Signal boxes

[brianusa]

My era back home was the steam era and its associated signal and point work.  Nowadays it appears all is controlled from some remote location rather than the local box.  My question is, how do the signalmen know what is going on where and with what, especially in local shunting moves with  tour trains, etc.  Presumably all is displayed on a computer screen but what about any yard activity?  Hand operated points or is there such a thing in this era?

      Brian.

[iands]

2 minutes ago, brianusa said:

My era back home was the steam era and its associated signal and point work.  Nowadays it appears all is controlled from some remote location rather than the local box.  My question is, how do the signalmen know what is going on where and with what, especially in local shunting moves with  tour trains, etc.  Presumably all is displayed on a computer screen but what about any yard activity?  Hand operated points or is there such a thing in this era?

      Brian.

Hi Brian,

The signallers have panels or screens "mimicking" the track and signal layout of their "Control area" (which could be 50, 60, 70 miles away, or even further these days). If a yard isn't signalled/track circuited and handpoints are used, then there is no need for the signaller to "view the shunting operations" as he has no control over them.

[uax6]

Ah, but I'm stood inside a proper box in good old Blighty as I type, we're not all gone yet!

 

Andy G

[phil-b259]

An example of a mimic panel (one of nine that look after the entire Brighton Main Line from Norbury to the Sussex Coast) - known as an NX (or an Entrance / Exit type) at Three Bridges ASC (Crawley) where the signaller presses one button  at the start of  the desired route presses another at the exit and the interlocking does the rest!

 

Google Ads

 

Brighton station is to the right, Hove on the bottom and Preston Park in the middle (ignore Haywards Heath intruding) . Note the extensive Lovers Walk train depot is not shown (only selected sidings which give access) - the depot has its own control panel to look after shunting movements.

 

Note the use of 4 digit display devices built into the panel - there will be one of these for every single block section to give the train headcode. This description will 'step' as track circuits / axle counter sections become occupied as the train progress.

 

The White lights show the route selected by the signaller - sections of plain line worked on an automatic basis will lack these) while track sections which are occupied / failed / disconnected / strapped out for engineering work are illuminated in red.

 

The status of all points are shown on the desk in front of the signaller, and in this installation, the buttons used to set the routes are also on said desk separate from the illuminated diagram

 

Signals over which the signaller has control will show a simple red (at danger) or green for a proceed (which can be anything from single yellow to green out on site depending on what the interlocking determines should be shown to drivers)

 

An alternative type has the large illuminated diagram and the buttons / switches combined such as this example.

 

 

A more basic style omits the integral train description information which is shown on a computer monitor on the left.

 

 

An example of a depot panel is this new installation at Three Bridges. Note only limited information is provided as regards the main lines which are controlled from the NX panel installation in the ASC. Also note the magnetic tags - these are unit numbers which get moved between sidings as they get moved about so the depot shunter knows what is where (much like the train descriptions used out on the mainline)

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by phil-b259

[beast66606]

23 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

A more basic style omits the integral train description information which is shown on a computer monitor on the left.

 

 

 

Looks like Hunts Cross

[iands]

And this is an example of  a "screens and tracker ball" type signalling control centre. This one is New Cross Gate OBC for the East London Line - photo taken during commissioning (apologies, slightly out of focus).

 

[Banger Blue]

This is the WestCad signalling workstation in the control room at Reading Depot, it interfaces with the Reading Station & Reading West Jn workstations in the Thames Valley Signalling Centre. No hand points here 

 

[Fat Controller]

14 hours ago, brianusa said:

My era back home was the steam era and its associated signal and point work.  Nowadays it appears all is controlled from some remote location rather than the local box.  My question is, how do the signalmen know what is going on where and with what, especially in local shunting moves with  tour trains, etc.  Presumably all is displayed on a computer screen but what about any yard activity?  Hand operated points or is there such a thing in this era?

      Brian.

