Southern Rly 'routing' bell-codes

[RailWest]

I though that I had a reasonable understanding of the SR’s use of ‘Main’ and ‘Branch’ bell-codes for routing purposes, but I’m a bit confused now over something which has come up in my research into the railways of Dorset.

 

Between the signal-boxes at West Moors and Wimborne was a block-post at Uddens (Crossing). West of Wimborne (until 1933) was Wimborne Jcn, where the S&DJR line diverged towards Blandford. Further west again was Broadstone, where the line to Poole diverged from the direct line to Hamworthy Jcn and Dorchester.

 

According to the Special Instructions for Wimborne (station) box in 1930 the standard ‘Branch’ line TES would be received and the standard ‘Branch’ line ILC and TES signals would be forwarded for {Down} trains going to Poole. The Special Instructions for Uddens for the same period states merely that the standard ‘Branch’ line TES signal should be forwarded for trains going to Poole (no mention of such signals being received). In a similar vein, Uddens had to forward a special TES for trains heading toward the S&DJR and Wimborne had to forward special ILC and TES codes for such trains. After the abolition of Wimborne Jcn in 1933 (with the closure of the link to the S&DJR) the Instructions for ‘branch’ trains to Poole remained.

 

As I read this therefore, it would appear that West Moors used normal ‘main’ line codes to Uddens for all down trains, Uddens changed only the TES (but not the ILC) codes for trains going to Poole or the S&DJR, and then Wimborne changed the ILC and continued to use the relevant TES. But was it common practice to use a ‘branch’ TES with a ‘main’ ILC, as appears to be the case between Uddens and Wimborne? Curiously, there is no mention at all about any routing arrangement for Up trains going to West Moors and destined for the branch via Fordingbridge to Salisbury.

 

 

 

  

 

[Mike Storey]

I don't know if this helps answer your question, but the attached shows the standard bell codes on the SR for diverging routes (second section) and then a set of special bell codes at certain junctions, but only where authorised by special instructions (fourth section).

 

https://signalbox.org/block/bells.shtml

 

Personally, I only ever learned the standard codes, when I covered AB boxes on the SED, so cannot tell you about the common or otherwise use of the special ones.

[The Stationmaster]

You are of course assuming that the Signalbox Special Instructions were correct in the version you have seen - errors in such things were not entirely unknown (but usually very short lived).  Presumably they all have similar issue dates?

 

Another thing is the way in which Instructions were written and this can sometimes be confusing in older examples - for instance if somebof dy had to r forward a particular routing code how did he know how to do it unless he had first received it?  (although it could well have been wired or sent as a boxer instead of on the block bell)

[RailWest]

You are of course assuming that the Signalbox Special Instructions were correct in the version you have seen - errors in such things were not entirely unknown (but usually very short lived).  Presumably they all have similar issue dates?

Yes, they had similar issue dates. Also, new versions were issued in 1933 (just before the closure of Wimborne Jcn) which still said the same things.

 

Another thing is the way in which Instructions were written and this can sometimes be confusing in older examples - for instance if somebof dy had to r forward a particular routing code how did he know how to do it unless he had first received it?  (although it could well have been wired or sent as a boxer instead of on the block bell)

 

One of the things which puzzled me, even if you expected them to know the WTT. Another issue not known, in the absence of any known Instructions for West Moors, is what WM had to do if Uddens was switched-out and just working as a gate-box on the relay bell only.

[HAB]

 

I though that I had a reasonable understanding of the SR’s use of ‘Main’ and ‘Branch’ bell-codes for routing purposes, but I’m a bit confused now over something which has come up in my research into the railways of Dorset.

 

...

 

As I read this therefore, it would appear that West Moors used normal ‘main’ line codes to Uddens for all down trains, Uddens changed only the TES (but not the ILC) codes for trains going to Poole or the S&DJR, and then Wimborne changed the ILC and continued to use the relevant TES. But was it common practice to use a ‘branch’ TES with a ‘main’ ILC, as appears to be the case between Uddens and Wimborne? Curiously, there is no mention at all about any routing arrangement for Up trains going to West Moors and destined for the branch via Fordingbridge to Salisbury.

