GW BLT - Engine Release Crossover

[Coombe Barton]

Somewhere on here very recently I saw mention of one lever in the signal box operating borh turnouts of the engine release crossover.

 

Is this normal practice, especially in the context of a GW branch line terminus?

 

Or would there be two levers?

[ikcdab]

Somewhere on here very recently I saw mention of one lever in the signal box operating borh turnouts of the engine release crossover.

 

Is this normal practice, especially in the context of a GW branch line terminus?

 

Or would there be two levers?

If you mean one lever operating both points in a crossover, then yes, it is absolutely the normal practice and it would be unusual to find anything different.

[The Stationmaster]

It seems to have been not unusual for GWR engine release crossvers not to be provided with facing point locks (for the point in the platform line) so working the crossover with a single lever would be quite ok.

However some such crossovers - definitely in later years where signal alterations had taken place - did have facing point locks so a second lever would be required for that.

[Coombe Barton]

Thanks - now to actually build the thing.

[R A Watson]

Surely, if on a branch line the working is by either Token or One Engine in Steam conditions, there is no possibility of two locos carrying out opposing movements at the same time, therefore there is no need fopr further protective measures.

 

Wally

[ikcdab]

Surely, if on a branch line the working is by either Token or One Engine in Steam conditions, there is no possibility of two locos carrying out opposing movements at the same time, therefore there is no need fopr further protective measures.

 

Wally

Wally, the facing point locks (FPL) are to ensure the points are fixed in the right position before a passenger train passes over them - to prevent derailments. It doesnt matter if its token working or not, the same rule applies. Here, the question is that if the engine release crossover was so far along the platform that coaches never needed to pass over it, then no FPL would be required. If, however, the requirement was for the engine to run around and then shunt the stock back, then an FPL would be needed.

 

Ian

[The Stationmaster]

Wally, the facing point locks (FPL) are to ensure the points are fixed in the right position before a passenger train passes over them - to prevent derailments. It doesnt matter if its token working or not, the same rule applies. Here, the question is that if the engine release crossover was so far along the platform that coaches never needed to pass over it, then no FPL would be required. If, however, the requirement was for the engine to run around and then shunt the stock back, then an FPL would be needed.

 

Ian

 

Well that was the theory (and of course officially the 'Requirement') - what happened in practice was of course rather different and at my local junction station the branch passenger service ran for roundly 50 years over a loco release crossover point which didn't have a facing point lock, and I bet that in everyday working it was far from alone in that.

[Miss Prism]

Box-controlled release crossovers were a rarity on GW BLTs.

[Coombe Barton]

There was one at Moretonhampstead, along with a dummy.

[The Stationmaster]

Box-controlled release crossovers were a rarity on GW BLTs.

 

Strangely the reverse seems to have probably been the case - certainly in the West of England.

 

I have identified the following as termini where the release crossover was operated from the signalbox and in the case of those marked * it was alongside the platform but did not have an FPL -

 

LIST UPDATED 09.03.10 - re Kingsbridge, Brixham, and Moretonhampstead

 

Faringdon*, Cirencester*, Marlborough (NP), Barnstaple*, Kingsbridge*, Brixham*, Bodmin*, St Ives*, Helston(NP). In Cornwall the only GWR branch terminus with ground frame worked release crossovers was Newquay, while going further east they also existed at Minehead and the revised Portishead. Hemyock didn't have a signal box after 1925 as the structure was downgraded to a ground frame at that time. Kingswear I believe also had a ground frame. Moretonhampstead was worked from the signal box and probably didn't have an FPL but, as yet, I can't be certain.

Overall the general tendency, certainly in the west, was that unless the station had long platforms the release crossover was worked from the signal box and tended not to have an FPL even if it was in a bay or alongside the platform.

 

Release points existed beyond the station platform at several termini e.g Helston ('box worked) and in some cases these were hand worked - e.g Highworth - while at a few places the run-round was carried out in the yard beyond the platform e.g.Looe.

 

Similarly, for example, 'box worked release crossovers in junction station bay platforms definitely existed at Princes Risborough(?*), Twyford*, Cholsey*, Newbury (Lambourn bay)*, Yatton (Cheddar bay)*, and St Erth* - note again the lack of an FPL.

