Talk:Single-line working

Person in lieu of token
I have removed the sentence stating "pilotman" is an abbreviation of "person in lieu of token". This appears to be a backronym like "cape", and the quoted reference of Kichenside and Williams doesn't seem to mention this origin of the term (having checked pp 97-99 and the glossary in the 2008 edition). --87.114.82.244 (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I felt the same myself when I added the Rulebook references. I've never seen any official railway documentation that mentions 'person in lieu of token'. Dr Sludge (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorect statements and information
Yesterday on 12 nov 2018 i have corrected the incorrect information about single line working. Unfortunately it is deleted by some one. The article is incorect by subject itself as sinle line (track) working referes to railway system where only one line is used for both directions with sufficient loop lines at stations to arrange crossing of trains. The article is about temporary single line working stated as single line working wrongly. The temporary single line working is a state where there are two lines for both up and down directions separately but in the event of maintenance, accidents or failure of loco or train one line is temporarily blocked. Inthat case one line is used for up and down movement for some period till second line is restored again. The operation may involve use of Pilotman but not necessarily. In the first para it is written as it should not be confused with working of Pilotman whereas in subsequent para use of Pilotman is described. Such carelessness is in the article which is totally ambiguous and written by someone who doesn't know railway working. The sad part that edit done was removed by someone who doesn't understand railway working. The Wikipedia is not restricted to one country and should cover working all over the world. Firozpur (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Firozpur. Let's see if I can explain. You should appreciate that different countries do things differently. This page was originally created by someone from the United kingdom. Over time other people have then added bits to explain how things work there. They have also added citations, to enable people who aren't familiar with the information to check the facts from a verifiable source. Of course you are very welcome to explain how things are done in your country, so that we can have a worldwide view. To this end I have moved the original information that is specific to the 'United Kingdom' to a new section so that other countries can have an equal say. So can you please start a new section and explain which country it is that you are writing about? Don't forget though to add sources which verify what you've written, otherwise it may be removed. This is why what you wrote was deleted. Also it would be prudent to appreciate that if you don't understand or don't agree with what someone has written, it's not necessarily they who are wrong. Best wishes, Dr Sludge (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain your remarks. When it pertains to UK, it is written clearly and does not mean and correct to ommit or delete of other countries. Again, inspite of clarifying what mistake done in the article you failed to understand it, which is as simple as even a school child can understand. So if you close your eyes and adamant no one can correct you. I have corrected it because people who read it may not get wrong information or misguided purly as a social cause and not to downgrade or harm anyone. Also, i felt very sad about Wikipedia on which people trust so much. As the railway system in India is mostly UK based the working is mostly similar. The sources can not be made available as it is state property. What you said clearly if someone cannot understand it, doesn't mean it is wrong but the fact that what is incorrect is incorrect even you admit it or not. Thanks. Firozpur (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The following errors in article. 1.two lines in red shows arrow in both directions although left one should be up arrow and right one down arrow to reprasent up & down lines. In case of temporary single line (TSL) working left line in light as blocked should not show any arrow. 2. The image showing people working on two lines and one is working. Insted only two lines to be shown out of which on one line work is going on and other is used. 3.While explaining right direction movement it should written clearly that all signals should be OFF except starter which is authorized to be passed at ON or danger. 4. While explaining wrong direction movement which is more complex and dangerous the instrution is to keep all the signals ON on both the lines and drivers to stop at first distant (on right line) or advance starter (on wrong line) whichever comes first and from there it is to be operated with station staff prasent there with flag moving on to the right line at station up to starter of right line. 5. It is stated in the article that there is chances of head on collision or rear end collision which is incorrect as trains are operated on Absolute Block System and there is only one train in the block eliminating any risk in operation. No system in the world operates or follows a system which is having such risk endangering lives of commuters. Firozpur (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

6.Further in the event of signal failure due to accident or equipment failure and signles cannot be operated, the operation on TSL will be carried out by telephonic information conveyed through tickets number by respective Station Masters of both the stations. 7. Introduction of safty instruments like AWS (Auxiliary Warning System) or ACD (Anti collision Device) in trains helps in preventing any risk of operation even due to absence of signals or error by Station master or Drivers of trains. Train radar, mobile radio and satellite phones gives direct communication and position of trains to Central control and helps in safe operation of trains. Firozpur (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So no article then, just another condescending rant? Got the time to tell everybody else they're wrong, but can't be bothered to look for sources to justify what you say? I haven't really got anything else to suggest, other than going on an anger management course perhaps. Dr Sludge (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the choice is in your hand l can't change it even I know it requires changes. Of course, it's not my article. Sometimes sources are not available as I said. You are not reading properly my dear. Its whose problem is a question? Person who doesn't know railway working won't understand it.Those who know it don't require much clarification. Those who don't know but want to know can collect information from other sources (google, you tube, rekated material, books etc) by taking little efforts if they have will to improve themselves. Its not a judicial procedure requiring evidence. Its a process of understanding, satisfying to believe what is correct and to communicate to others. In csses sources not available its written with remark in so many articles. I don't understand your problem and now even don't want it. However using words like "condescending rant" is not proper. Of course you may feel it proper. We are not going to involve in any discussion further and i feel very sory that i wasted lot of my precious time for improving Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for very good experience with you. May God bless you. Firozpur (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)