GWR 4-track station - operational queries

[2251]

In the case of Oxford (and also Worcester) there was an additional reason for the centre roads: the scissors cross-overs which formerly existed half-way along the platforms. These enabled two (short) trains to be handled at the same time. They were removed at some point post-war.

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, WillCav said:

That's a good point - I could even have the end of the fiddle yard having two exit roads linked directly to the down main and down platform loop.

 

At that rate, you might as well go the whole hog and model a four-track main line. Then you really can have an express overtaking a slow-moving goods.

[tomparryharry]

I can well remember having 3-4 on the Up relief when it was goods permissive, but I've got photos of a 56xx on the Up Relief with excursion work, unless it's an ECS?  

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[phil_sutters]

50 minutes ago, 2251 said:

In the case of Oxford (and also Worcester) there was an additional reason for the centre roads: the scissors cross-overs which formerly existed half-way along the platforms. These enabled two (short) trains to be handled at the same time. They were removed at some point post-war.

Just to illustrate your info...

[The Johnster]

AFAIK the TVR goods lines north of Radyr were always permissive block, and, to be pedantic, goods lines and not relief lines.  This was essential to accommodate the traffic; even in the 70’s coal trains would be backed up nose to tail daily as far as Taff’s Well or beyond awaiting acceptance into Radyr yard for a few hours late afternoon/early evening.  

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, 2251 said:

In the case of Oxford (and also Worcester) there was an additional reason for the centre roads: the scissors cross-overs which formerly existed half-way along the platforms. These enabled two (short) trains to be handled at the same time. They were removed at some point post-war.

 

Ironically, given the shortness of many modern trains (eg 4 or 5 car Voyagers, 2 or 3 car Class 165s, 5-car Class 800s) passing through Oxford nowadays, the scissors crossovers would be quite useful !

 

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

AFAIK the TVR goods lines north of Radyr were always permissive block, and, to be pedantic, goods lines and not relief lines.  This was essential to accommodate the traffic; even in the 70’s coal trains would be backed up nose to tail daily as far as Taff’s Well or beyond awaiting acceptance into Radyr yard for a few hours late afternoon/early evening.  

This is an interesting one as it shows how careful one needs to be with original source information.  The 1950 Sectional Appendix clearly shows them as Relief Lines and all the signal box diagrams and block shelf instrument labels also showed them as Relief Lines but the 1969 Sectional Appendix shows them (or rather what was left by then) as 'Goods Lines' and they were of course worked Goods Permissive Block after the definitions in the Permissive Block Regulations were enhanced in December 1966.

 

Oh and everybody working in the area called them the Relief Lines which they had officially been until at least 1960..

[The Johnster]

Yes, we called them relief lines, which they weren’t, in the 70s.  A relief line is signalled under absolute block regulations and has fpls etc. to handle passenger traffic.  It usually has a lower line speed than the adjacent main lines, but can be used by all and any traffic.  A ‘slow’ line is similar, but usually runs parallel to an adjacent ‘fast’ main line rather than paired up and down alongside a pair of up and down mains.  The GW used the ‘main’ and ‘relief’ terminology, which the WR continued.  
 

A goods line is signalled under permissive block regulations  which means that trains can be allowed to enter a block section which is occupied by one or more other trains.  No passenger carrying trains are permitted, speed is restricted to 15mph, and drivers must be prepared to stop the train within the distance that can be seen to be clear ahead.

 

The signals themselves have smaller arms and junctions are signalled not by splitting dolls on bracket or gantry posts but by signals above each other on the same post.  You read them top to bottom = left to right, so, on a 3 arm array with the middle board off, you are being routed to the central road of a 3 way junction.  There is no indication of which is the ‘main’ route and which the branch, as all the routes have the same status and 15mph speed limit. 
 

The so called ‘relief’ lines between Radyr and Pontypridd were of this sort, whatever we actually called them officially or unofficially, and the train of passenger stock Ian TPH remembers from Maesmawr would have been an ecs.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

41 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, we called them relief lines, which they weren’t, in the 70s.  A relief line is signalled under absolute block regulations and has fpls etc. to handle passenger traffic.  It usually has a lower line speed than the adjacent main lines, but can be used by all and any traffic.  A ‘slow’ line is similar, but usually runs parallel to an adjacent ‘fast’ main line rather than paired up and down alongside a pair of up and down mains.  The GW used the ‘main’ and ‘relief’ terminology, which the WR continued.  
 

A goods line is signalled under permissive block regulations  which means that trains can be allowed to enter a block section which is occupied by one or more other trains.  No passenger carrying trains are permitted, speed is restricted to 15mph, and drivers must be prepared to stop the train within the distance that can be seen to be clear ahead.

