implemented in TSW and whether there are any plans to do so in the future? As a signalling expert working on TSW routes I’m sure it’s something you’ve thought about before! Thank you.
