Signalling assistance please

[Junctionmad]

Just a point that confuses me based on Stationmasters description ,

 

Would not a shunt fron the yard onto the upmain , that passed through the up starter /gates , be put " on the block " and given the clearance point on the up main is likely fouled , that equally it would be placed on the block , i.e. Both a blocking back inside home and "shunting into forward section " sent to the respective boxes

Edited March 11, 2017 by Junctionmad

[ColHut]

Assuming I understand you correctly, there is a starter/advance starter 'East' of the tunnel on the up main to the right (#4) which is the section signal, and unless it is a very long train, no need to shunt into the forward section. On the ground this is about a further 140 yards along the track.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards

Edited March 11, 2017 by ColHut

[beast66606]

Blocking back is only given if the shunt comes to a stand on a line, in this case a departure crossing the down main would not require BBIHS to be sent for the down, the bobby would simply refuse any train which was offerred until the move was clear.

At Port Sunlight the morning trip would do exactly that.

[micknich2003]

Blocking back is only given if the shunt comes to a stand on a line, in this case a departure crossing the down main would not require BBIHS to be sent for the down, the bobby would simply refuse any train which was offerred until the move was clear.

At Port Sunlight the morning trip would do exactly that.

At Beverley, the signalman "Blocked Back" to Cherry Tree for trains departing from the Down platform and then on to Hull via the Up Main.

[ColHut]

Nothing at all wrong with 'straddling' the signal - went on all over the place and isn't a problem with a semaphore signal as it remains off until the complete train has passed it in any event.

Where my train does straddle the crossing and protecting signal, and comes to a stand, I take it I am supposed to lower the signal anyway under rule 68a(iii) and 68b?

 

regards

[The Stationmaster]

Where my train does straddle the crossing and protecting signal, and comes to a stand, I take it I am supposed to lower the signal anyway under rule 68a(iii) and 68b?

 

regards

 

The signal should be left off unless there is no choice (as I said it might have to be replaced to danger to release the points in any case and it would definitely have to be replaced to danger in order to release the disc signal to set off in the opposite direction).  Don't forget that in this particular situation the signal protects a level crossing and returning it to danger would release the level crossing gate lock levers - but returning it to danger would in reality be unavoidable because unless that is done the disc cannot be cleared.

[ColHut]

Hmm I was thinking that too about the level crossing. Definitely a signal box special instruction to keep the signal off until they were ready to shunt back across the crossover.

 

regards

[The Stationmaster]

Hmm I was thinking that too about the level crossing. Definitely a signal box special instruction to keep the signal off until they were ready to shunt back across the crossover.

 

regards

 

Quite possibly - especially if some Signalman there was a 'Rule Book barrack room lawyer' (oddly as it happens I had one who was exactly that when it came to 2-4 Block Backs which suddenly took up umpteen pages of booking after he was promoted to a patrticular signalbox where they probably hadn't been used ever for a particular move.

[ColHut]

I have finally got to the stage of adding point motors now and signals to this part of the layout, and I was struck by twp things:

 

1) The parsimonious nature of signalling on the GNR - nearly always accepting the lowest bid on capital works.  This part of the line is 1930s LNER, but loosely based on original late 19C  GNR.  I think they would have less signals if they could.

 

2) I am trying to avoid a forest of signals.

 

Looking at some similar layouts:

St James Deeping 1930:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1067

Crouch end 1901:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=267

Holton Le Clay 1937:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=382

Even Billingboro Station North Box 1891 in Vanns' Illustrated History of GNR Signalling

 

It seems I could probably lose two stop signals, and possibly have just the one ground signal where I have two (8 and 9) with only some loss of control (the moves at 8,9 there will be obvious from the WTT; backing or pulling forward into the siding from the up main, or pulling forward from the up main to the down main to continue or start a journey).

 

The yellow ground signal at 12 will still allow light engine movements onto the up line even if the crossing gates are closed - as an obstruction to be stopped short of.

 

The line is very much a lesser line with only occasional diverted expresses, (similar to an LMS class A line) minimal locking between instruments and signals to be included , although we might stretch to a line clear release.  At great expense we might provide a firemans' plunger at 16.

 

Hopefully the last version.

 

[LNERGE]

Of no real use to you but some more detail on Deeping..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/31568415295/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/12122983705/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32297024@N08/albums/72157664854640231

 

My diagrams are in colour unlike Mr Hinsons <G> You can see the yellow discs.