There is no shortage of points operated by hand-levers, either a ground frame, or levers at individual points, within yard areas. Movement between such areas, and remotely-signalled running lines, will be co-ordinated between the signaller and the person on the ground. 

 Some areas, notably busy depots, are acquiring their own electronic interlockings and centralised control, but these are relatively rare. 

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

 

 Some areas, notably busy depots, are acquiring their own electronic interlockings and centralised control, but these are relatively rare. 

 

But getting less rare as time goes on.

 

For H&S reasons it is now standard practice that any new or heavily rebuilt depot facility will use power worked points, track circuits and fixed signals to control movements.

 

Simple freight facilities will obviously still use hand points and rely on verbal instructions, but at larger facilities there will be pressure to move to centralised control as time goes on.

[Fat Controller]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But getting less rare as time goes on.

 

For H&S reasons it is now standard practice that any new or heavily rebuilt depot facility will use power worked points, track circuits and fixed signals to control movements.

 

Simple freight facilities will obviously still use hand points and rely on verbal instructions, but at larger facilities there will be pressure to move to centralised control as time goes on.

At work, we have a sort of hierarchy:-

Running lines remotely controlled from the main control centre.

Stabling sidings, and those leading into workshop areas, are controlled from a 'local' control panel , operated by the Yard Controller. Trains on these show up on the yard controller's mimic panel, but not on the main one

Sidings used for maintenance trains are worked by local hand-levers; they only have signalling at the exit/entrance, and no mimic panel.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Fat Controller said:

At work, we have a sort of hierarchy:-

Running lines remotely controlled from the main control centre.

Stabling sidings, and those leading into workshop areas, are controlled from a 'local' control panel , operated by the Yard Controller. Trains on these show up on the yard controller's mimic panel, but not on the main one

Sidings used for maintenance trains are worked by local hand-levers; they only have signalling at the exit/entrance, and no mimic panel.

 

Which is exactly what current 'best practice' mandates.

 

However there is pressure from the H&S side to reduce the use of manual points (the potential for operator back injury due to a stiff mechanism for example), Verbal instructions to control movements (the potential for misunderstandings to arise) and to provide basic interlocking (to prevent derailment risks).

 

Thus at larger or busy sites a proper risk assessment is likely to push an operator away from manual control.

 

We also need to remember that as technology evolves, things that may have previously been looked at as 'unaffordable' may well become possible. For example maybe you could have yard points switched by drivers using a mobile device carried in the cab of the loco rather than requiring them to be hardwired to a dedicated shunters control point.

[t-b-g]

A few installations have points worked by motors controlled by radio control from a hand held box.

 

These can be worked either from somebody on the ground or the driver from the cab.

 

http://www.a1micromotive.co.uk/a1micromotiverem.html

 

Shows the technology.

Edited May 4, 2019 by t-b-g

[Fat Controller]

Neat; I've seen similar ones, of American origin, in use in steelworks.

[jim.snowdon]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is exactly what current 'best practice' mandates.

 

However there is pressure from the H&S side to reduce the use of manual points (the potential for operator back injury due to a stiff mechanism for example), Verbal instructions to control movements (the potential for misunderstandings to arise) and to provide basic interlocking (to prevent derailment risks).

 

Thus at larger or busy sites a proper risk assessment is likely to push an operator away from manual control.

 

We also need to remember that as technology evolves, things that may have previously been looked at as 'unaffordable' may well become possible. For example maybe you could have yard points switched by drivers using a mobile device carried in the cab of the loco rather than requiring them to be hardwired to a dedicated shunters control point.

A common method, at least in mainland Europe (but as far as I am aware unheard of in the UK) is the use of powered points operated by a push button that the driver can reach from his cab side window. 

 

Jim 

[brianusa]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<However there is pressure from the H&S side to reduce the use of manual points (the potential for operator back injury due to a stiff mechanism for example)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not long ago this would have been laughed at!

 

But thanks for all the replies which certainly provide an insight into modern railway practices in the UK these days.

