Light Railway operations / signalling ? help required

[Pacific231G]

I skived-off for a few minutes from my allotted domestic tasks, and had a look in books about the W&LLR. I now know more, but am not sure I'm any wiser!

 

Initially, W&LLR was "one engine in steam", with a single train staff, incorporating a key to release the various ground frames along the way.

 

In 1907 they created a passing place at Castle Caerinion, with a signal-box, and home and distant signals in each direction, but no starters! And, they seem to have retained the ground frames there too, and one book says that the points could be worked by either the GF or the 'box, which seems a bit hard to believe. The box had 9 levers + 1 spare, which fits with points and FPLs at each end of the loop, four signals, and one siding point.

 

The system of working is described as "train staff and ticket by telephone", and the Inspecting Officer seems to have been a bit foxed by the absence of block-telegraph, but, after pondering, he decided it was safe enough.

 

And, when they didn't need two trains in service, they reverted to the previous OES, with one staff for the whole line, locking the new staff away in a safe place. The signals were eventually removed, but whether the line could still be operated as two sections after that, I can't work-out, and after the passenger service was withdrawn it didn't matter.

 

Andreas - I will get back to you about the signs after further reading. I'm beginning to think that, at unstaffed passing places, worked by "staff and telephone", it was acceptable to have neither signs nor signals - just "nominated stopping places".

 

Kevin

 

PS: I've found some chaps in another forum discussing the exact same stations, and they have diagrams, which I've borrowed - I don't think they will mind.

I believe that when it was operated by the GWR there was a signalman porter at each passing station so a starter signal would have been appropriate. Since it was also GW operated I'm guessing that the W&L worked under the same regime.

[hartleymartin]

Signalling for a Light Railway layout? As little as you can get away with!

[Nearholmer]

Andreas

 

Despite a fairly thorough hunt, I can find no examples of the equivalent of Tapeztaflen or H-tafeln in UK public-railway practice, even where virtually identical operating practice applied.

 

It seems that UK train drivers knew where they were supposed to stop on the basis of folk--tradition, rather than signage.

 

There was/is a very good system of block working for use on military-controlled railways, designed to be implemented in the event of an army taking over a railway where all the signalling infrastructure has been destroyed, and that relies on fixed signage and "signal boards", which are can be "knocked-up" from locally available material very easily/quickly.

 

Kevin

[The Stationmaster]

Andreas

 

Despite a fairly thorough hunt, I can find no examples of the equivalent of Tapeztaflen or H-tafeln in UK public-railway practice, even where virtually identical operating practice applied.

 

It seems that UK train drivers knew where they were supposed to stop on the basis of folk--tradition, rather than signage.

 

There was/is a very good system of block working for use on military-controlled railways, designed to be implemented in the event of an army taking over a railway where all the signalling infrastructure has been destroyed, and that relies on fixed signage and "signal boards", which are can be "knocked-up" from locally available material very easily/quickly.

 

Kevin

As far as I know there has never been any British equivalent of either of these German signs.  As you say the situation was that everything depended on staff knowledge especially a  Driver's road knowledge.

[AndiMax]

In the meantime I figured out a plan of the point rodding at Wanford (see attachments) or to say how I believe it could have looked like.

 

The plan comes from two ground frames and both signals at the yard entrance:

• An open ground frame with two levers for point S4 + FPL at the platform end of the loop.
• A ground frame in a shelter like the one at Jackfield Sidings (Severn Valley Railway) or at Tenterden Town (K&ESR). This ground frame has to serve 2 points with FPL and two signals. Because it sits exactly at the switch blade position of point S3 I felt it’s economic to add an extra lever for this point but no FPL. As this ground frame sets the starter signal I think it must be connected to telephone.

There is an alternative position for the open ground frame on the platform side of the main. This I’d certainly favour if the starter would be operated from this ground frame. The reason why I don’t like this solution is simple: my switch rod shows into the other direction.

 

But beside this the solution shown has the advantage that both frames are on the same side of the mainline. So a shunter walking or riding on the footboard of a vehicle must not cross the mainline when moving from one ground frame to the other.

 

I would be pleased get some valuable comments on these “rodding plans” and maybe some of you have tipps which material to use (C&L, MSE, ...)

 

Andreas

[RailWest]

IMHO:-

 

1. The signals would be wire runs on pulleys all the way to the lever tails, no cranks.

2.  I would suggest that you need to incorporate the lock bars for each FPL, so ideally the rods need to drive the lock bars, and the lock bars drive the lock plungers, rather than directly.

Edited October 7, 2015 by RailWest

[Nearholmer]

In this thread "never say never" is an especially important caution, but I don't think I've ever seen a picture showing a locking bar on a light railway that was designed as such from the outset. However, I have seen many directly-driven bolt-locks on light railways, in pictures and "in the metal".

 

Here is what the 1950 version of the Ministry of Transport Requirements has to say in its appendix about exceptions for light railways:

 

"Paras. 20 to 22. Points.—An economical type of facing point lock, that is, one which enables the points, bolt lock, and locking bar (when used) to be worked by one lever, is recommended. A locking bar will not be required when the lever working the facing points is alongside them. Rodding for the mechanical operation of points may not be necessary."