 

 

 

 

Hello there Chris,

 

I am not sure what your understanding was of how the Branch codes were supposed to work but (assuming I am reading it correctly), what you describe here is exactly the "Standard" way of doing it.    To me, the Southern had a brilliant way of working in this regard - bearing in mind that it used "routing" and not "Class" headcode discs / lamps on its trains.

 

Sorry if I am telling you what you already know here,and sorry further if it is not relevant to your example, but let me try to describe the logic of how it was supposed to work.

 

Suppose I am signalman in Uddens, and you are Signalman in Wimbourne station.

 

I accept a 3-1 from West Moors followed in due course by a "2" entering section (so main + main). I offer the train to you 3-1 and you accept.   As the Train approaches me, I see that it is carrying "Branch" route discs so I send the TES to you as a 4 (Branch).  That tells you that the train you have accepted is routing to the Branch at the Junction.  So, based on my "4",  you offer it forward to Junction as a 1-3 (branch).  Junction now knows to set the facing points to the Branch  - for a train which he has not seen yet of course.  As it passes you, you send the TES as a four  (so Branch - Branch).  Junction will offer it on down the branch as a 3-1 as it has passed the junction.  The beauty of the system of course is that it does not matter how "out of course" the trains become, they always end up correctly routed according to their Headcode.  But the system fell down with short sections for which special working was needed!

 

I think that is the sequence you are describing, and I hope that explains how and why it was done.  Again sorry if that is all a bit patronising!!  But if you had a different understanding, I would be interested to know.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Best Wishes,

 

Howard

 

(Edited for typos!)

Edited December 18, 2018 by HAB

[RailWest]

Howard - thanks for that, much help.

 

My practical experience of routing codes has been limited to WR locations, where it was common for A to offer the 'normal' ILC to B, but after sending the usual '2' to B for TES then B - knowing the timetable - would offer the appropriate 'route' version of ILC to C. I had assumed that the SR principle was the same, but clearly not, which is why I got confused.

 

Thinking about it, in the WR examples then - without routing headcodes - B has to 'know' by other means what ILC to send to C, as waiting for the train to actually pass him before giving the route to C would have no benefit.

[HAB]

Howard - thanks for that, much help.

 

My practical experience of routing codes has been limited to WR locations, ...

 

You are welcome Chris - yes they do it differently elsewhere - the Southern system was unique as it was all based around the Routing Headcodes.  I remember it being in use on the Portsmouth Direct in 1969 when as a 14 year old, I used to "help out" at some of the boxes.  On Summer weekends, trains not stopping at Havant were 3-1, whilst those which did stop were 1-3.  It was down to Idsworth (or Buriton when Rowlands Castle was switched out) to "spot" the headcode and bell the TES accordingly.  I remember one occasion when I was on my own in Idsworth, correctly offering Havant a 3-1, but then following up with "2".  The bell rang back a very-sternly-chastening "4".- you would never think that a single-stroke bell could speak so eloquently...  There was a lot of resentment a couple of years later when the "BR" (ie LMS) bell codes were imposed - at least officially...  But by then, traditional signalling between Petersfield and Havant had gone.

 

I do know that at some non-Southern locations, it was the practice to follow-up the Entering Section with a routing description, but there must be other people round here who know a lot more about such things than me...

 

Best Wishes,

[The Stationmaster]

Howard - thanks for that, much help.

 

My practical experience of routing codes has been limited to WR locations, where it was common for A to offer the 'normal' ILC to B, but after sending the usual '2' to B for TES then B - knowing the timetable - would offer the appropriate 'route' version of ILC to C. I had assumed that the SR principle was the same, but clearly not, which is why I got confused.

 

Thinking about it, in the WR examples then - without routing headcodes - B has to 'know' by other means what ILC to send to C, as waiting for the train to actually pass him before giving the route to C would have no benefit.

 

Some places on the Western we used routing ILC?  bellcodes - they were common on the South Wales Valleys and I managed to get some additional ones to the few already in use locally when I was at Westbury.  Easy enough of course when they're applied from the place where a train starts and otherwise they can be based directly on what's in the WTT plus (very important this bit) having any changes of order in which trains are running 'wired' to nominated signalbox's where routing codes are started off).  

 

Oddly I never came across any sent with the TES belling but as most places where I worked involved relatively short sections of only a few miles a routing code sent with TES wouldn't have been much use as the train could have the next box's distant in sight before it had got the train accepted forward.