         Brian.

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, brianusa said:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<However there is pressure from the H&S side to reduce the use of manual points (the potential for operator back injury due to a stiff mechanism for example)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not long ago this would have been laughed at!

 

But thanks for all the replies which certainly provide an insight into modern railway practices in the UK these days.

         Brian.

It probably still will be laughed at by many people Brian.  There should be no problem at all moving points with a handpoint lever provided that everything is correctly maintained.  I would have thought the counter risks of damage and derailment with power worked points, especially when shunting, ought really to have been carefully thought through before soem remote person makes a claim like that.

 

I spent quite a lot of years in areas with yards with an awful lot of handworked points and I can't remember anybody ever suffering an ijury from using them - even from using what were often poorly maintained kit.  On the other hand in one yard we had quite a lot of power worked points at the fringe of the signalled area but involved in yard shunting and while run throughs and derailments weren't exactly a frequent occurrence they did sometimes happen.  As with a lot of 'outside' (practical experience) 'H&S' ideas we yet again seem to have come across somebody looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

[phil-b259]

47 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It probably still will be laughed at by many people Brian.  There should be no problem at all moving points with a handpoint lever provided that everything is correctly maintained.  I would have thought the counter risks of damage and derailment with power worked points, especially when shunting, ought really to have been carefully thought through before soem remote person makes a claim like that.

 

I spent quite a lot of years in areas with yards with an awful lot of handworked points and I can't remember anybody ever suffering an ijury from using them - even from using what were often poorly maintained kit.  On the other hand in one yard we had quite a lot of power worked points at the fringe of the signalled area but involved in yard shunting and while run throughs and derailments weren't exactly a frequent occurrence they did sometimes happen.  As with a lot of 'outside' (practical experience) 'H&S' ideas we yet again seem to have come across somebody looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

 

Specialist from NR go round doing official 'pull / push tests' on signal levers these days with the force needed scientifically measured in Newton-Meters. They also comment on any features which prevent the operator bing able to adopt the correct posture when operating the lever to avoid twist injuries to the back. Any levers that fall outside the required perimeters will result in them being signed out of use until the S&T department have bought the pull force down to acceptable limits. For over 6 months an emergency mechanically worked crossover ground frame at Dorking West was signed out of use as the pull / push force exceed he H&S limits.

 

Significant work to refurbish all components if the rodding route bought the pull / push force down to acceptable limits - though things like a awkwardly placed telephone and worn non-slip surfacing are still to be addressed.

 

When I am back in work on Monday I will get hold of the official limits.

Edited May 4, 2019 by phil-b259

[t-b-g]

If anybody has done the tour round Scunthorpe Steelworks, they will have seen radio control in action for the locos. The points are worked by a plunger on top of a pillar and pressing down on the plunger operates the point motor. It is similar to the method mentioned above but as the driver is usually walking alongside the loco, they don't reach out of the cab to change the points.

 

If two locos/trains should be approaching a point where their two lines join, the protocol seems to be that whoever gets to the plunger first has the right of way but I may be mistaken and there may be something more scientific in place.

 

Speeds are very low and I don't see any great problem in running like that in those sorts of environments.

[Mike Storey]

Having operated scenarios in all the situations mentioned, I believe there are two very different issues at stake here.

 

1. remote detection of point operation that could affect the running of the main line - this has been overcome for many decades by "release" levers, interlocked between the local ground frame and the controlling signal box (or nowadays, buttons or computer-interfaced operation) that allow movements within a yard or depot to take place independently of what is happening on the lines controlled by the remote signal box, or control centre. It requires both the controlling box or control centre to "allow" the local shunter or train crew, to take control of the yard/depot/complex outside anything which impacts the running line. The latest version I helped install of that, was at the replacement for Thornton Field depot on the GE, nominally controlled by Liverpool Street control centre (or signalling centre as we knew it).