 

Economical locks weren't always used, in many cases there was a tiny two-lever ground frame. Locking bars were absent, even when the ground frame was a considerable distance from the points (Aberffrwd is the example again, ditto I think possibly Devils Bridge). And, I think the strange sentence about rodding is pointing to the fact that "economical" levers could be right next to the switches, rather than some form of magic!

 

I must get around to scanning some photos, because I took quite a few of these sorts of things during my long "light railway phase".

 

Kevin

[Donw]

I would agree with Chris the signals would be on wires. In the first picture the alternative GF position looks more likely to me, easy to access by the station staff The linkage for the FPL looks a bit complicated. This is an FPL from the Bristol Harbour Railway

http://s255.photobucket.com/user/forestade/media/Signalling/BHRFPL002.jpg.htm

 

Don

[Simond]

Don

 

Link didn't work for me.

 

Says "page does not exist" which, given you presumably copied it from an existing page, suggests a number of philosophical questions.

 

Best

Simon

[Nearholmer]

Here is nice little installation on the PD&SWJR. http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/images/gf/b-alston.jpg

 

And, here is loads more interesting stuff about the signalling of that line. http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sr/cal-boxes.html#LAT

 

If this website belonged to Railwest of this locale: thank you sir, it is exceedingly good.

 

Kevin

[The Stationmaster]

In this thread "never say never" is an especially important caution, but I don't think I've ever seen a picture showing a locking bar on a light railway that was designed as such from the outset. However, I have seen many directly-driven bolt-locks on light railways, in pictures and "in the metal".

 

Here is what the 1950 version of the Ministry of Transport Requirements has to say in its appendix about exceptions for light railways:

 

"Paras. 20 to 22. Points.—An economical type of facing point lock, that is, one which enables the points, bolt lock, and locking bar (when used) to be worked by one lever, is recommended. A locking bar will not be required when the lever working the facing points is alongside them. Rodding for the mechanical operation of points may not be necessary."

 

Economical locks weren't always used, in many cases there was a tiny two-lever ground frame. Locking bars were absent, even when the ground frame was a considerable distance from the points (Aberffrwd is the example again, ditto I think possibly Devils Bridge). And, I think the strange sentence about rodding is pointing to the fact that "economical" levers could be right next to the switches, rather than some form of magic!

 

I must get around to scanning some photos, because I took quite a few of these sorts of things during my long "light railway phase".

 

Kevin

The key bit is 'when the lever is alongside the points' - which it isn't in the example of the larger frame in Post No.55. hence no doubt Chris' comment about providing a locking bar.  However the other, small frame, would not require a locking bar as the frame is immediately adjacent to the points.  But an FPL would obviously still be required in both cases.

 

Incidentally this section in the 1950 issue of the Requirements is exactly the same as that in the mid 1920s issue.

[Nearholmer]

SM

 

Good. I've got the 1928 set, but I don't carry it with me (very remiss, I know) - the 1950 one is easy to find on line!

 

One of the points(!) I'm trying to make, though, is that locking bars seem to have been rare, if not absent altogether, even where the frame was quite a distance from the points, and the view from one to the other could conceivably be obscured.

 

I had a delve into photos of the EKLR for ten minutes yesterday evening. Utterly fascinating/baffling from a signalling point of view! It seems to have had signals where none were necessary, and none where there seems to be a need ........ More reading and peering at pictures to follow.

 

Kevin

[The Stationmaster]

SM

 

Good. I've got the 1928 set, but I don't carry it with me (very remiss, I know) - the 1950 one is easy to find on line!

 

One of the points(!) I'm trying to make, though, is that locking bars seem to have been rare, if not absent altogether, even where the frame was quite a distance from the points, and the view from one to the other could conceivably be obscured.

 

I had a delve into photos of the EKLR for ten minutes yesterday evening. Utterly fascinating/baffling from a signalling point of view! It seems to have had signals where none were necessary, and none where there seems to be a need ........ More reading and peering at pictures to follow.

 

Kevin

As I've already said - many lines seemed to do things their own way, whatever the requirements said.

 

I usually look at the 1950 version as it's the nearest one on my bookshelves, the 1928 version (as part of book) is upstairs in the 'library' so it's further to walk to consult it   

[RailWest]

>>>Here is nice little installation on the PD&SWJR. http://www.trainweb....gf/b-alston.jpg...

That is a modern BR(W) installation on a non-Light Railway line, but not a bad example nonetheless for the proposed GF No 2

>>>If this website belonged to Railwest of this locale: thank you sir, it is exceedingly good.

 

It does :-) Thank you for those kind words on my modest scribblings.

 

As regards locking bars and 'lever alongside points', my view on the matter (from the various instances with which I am familiar) is that at GFs which are normally un-manned and usually locked by some means (eg key on staff etc) then lock bars were not provided, presumably because the points were being operated by someone close enough to see that there was no train stood over the points at the time.

[AndiMax]

Thank you for your comments.