[The Stationmaster]

I have finally got to the stage of adding point motors now and signals to this part of the layout, and I was struck by twp things:

 

1) The parsimonious nature of signalling on the GNR - nearly always accepting the lowest bid on capital works.  This part of the line is 1930s LNER, but loosely based on original late 19C  GNR.  I think they would have less signals if they could.

 

2) I am trying to avoid a forest of signals.

 

Looking at some similar layouts:

St James Deeping 1930:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1067

Crouch end 1901:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=267

Holton Le Clay 1937:

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=382

Even Billingboro Station North Box 1891 in Vanns' Illustrated History of GNR Signalling

 

It seems I could probably lose two stop signals, and possibly have just the one ground signal where I have two (8 and 9) with only some loss of control (the moves at 8,9 there will be obvious from the WTT; backing or pulling forward into the siding from the up main, or pulling forward from the up main to the down main to continue or start a journey).

 

The yellow ground signal at 12 will still allow light engine movements onto the up line even if the crossing gates are closed - as an obstruction to be stopped short of.

 

The line is very much a lesser line with only occasional diverted expresses, (similar to an LMS class A line) minimal locking between instruments and signals to be included , although we might stretch to a line clear release.  At great expense we might provide a firemans' plunger at 16.

 

Hopefully the last version.

 

LitPig6gnr.JPG

 

The lie of point end 6B needs to be corrected   And 6B should be labelled 6A (it's nearest to the signalbox) and 6A should be 6B.  Similarly 7A and 7B need to be transposed.

Edited March 13, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[ColHut]

The lie of point end 6B needs to be corrected   And 6B should be labelled 6A (it's nearest to the signalbox) and 6A should be 6B.  Similarly 7A and 7B need to be transposed.

Yes 6B should be touching the line... And the signal box has moved to just south of the siding at the west end of the platform. It is actually a very gentle divergence. I will amend the diagram.

 

regards and thankyou both

[The Stationmaster]

Yes 6B should be touching the line... And the signal box has moved to just south of the siding at the west end of the platform. It is actually a very gentle divergence. I will amend the diagram.

 

regards and thankyou both

 

If you've moved the signalbox it might affect the A & B ends - simple principle, the end nearest the signalbox is the A end.

 

How will the level crossing be worked if the signalbox has been moved - a separate gatebox?

[bécasse]

If the box were at the other end (closest to the sidings), the crossing could have been worked by hand with a single bolt locking it all up. I suspect that that arrangement would have been perfectly possible on an ex-GNR double track line in the 1930s, perhaps even probable, given that the sidings include a loco depot.

 

I wonder, too, whether the GNR wouldn't have fitted fpls (but not bars) to the point and both ends of the single slip. I know that they are only trailing points (to passenger traffic) but the GNR had a habit of fitting fpls to trailing points in running lines that were going to have trains of wagons propelled over them. Unfortunately, although I know that the GNR did it, I don't know how widespread the practice was and what criteria determined whether it was done or not.

[ColHut]

You ask a good question.

 

I am not sure how far a mechanical wheel-worked crossing could be from the signal box.  I am guessing that powered electric or hydraulic were available at some time.  I hope by the 1930s.  The trouble is he can no longer see the crossing!  (who designed this?)

 

If not a a very small manned hut on the platform end (where the box used to be) with perhaps a bell or telephone to contact the signalman, perhaps even a set of block instruments, and with the gates interlocked with a lever from the box so that they could only be closed across the line if the signalmen had pulled a controlling king lever.  A a local ground frame in fact.  There might even be an indicator in the signal box to remind the signalmen of the position of the gates.  This would 

 

plausible?

 

This would obviously change the levers in the box controlling the gates to a single locking lever. (18,19).

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

You ask a good question.

 

I am not sure how far a mechanical wheel-worked crossing could be from the signal box.  I am guessing that powered electric or hydraulic were available at some time.  I hope by the 1930s.  The trouble is he can no longer see the crossing!  (who designed this?)

 

If not a a very small manned hut on the platform end (where the box used to be) with perhaps a bell or telephone to contact the signalman, perhaps even a set of block instruments, and with the gates interlocked with a lever from the box so that they could only be closed across the line if the signalmen had pulled a controlling king lever.  A a local ground frame in fact.  There might even be an indicator in the signal box to remind the signalmen of the position of the gates.  This would 

 

plausible?

 

This would obviously change the levers in the box controlling the gates to a single locking lever. (18,19).