 

2. The decline of the use of hand-operated point levers is much derided, but nothing to do with "control". The greatest, by far, lost hours due to injury on British railways, certainly up to 2012, was back injury. Much of this was attributed to operating mechanical equipment (although a lot was due to lifting heavy weights) and a lot of attention was paid to this. It was accepted practice that electrically operated points, or an electro-mechanical version which came on the market during the 2000,s, was a good investment to reduce back injuries. We all like to mock Elf'N'Safety, but in this case, especially in times of frost or high moisture, such as heavy dews or after heavy rain, the extent of injury from point levers was significant. I had three shunters out of commission at Ramsgate during one winter, for that cause alone. These were not workshy shirkers (they lost plenty of overtime because of that, as we were always short of shunters). So go on, mock it to your heart's content. But it was a real problem.

 

I am not at all clear about the extent to which driver-operated, remote point control is useful. One key aspect of using Shunters is that they know what is on each road, and therefore what length of further train, if any, it is sensible to allow on to that road. So unless your yard/depot is fully track circuited, and also that those track circuits can tell the driver how many vehicles are already on that siding or loop, then driving at a speed capable of stopping short of any obstruction, is only of use to prevent an accident, not to allow efficient use of the sidings/storage/maintenance feeds etc of the complex. Where surplus sidings/ yard length is provided, this is less of a problem, but that is rarely the case on UK infrastructure these days.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Mike Storey

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The decline of the use of hand-operated point levers is much derided, but nothing to do with "control". The greatest, by far, lost hours due to injury on British railways, certainly up to 2012, was back injury. Much of this was attributed to operating mechanical equipment (although a lot was due to lifting heavy weights) and a lot of attention was paid to this. It was accepted practice that electrically operated points, or an electro-mechanical version which came on the market during the 2000,s, was a good investment to reduce back injuries. We all like to mock Elf'N'Safety, but in this case, especially in times of frost or high moisture, such as heavy dews or after heavy rain, the extent of injury from point levers was significant. I had three shunters out of commission at Ramsgate during one winter, for that cause alone. These were not workshy shirkers (they lost plenty of overtime because of that, as we were always short of shunters). So go on, mock it to your heart's content. But it was a real problem.

 

 

A very important thing for those with rose tinted spectacles to note!

 

In the 'olden days' the railway (and other heavy industries) were very good at killing or maiming their workforce - and a slipped disc or Hernia is ever bit as much of an injury as a broken leg.

 

The best way of avoiding harm from an accident is to net let it happen in the first place - PPE or other similar things (like non slip surfaces) should only be considered if it is impractical to do away with the risk in the first place.

 

For over a centenary, we have had the scientific know-how to move lumps of rail (points) about or a piece of steel sheet (i.e. a signal arm) without the need for manual effort by employing hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical devices - the problem in the past has been the existence of cheap / expendable labour meaning the economics didn't always make it viable.

 

These days, a good business will seek to minimise the numbers of staff they employ - AND crucially try to ensure those they do employ are not continually going sick with things like bad backs.

 

So while existing mechanically signalled areas can remain (assuming it is in tip top condition), whenever the opportunity arises its good practice to improve the situation. This can be as simple as motorising all points (which has been undertaken at Bognor Regis during the last decade) for installing colour light signals, thus turning the levers into big switches with no force required to operate them.

 

Equally while it may not be viable to upgrade existing siding installations - if putting in a new facility or heavily rebuilding an existing one then putting in powered equipment should be the first choice.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 

2. The decline of the use of hand-operated point levers is much derided, but nothing to do with "control". The greatest, by far, lost hours due to injury on British railways, certainly up to 2012, was back injury. Much of this was attributed to operating mechanical equipment (although a lot was due to lifting heavy weights) and a lot of attention was paid to this. It was accepted practice that electrically operated points, or an electro-mechanical version which came on the market during the 2000,s, was a good investment to reduce back injuries. We all like to mock Elf'N'Safety, but in this case, especially in times of frost or high moisture, such as heavy dews or after heavy rain, the extent of injury from point levers was significant. I had three shunters out of commission at Ramsgate during one winter, for that cause alone. These were not workshy shirkers (they lost plenty of overtime because of that, as we were always short of shunters). So go on, mock it to your heart's content. But it was a real problem.