[Miss Prism]

Miss P has eaten her hat; that's a gem of a post, Mike. Must admit I'm a bit amazed, perhaps not so much in respect of the terminii, where box-controlled releases made a lot of sense in many cases, e.g. for the special movements at Bodmin and St Ives, but at their provision at the junctions. But what was the point of doing it at somewhere like Cholsey, where it was probably used only once or twice a day?

 

(I must revisit Heart of the Great Western by Adrian Vaughan - lots of lovely signalling diagrams!)

[The Stationmaster]

Miss P has eaten her hat; that's a gem of a post, Mike. Must admit I'm a bit amazed, perhaps not so much in respect of the terminii, where box-controlled releases made a lot of sense in many cases, e.g. for the special movements at Bodmin and St Ives, but at their provision at the junctions. But what was the point of doing it at somewhere like Cholsey, where it was probably used only once or twice a day?

 

(I must revisit Heart of the Great Western by Adrian Vaughan - lots of lovely signalling diagrams!)

 

Firstly - after further digging - I have to add Launceston* and Princetown (which possibly had an FPL!) to the above list.

 

It is fascinating isn't it, and I think with the likes of Cholsey the main reason was probably convenience and simplicity compared with the alternative of putting in a ground frame and the controls to release it. Back in the old days (pre mid 1960s in reality I reckon) point rodding was relatively cheap to install as the labour cost very little whereas electrical kit cost money and basically there was no saving in interlocking cost in the signalbox.

 

And of course Cholsey - as you will re-read shortly - long pre-dates the end of the passenger service so run-round provision was needed(perhaps I should now plough through various working timetables from days of yore to see just what was working the branch in 1938 and 1947?

 

The remarkable bit about it all is the lack of FPLs where in total there would have been numerous daily passenger train run-rounds and then the train set back so at least one, or 'half', a bogie would be passing over a point which had become facing when the train departed.

[martin_wynne]

The remarkable bit about it all is the lack of FPLs where in total there would have been numerous daily passenger train run-rounds and then the train set back so at least one, or 'half', a bogie would be passing over a point which had become facing when the train departed.

Hi Mike,

 

Perhaps the thinking was that the action of setting-back would force the points closed, in a similar way to sprung catch points and loose-trailed switches?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Coombe Barton]

Yet Ashburton appears to have had no FPLs at all, even on the run in. I can't find any photographic evidence that there was. The ground frame of three levers controlled the loop and yard points and the home signal, everything else being hand controlled. So FPLs on engine releases would have been a bit of a luxury?

 

The St Ives branch platform at St Erth had no FPL on the release crossover http://www.svrsig.or...s/S1086-12b.pdf

[Miss Prism]

Keep up the excellent research, Mike!

 

The remarkable bit about it all is the lack of FPLs where in total there would have been numerous daily passenger train run-rounds and then the train set back so at least one, or 'half', a bogie would be passing over a point which had become facing when the train departed.

It's even crazier and more inconsistent than that, particularly bearing in mind the introduction of the Steam Rail Motors, where the entire train would be traversing the release. Such was the case also at St Ives, where the release was halfway up the (quite long) platform, and where on occasion a train (Prairie and B-set) would depart via the loop! Single-car DMUs, either the GWR railcars or later 121s/122s, would also be traversing the release. (Wasn't a new FPL put in at Staines West in later years?)

 

I take your point about the goods working at Cholsey outliving the passenger working, but I think the branch was entirely autotrain-worked at least from the end of WWII, so that box-controlled release would have been used only for the goods.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

Perhaps the thinking was that the action of setting-back would force the points closed, in a similar way to sprung catch points and loose-trailed switches?

 

regards,

Martin.

 

It might well be Martin, and I'm sure it would have been in practice. In R&R terms there would have been no problem if the points had been detected by a disc, or other sort of, ground signal but I seriously wonder if it was the practice to clear such signals and in any case in most of the examples I quoted the type of lever frame interlocking wouldn't allow the ground signal to be cleared with the points either way and the usual practice was to clear the signal with the points set 'to cross'.

 

After a quick check I can't find anything in the Minute Book but I have only looked through the index for 1911 to 1921 (the later books don't have indexes ) and in any case I suspect the idea probably dates from earlier.

 

But all I can say with confidence is that I cannot recall (from childhood years I hasten to add ) our branch train coming off the road at such points.

[The Stationmaster]

Keep up the excellent research, Mike!

