ex NER signal at Bridlington 1955c

[Rail-Online]

Hi Guys,

 

Thought you would like this part of a neg.

 

The underslung bracket signal is very interesting, it appears to be a NER lower quadrant design that has been converted to upper quadrant by the LNER necessitating an additional short post secured in front of the old one to allow the arm to clear the bracket.

 

Was this common practice I wonder?

 

Cheers Tony

[iands]

You raise an interesting point - why convert from LQ to UQ? If some remodelling of track work necessitated some signal alterations, you might expect a "new" UQ signal in a new position to replace an existing LQ signal. The fact that the changeover appears to have occurred using the same signal position would suggest another reason, was it deemed necessary for "sighting" purposes, or was it a new rule that all "main line" signals were required to be converted to UQ arms? Perhaps just as interesting in the photo, behind the bracket signal is a LQ slotted post signal. 

[The Stationmaster]

Could well have been done for sighting.  When the LQ arm etc wore out the S&T taking their usual course in that part of the world decided to replace it with a UQ arm and then found a sighting problem (due to the footbridge?) because something obscured the arm when it was 'off'.   So they did a bit of original thinking and put a new - lower mounted - doll on the original structure which improved the sighting, especially for a UQ arm.

 

I think the simple, reason for signal renewal on the North Eastern Region. (and Northern Division of the LNER) was that unless it was part of a scheme  or resiting a signal was usually renewed using parts to the current standard on as much as posibleof the existing structure.  Thus you found the amusing situation at Riccall South that the Down Distant was an ex NER slotted post LQ signai (which I believe was later replaced by a 4 aspect colour light that also protected Turnhead Crossing) while the Down Home was a 'sky arm' version of an LNER lattice post signal with a lower arm distant for York Road gates.  Not too far - on the ground - from the Down Distant was the Up IB Home which was a 2 aspect colour light (as was the IB Distant).

[iands]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Could well have been done for sighting.  When the LQ arm etc wore out the S&T taking their usual course in that part of the world decided to replace it with a UQ arm and then found a sighting problem (due to the footbridge?) because something obscured the arm when it was 'off'.   So they did a bit of original thinking and put a new - lower mounted - doll on the original structure which improved the sighting, especially for a UQ arm.

 

I think the simple, reason for signal renewal on the North Eastern Region. (and Northern Division of the LNER) was that unless it was part of a scheme  or resiting a signal was usually renewed using parts to the current standard on as much as posibleof the existing structure.  Thus you found the amusing situation at Riccall South that the Down Distant was an ex NER slotted post LQ signai (which I believe was later replaced by a 4 aspect colour light that also protected Turnhead Crossing) while the Down Home was a 'sky arm' version of an LNER lattice post signal with a lower arm distant for York Road gates.  Not too far - on the ground - from the Down Distant was the Up IB Home which was a 2 aspect colour light (as was the IB Distant).

Hi Mike,

 

Just wondering if you could help with a follow-up query. Do you know/are you aware if there was ever a BoT (or similar) practical safety decision or technical requirement for compelling companies to change from LQ to UQ signals, or was it just the "whim" of signal engineers/designers/manufacturers (and/or operating department?) to adopt UQ signals simply being better for sighting purposes?

[bécasse]

Between the end of the Great War and the grouping (and indeed for a couple or so years after grouping), there were a number of working parties looking at possible standardised practices for the future. There seem to have been at least two different working parties looking just at signalling.

 

Lots of things came out of these working parties, some were adopted almost universally (yellow distant arms, for example), others in part (steel tubular posts eventually adopted, in not quite the same way, by the GWR, LMSR and LNER) and others not at all, at least in the precise way they had been proposed.

 

Upper quadrant signalling lies in the middle group, adopted by the LMSR, LNER (including shunt discs) and SR but not the GWR.

Edited June 26, 2020 by bécasse
typo

[micknich2003]

The LNERly was to use a modern term "Strapped for Cash", and therefore "Make do and Mend" was the order of the day, as a result, signal bridges and brackets and indeed dolls could have any combination of arms, a practice continued by the NE Region. See attached picture for possibly the ultimate combination of arms, two H&BRly, 1 NERly and two B Rlys UQ's. Typically, I can't find the photo' of the actual signal with the three different arms, but attached my model of same.

Edited June 26, 2020 by micknich2003

[The Stationmaster]

17 minutes ago, iands said:

Hi Mike,

 

Just wondering if you could help with a follow-up query. Do you know/are you aware if there was ever a BoT (or similar) practical safety decision or technical requirement for compelling companies to change from LQ to UQ signals, or was it just the "whim" of signal engineers/designers/manufacturers (and/or operating department?) to adopt UQ signals simply being better for sighting purposes?

As far as I have ever found out there was never anything from (by then) the Ministry of Transport.  The real lead discussiona nd resultant paper and recommendations came froma committe established by the IRSE in 1921 to report on future signal aspects etc.  The committee's recommandations were effectively the foundation of standards for railway signals indications and aspects in Great Britain.

 

In summary they recommended the use of 3 aspect colour light signals to replace the use of 3 position upper quadrant signals (plus mentioning the possible use of a fourth aspect in colour light signals.  By getting rid of three position semaphores that cleared the way for the use of the upper quadrant to replace the lower quadrant as the standard form of semaphore signals  They also recommended a national change from red to yellow for the night time caution indication in distant signals, a change which had lareaduy happened on one or two Companies, e.g the Metropolitan.

 

Their report emerged while the railways were moving towards the grouping and notwithstanding their use by two of them three of the Grouped Companies decided to adopt the recommendation to use teh upper quadrant for new semaphore signals and to use colour light signals instead of three position semaphores.  the fourth Grouped Cmpany, the GWR, opted to remain with the lower quadrant for semaphore signals - perhaps because it was. thoroughly committed to their manufacture and didn't want to spend money on changes (a guess on my part) or possibly simply a wish not to change.   I have never found anything in GWR Rules & Regulations minutes regarding the IRSE recommendations but I presume that something was minuted somewhere?

 

The GWR was of course fully committed to 3 position semaphores but it is interestmng to note that at some time in the 1920s (as near as I can date it) the well known one at Paddington was converted to a 3 aspect colour light.  Boith the SR and LNER also had 3 position semaphores albeit in limited installations although the one at Victoria was quite big as it covered the joint side of the station.

[iands]

Thanks Mike, very insightful.