 

RailWest and Donw are right, the wires of the signal are lead directly to the lever in the groundframe not by means of cranks. I checked the internet for a photo and you can see this clearly i.e. on:

http://www.foscl.org.uk/content/scrca-image-2345802012-07-20aksettle-jn-sb-point-rodding-etc

 

The kind of FPLs rodding I’ve designed is derived from the photo I took in Sri Lanka this summer. The railways there are in almost original British condition and the design is more or less identical to the one I’ve found in my book on the K&ESR (see post #30) but with a lock device that’s a little bit more sophisticated.

 

I checked all my books on light railways and branchlines and couldn’t find any lockbars installed. So it seemed – like Chris wrote - to be more common to use 2 levers: 1 for point + trap and 1 for FPL. However a link with interesting Saxby drawings of lockbar and FPL is: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=721&forum_id=1)

 

The link in post #60 is extremely helpful because the layout of Callington comes close to Wanford’s. I noticed that the 2 FPLs at the yard entrance are driven with one lever only. The ground frames A & B are on opposite sides of the mainline so my argument in post #55 is obsolete and consequently I move groundframe B.

 

Updated plans see below and hopefully there are some modelers out there that can give some information on 7mm cranks, levers etc.

Andreas

[Donw]

Both C+L and MSE do some parts for the rodding  etc. C+L seem to do the greatest range not tried them yet.  For Lever frames MSE do a Saxby and Farmer 4 lever cosmetic frame. Most of the frame s available are oversize ones intended to be operational the Scalefour one seems to be highly rated. I cannot remember how you intend to operate the turnouts. I am assuming the rodding will be cosmetic and non working. It would be difficult to use scale size rodding as rigidity does not scale well as it is a factor of the diameter squared.

Don

[RailWest]

>>>I checked all my books on light railways and branchlines and couldn’t find any lockbars installed......

Then, with respect, I think you need to augment your library :-)

>>>So it seemed – like Chris wrote - to be more common to use 2 levers: 1 for point + trap and 1 for FPL....

Errr...the number of levers used is unrelated to whether lock-bars existed or not, but simply whether the FPLs were 'economic' or not.

 

Noting your latest proposals, whilst appreciating that - as always - there are exceptions to such things (eg Ashburton again), I would suggest that that the two signals should be worked from the same GF. You might like to follow the Callington example - work both signals from the GF by the platform (make it 4 levers), with a key from that GF being used to unlock the other GF. That then gives you interlocking between the two signals and all the points.

[Nearholmer]

Chaps

 

An example from the East Kent Light Railway to ponder on: The Case of Canterbury Road.

 

Here is a link to background material http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wingham_canterbury_road/

 

Below is a sketch based on what I can work out from photographs in books. It may not be absolutely correct, in that I can find a picture that shows the ground frame (or whatever else it was) clearly.

 

The presence of the signals seems to indicate that this was the end of a token section, with it being possible to have two trains present at once .......... But, I think it was actually operated as a "one engine in steam" section.

 

What do you think about it?

 

Kevin

[runs as required]

I've just wasted spent a most enjoyable hour rambling thru this thread. It reminded me of working in Salop County Council in the late 1950s and wandering around the S&M at Abbey Foregate at lunchtimes and exploring grass grown remoter bits on site visits.

 

In gratitude I attach below the diagram in the last post right way up

 

 

dhig

[The Stationmaster]

Chaps

 

An example from the East Kent Light Railway to ponder on: The Case of Canterbury Road.

 

Here is a link to background material http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wingham_canterbury_road/

 

Below is a sketch based on what I can work out from photographs in books. It may not be absolutely correct, in that I can find a picture that shows the ground frame (or whatever else it was) clearly.

 

The presence of the signals seems to indicate that this was the end of a token section, with it being possible to have two trains present at once .......... But, I think it was actually operated as a "one engine in steam" section.

 

What do you think about it?

 

Kevin

Looks fairly logical to me.  i wonder if the signals were normally left at 'off' to remind enginemen which way the points were set (or rather which way they weren't set)?

[BG John]

According to the 25 inch OS map, one signal was right next to the level crossing, rather than where you've drawn it, but otherwise pretty much agrees.

http://maps.nls.uk/view/103680509

[Nearholmer]

SM

 

Hard to tell what position the signals were normally left in, and pictures seem to show trains passing them in three positions: on; off; and, hard to tell, really, because of advancing decay.

 

And, passengers often embarked/disembarked in the goods siding ".... using a sack barrow as a ladder....".

 

Logical? To spend money on two signals and associated gubbins in the circumstances of Canterbury Road, where surely the ground frame must have been released by a key on the train staff? Only to signalling engineers. ;-)

 

Thanks BGJ - should have checked the map myself!

 

Kevin

[Donw]

I presume they would have used a flagman to cross the road. The one on the Dean Forest railway has gates but no signals so someone has to open the gates across the road  (the main thoroughfare in Lydney)  It is down to the driver to be sure the crossing is clear.

 

Don

Edited October 9, 2015 by Donw

[Nearholmer]

Yes.

 

The reason they ended-up terminating the passenger trains in the goods siding, was that the road became very busy, so too difficult to "flag" across.

 

Railways are so dull now, by comparison, aren't they?

 

K

[BG John]

They used gravity shunting to "run round" too!