 

 

LitPig7gnr.JPG

 

Almost inevitably a separate gatebox or ground frame to work the level crossing because it could not be properly overlooked by the Signalman.   I'm not really sure about the relevant Company practice here butI I would have thought it more likely that the signalbox would be adjacent to the level crossing rather than at the other end of the platform by the pointwork - definitely done that way by some Companies (e.g the North Eastern and the GWR) as it saved having an extra member of staff solely to control the level crossing.

[ColHut]

Of no real use to you but some more detail on Deeping..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/31568415295/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/12122983705/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32297024@N08/albums/72157664854640231

 

My diagrams are in colour unlike Mr Hinsons <G> You can see the yellow discs.

 

Lovely.

 

The white on red discs are the targets with lamps on the level crossing gates?  What is the date on the St James Deeping diagram (1)?

 

regards

[ColHut]

Almost inevitably a separate gatebox or ground frame to work the level crossing because it could not be properly overlooked by the Signalman. I'm not really sure about the relevant Company practice here butI I would have thought it more likely that the signalbox would be adjacent to the level crossing rather than at the other end of the platform by the pointwork - definitely done that way by some Companies (e.g the North Eastern and the GWR) as it saved having an extra member of staff solely to control the level crossing.

Thankyou. And yes - a design compromise because of the poor position of the level crossing and tunnel mouth, and very limited platform length.

 

Manbethorpe is the only example I can find easily, although this is dated 1950.

 

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=512

 

 

I'll go with a ground frame in a hut controlling a couple of wicket gates (1 lever each?) and a wheel for the main gates. A bell/plunger or telephone, and a bolt release from the box. There will be an indicator in the signal box to remind the signalmen of the position of the gates if not closed across the road. I will re-read Vanns' book to see what I missed.

 

regards

Edited March 14, 2018 by ColHut

[The Stationmaster]

Thankyou. And yes - a design compromise because of the poor position of the level crossing and tunnel mouth, and very limited platform length.

 

Manbethorpe is the only example I can find easily, although this is dated 1950.

 

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=512

 

 

I'll go with a ground frame in a hut controlling a couple of wicket gates (1 lever each?) and a wheel for the main gates. A bell/plunger or telephone, and a bolt release from the box. There will be an indicator in the signal box to remind the signalmen of the position of the gates if not closed across the road. I will re-read Vanns' book to see what I missed.

 

regards

 

Depending on how its arranged (there could be variants) you basically need 1 lever for each of the wicket gates plus another lever for the gate locks on the main level crossing.  So three levers plus a gate wheel but if the gates are worked by hand you wouldn't need the gate wheel and with hand worked gates there's not really a need for wicket gates as far as I can tell.  Whatever the arrangement there would be a single lever and rod run from the signalbox to release/lock the gate lock lever at the ground frame - wicket gate levers were rarely inter;locked with anything judging by all the ones I have seen (which isn't many!).

[TheSignalEngineer]

Depending on how its arranged (there could be variants) you basically need 1 lever for each of the wicket gates plus another lever for the gate locks on the main level crossing.  So three levers plus a gate wheel but if the gates are worked by hand you wouldn't need the gate wheel and with hand worked gates there's not really a need for wicket gates as far as I can tell.  Whatever the arrangement there would be a single lever and rod run from the signalbox to release/lock the gate lock lever at the ground frame - wicket gate levers were rarely inter;locked with anything judging by all the ones I have seen (which isn't many!).

In the case of a small crossing with hand-worked gates these would sometimes locked by a lever in the frame and sometimes by the use of a Black's Lock on each gate or pair of gates. The keys could only be removed from the gates when they were locked across the road and were then inserted into the lever frame to release the signals. Hand working of four gates was a pain unless it was a lightly used line crossing a minor road. 

 

When worked by a wheel there seemed to be different fashions depending on the company and era. Some had one lever shown as the Gate Lock. Others had two levers shown as Gate Lock, which was for the stops in the road holding the gates open for rail traffic, and a second named Gate Stops which held the gates open for road traffic. 

 

Again with wicket gates these could be operated by one or two levers. In some instances these were on small levers away from the frame as they weren't interlocked. IIRC correctly Bentley Heath between Dorridge and Solihull was like that before we put the barriers in around 1972/3.

 

I can remember  at least two crossings I visited which had hand worked gates and wicket gates. At least one was still worked to the old Rule 99, where the gates were kept locked across the road until needed to pass road traffic. The wickets were there so that pedestrians and cyclists could cross freely without need for intervention of the signalman.

 

In all a very diverse subject which depended on era, company, frequency of trains and amount of road / pedestrian traffic. The number of levers used varied from one to four at the crossings I worked on.