 

 

 

That's interesting - in my time I managed two traditional freight marshalling yards plus several heavily used freight terminals (heavily used in terms of both number and axleweight of trains), plus a very large passenger yard and we never had a singe recorded incident of a back injury due to problems with, or working, handpoint levers.  Mind you at all locations most of the shunting staff were very much on the ball when it came to reporting poor action with such levers working on the basis that if you couldn't pull it with one hand there was 'something not quite right' with it and the PerWay needed to get it sorted.

 

Slipping (& sometimes falling) 'accidents' were another thin g entirely but again our record at all those locations was pretty good.

 

The situation with Signalmen was rather different.  The most significantly likely injury from 'heavy' point levers is a rupture and on a Western 'frame  (and a Westinghouse A3 as used widely on the Southern) you're only likely to injure your back if you aren't working, or trying to work, the lever correctly because there is no need to put any strain on those parts of the back most likely to suffer strain or bending injuries injuries.   In fact over the several dozen mechanical boxes I supervised over the years (including a few with 'heavy' 'frames or levers) we, again, never had any reported back injuries although we did have a couple of Signalmen with long term ruptures which had probably resulted from working a heavy lever frame.  I have seen a not too long past NR publication showing how to pull signal levers using an REC 'frame as the example  (never a good one in my view as I find them very awkward in any case) and with a recommended ideal safe method of working which is completely contrary to what I  (and many others) was taught about the safest and easiest way to work a frame.  It was passed to me by an NR employee who simply couldn't believe what it said - neither could I as you should use your the swing of your bodyweight to pull or replace a heavy lever, not bend your back.  Hopefully it might have been superseded by something owing rather more to practical experience on other types of lever frame

 

Good to hear that there is way of settling the age old argument between Signalman and Lineman/S&T Tech about what constitutes a 'heavy' lever and ensuring, hopefully, that the problem is dealt with but don't apply a method shown for an REC 'frame to other designs because then you really could injure yourself.

[Mike Storey]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That's interesting - in my time I managed two traditional freight marshalling yards plus several heavily used freight terminals (heavily used in terms of both number and axleweight of trains), plus a very large passenger yard and we never had a singe recorded incident of a back injury due to problems with, or working, handpoint levers.  Mind you at all locations most of the shunting staff were very much on the ball when it came to reporting poor action with such levers working on the basis that if you couldn't pull it with one hand there was 'something not quite right' with it and the PerWay needed to get it sorted.

 

 

It was almost certainly down to the speed at which the Ramsgate shunters had to work, to get out the morning peak, and then receive the evening post-peak. One shunter worked at each end, plus one also covered the 4 sidings south of the station, and at least half the moves required a double shunt internally to access the right end of the main line. If memory serves correctly, some 24 trains had to be dispatched from the sidings and sheds each morning peak, in the space of about 2 hours. The shunters and the LDC rep moaned like ..... a lot, but there was not much we could do. Maintenance of levers and surfaces was not the primary issue. I used to watch them darting about and the standard "safe" method was not the one they used - any suggestion that perhaps they should stand properly with both feet planted firmly across 90 degs and pull from their legs up to their back, was laughed at as a rookie manager's BS. (The layout has improved somewhat since I ran it.)

 

I had previously trained at Healey Mills, for freight, where of course, almost all points were power-operated, and shunters mainly risked life and limb by riding vehicles. In my brief time at Hoo Junction and Hither Green, speed was not a major factor, and shunters were long-lived. At Queenborough/Sheerness/Sittingbourne, all hand-worked points other than the main line connections, we never had any back injuries, but then volume and speed were not significant. Just as well, the number of times I had to step in and do it myself (usually due to the Relief Shunter, a younger lad, going off sick due to "back problems", but I believe that was caused by a rather different pursuit, which I should not describe on a family website.....). There was no way you could use the signalman's test of being able to pull a lever with one arm.