 

 

It's even crazier and more inconsistent than that, particularly bearing in mind the introduction of the Steam Rail Motors, where the entire train would be traversing the release. Such was the case also at St Ives, where the release was halfway up the (quite long) platform, and where on occasion a train (Prairie and B-set) would depart via the loop! Single-car DMUs, either the GWR railcars or later 121s/122s, would also be traversing the release. (Wasn't a new FPL put in at Staines West in later years?)

 

I take your point about the goods working at Cholsey outliving the passenger working, but I think the branch was entirely autotrain-worked at least from the end of WWII, so that box-controlled release would have been used only for the goods.

 

Staines is one to add to the research list (perhaps CJL/Dibber could help us on that one?)however an early picture shows it with a ground disc while one from 1953 shows no signal at all - suggesting that by then it had been altered to ground frame operation (in which state it definitely was by 1964, complete with FPL by the look of the pic - but that was long after the signalbox had been closed).

 

I have checked out Wallingford in the summer 1938 and winter 1947 service TTs and with one exception in 1938 (a Sunday morning only milk train) all the trains were indeed push-pull. However several of them were shown to run as mixed trains so possibly some running round might have been involved although that's unlikely (especially as such trains were of course authorised to shunt with the trailer attached).

[The Stationmaster]

For those who are interested I have now updated my post of 27 February - adding Kingsbridge and Brixham as locations where the release crossover was 'box worked and had no FPL.

 

Extensive alterations were carried out at Kingsbridge in the 1930s including a number of changes to the signalling. But notwithstanding the alterations being in connection with making provision for longer trains no FPL was added to the release crossover.

 

Brixham also had a very unusual feature. The provision of a ground signal at the 'loop' end points on GW engine release crossovers seems to have been comparatively rare although they certainly existed at some places (e.g. Princes Risborough adjacent to the Aylesbury bay). Brixham however boasted something even more unusual as the 'loop' end of the crossover was a trap point with no siding extending beyond it - and the trap was provided with a ground disc. Presumably this was done to allow the loop to be used for shunting purpose and length was gained by being able to shunt towards the platform line stop blocks - well that's my best guess .

[R A Watson]

There is one other factor that everyone is missing, that of practicality. On virtually all of the branch termini the station building and therefore the booking office and passenger access is situated some distance along the platform and passengers do not go onto the platform past the stop block as they would in a main line terminal.

 

When the train came into the platform it stopped with the coaches opposite the booking office whereupon the guard wound down his handbrake before the loco detached to run round, it stayed in this position until the train departed and the coaching stock did not move down the platform to come any closer to the release turnout. In any case it was not permitted to shunt stock with pasengers on board, some would have boarded during the running round.

 

One other misconception is that of motor/push pull/auto trains using the run round, by their very nature they were operated as a permanent unit and the loco did not normally detach from the train during its period of duty.

 

So in the practical mind of the old railway the stock came no closer than an engines length of the turnout so no need to spend extra money on unneeded protection.

 

Wally

[The Stationmaster]

There is one other factor that everyone is missing, that of practicality. On virtually all of the branch termini the station building and therefore the booking office and passenger access is situated some distance along the platform and passengers do not go onto the platform past the stop block as they would in a main line terminal.

 

When the train came into the platform it stopped with the coaches opposite the booking office whereupon the guard wound down his handbrake before the loco detached to run round, it stayed in this position until the train departed and the coaching stock did not move down the platform to come any closer to the release turnout. In any case it was not permitted to shunt stock with pasengers on board, some would have boarded during the running round.

 

One other misconception is that of motor/push pull/auto trains using the run round, by their very nature they were operated as a permanent unit and the loco did not normally detach from the train during its period of duty.

 

So in the practical mind of the old railway the stock came no closer than an engines length of the turnout so no need to spend extra money on unneeded protection.

 

Wally

 

That is undoubtedly true of some places but very definitely not of others - where trains regularly started with at least one coach bogie passing over the (unbolted) release crossover point end in the platform road.

 

And in the case of Kingsbridge the station and signalling were purposely altered, and the platform extended beyond the points, in order to accommodate timetabled longer trains - that work being done at the same time as considerable alterations were made to the signalbox lever frame.

 

I certainly haven't delved anything out of the minute books as yet (and in any case the practice clearly predates the oldest of the relevant books) but it does seem to have been regular policy with an PFPL apparently only being provided where the point was worked by a ground frame - which in some respects makes sense.