 

But when I co-ran Lovers Walk, where speed v. volume was just as essential as at Ramsgate, most of the points were power-operated, from a mini-panel, and shunter sickness was rare. I did not have anything to do with running Peterborough electric sidings, with its all manual points at the time, when Area Passenger Manager, but I recall from my colleague, the Area Ops Manager (Sooty), that shunter sickness due to back injury, was a major problem. 

 

Having experienced standard, weighted US point levers (when I spent a bit of time volunteering on a preserved line in Pennsylvania, when working in NY), I really don't understand why they were not more widely adopted in the UK. They are heavy to lift at first action, but then do the work of moving the blades for you.

 

[phil-b259]

 

On ‎04‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 21:03, phil-b259 said:

 

Specialist from NR go round doing official 'pull / push tests' on signal levers these days with the force needed scientifically measured in Newton-Meters. They also comment on any features which prevent the operator bing able to adopt the correct posture when operating the lever to avoid twist injuries to the back. Any levers that fall outside the required perimeters will result in them being signed out of use until the S&T department have bought the pull force down to acceptable limits. For over 6 months an emergency mechanically worked crossover ground frame at Dorking West was signed out of use as the pull / push force exceed he H&S limits.

 

Significant work to refurbish all components if the rodding route bought the pull / push force down to acceptable limits - though things like a awkwardly placed telephone and worn non-slip surfacing are still to be addressed.

 

When I am back in work on Monday I will get hold of the official limits.

 

Right, after being thwarted by stuff going wrong at the beginning of the week, I have finally had time to track down the Network Rail standards as regards manually operated levers.

 

the key information is in paragraphs 10.20 to 10.4 which state:-

 

Levers which are identified as having a weight of over 99kg shall be signed out of use immediately in the train register. Any signaller on duty shall be notified and if possible, the lever secured so it cannot be operated.

 

A lever which is identified as having a weight of 80 - 99kg and is frequently used (i.e. 15+ times in 24 hours) should also be signed out of use unless any of the mitigating factors in 10.4 can be put in place.

 

A lever which is identified as being Action Level 2 and very frequently used may be temporarily signed back into use whilst awaiting maintenance. There are two grounds on which such a risk could be considered tolerable:

 

a) a temporary mitigation is applied to reduce the risk of operating the lever such as reducing the number of times the lever is used to less than 15 times in a day (e.g. through a reduction in the service level on the line or a revised method of working), or by providing a relief member of staff to reduce the exposure of the shift signaller;

 

OR

 

b) it can be shown that there is a significantly higher level of risk to rail operations caused by signing the lever out of use (such as forcing the signaller to work for a long period in a degraded mode of operation).

 

 

MANUAL SIGNALLING LEVER FORCE MANAGEMENT.pdf

NR_L3_OPS_045_F2.18A.doc

Edited May 8, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

And this is what a completed assessment looks like.

Dorking.docx

[RailWest]

Ironically, I know of a heritage railway where there has been a 'proposal' (nothing more than that at the moment) that a new signalling installation should be done with power-worked points etc, on the basis that the current (ageing <g>) volunteer workforce is experiencing difficulties using its existing mechanical lever-frames because of  "heavy levers".

 

Leaving aside the issues of  'heritage' and the ongoing maintenance and skills needs for power equipment, at face value the idea would appear to have some merit, and of course it displays good sense for the H&S welfare of its workforce.  However a closer examination of the (alleged) 'problem' reveals a combination of a less-than-ideal lever-frame working double-ended sets of points with either poorly-sited compensation or even none at all! Not surprising therefore that it might prove 'heavy'. Also, do they not expect to gain a future generation of younger, fitter signalmen/women in due course anyway?