 

The signals themselves have smaller arms and junctions are signalled not by splitting dolls on bracket or gantry posts but by signals above each other on the same post.  You read them top to bottom = left to right, so, on a 3 arm array with the middle board off, you are being routed to the central road of a 3 way junction.  There is no indication of which is the ‘main’ route and which the branch, as all the routes have the same status and 15mph speed limit. 
 

The so called ‘relief’ lines between Radyr and Pontypridd were of this sort, whatever we actually called them officially or unofficially, and the train of passenger stock Ian TPH remembers from Maesmawr would have been an ecs.  

Regrettably your opening paragraph is incorrect - a Relief Line is what it says and its signalling can be by any block system be it Absolute or Permissive.    The use of the nomenclature 'Fast' and 'Slow' seems to have originated with the LNWR and according to one source that was why the GWR rapidly (in the 1890s) changed to using 'Main' and 'Relief' instead because they had no wish to be associated with LNWR type idea.  The method of pairing - by either use or direction is totally irrelevant and the same distinguishing terms are, and long have been, in use with both methods of pairing   on both the (G)WR and other other parts of the railway network.

 

Similarly a 'Goods Line' might be signalled by either Permissive or Absolute Block depending on whatever the infrastructure or other physical features in relation to the traffic being handled might require.  And of course all single track goods used by trains in either direction were all too obviously signalled with Absolute Block in some form or another.  Equally of course a passenger line can be worked in a Permissive manner - i.e. more than one train is permitted to be in the section at any one time - a common feature at many larger GWR/WR stations.

 

As far as signals are concerned the WR tended, at times, to  use shorter arms reading to lines of lesser status than principal running lines but the situation was far more confused than you suggest.  Incidentally splitting running signals on (G)WR Permissive Block lines tended almost exclusively to use separate dolls for each route and not one arm above the other.  And of course on the Taff Valley route the Relief Lines, although worked under Permissive Block had exactly the same length signal arms as the adjacent Main Lines on virtually all running signals.  The shorter 3 foot arms tended to only be used where they replaced the discontinued arm with a 'Goods & Siding' ring on them although such rings could sometimes be found on the ordinary size 4ft arms.

 

And of course splitting signals with one arm places above the other were not confined to Goods Lines and sidings but could be found in other places - with examples of them on passenger lines in Soiuth wales

 

Incidentally the Relief Lines  in the Taff Valley below Pontypridd were hardly 'so called' because that was their name on all the signal box diagrams and on all the signalling instruments and on the lever leads - the only thing which was different was the Sectional Appendix description from, probably, 1969 onwards

[The Johnster]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Equally of course a passenger line can be worked in a Permissive manner - i.e. more than one train is permitted to be in the section at any one time - a common feature at many larger GWR/WR stations.

But not by clearance of the main signals.  This was achieved by calling on signals in the same way as the the GW and WR used backing and shunting signals.  These signals required the driver to proceed with caution as he had to assume there was a train already occupying the section and, again, to be able to stop safely within the distance he could see was clear ahead of him; I was present at a 'heavy shunt' in P4 at Cardiff Central in the late 80s when a parcels train was called on behind another one being unloaded in the platform.  The driver had worked this job many times before and was always 'called on' into the platform from the down relief and usually arrived in the platform just in time to see the tail light of the previous train leaving the other end of the platform; this time he was caught out by the late running and delayed unloading of the previous train.  A few Royal Mail employees were knocked over but no serious damage done; there were strong views expressed firmly though!

 

I take your point, but would contend that this is not 'Permissive Block' working in the sense that I understand it.  It is working within station limits authorised by the Sectional Appendix, and can be done with (and to) passenger carrying trains.  Something like it can be done Martini style, any time any place anywhere, by hand signals under the authority of the signalman or the guard in the case of assistance provided in rear to a failure, but a signal is not cleared; rather, the signalman instructs the driver of the assisting train to pass the section signal at danger under his authority and proceed with caution looking out for the protecting guard, his detonators, and the failed train.  There's a wonderful world you can share...

Edited October 16, 2020 by The Johnster

[WillCav]

Is it only Permissive Block when it is between two signal boxes? Eg platforms in a large station with an East and West box?

 

I'm a little confused with semaphore signalling

 

Thanks

 

Will

[tomparryharry]

It can be  a permissive block, when between two signalboxes.  However, you still need acceptance from the 'sender' 'box, to allow the starter signal to be pulled off.  You can have up to 6-? ( I can't remember  the maxima) within the section, but there has to be a degree of control. 

 

Passenger trains are a different matter, and different rules apply. For permissive work, semaphore-style signals were the norm. Passenger work has a calling-on signal. In either circumstance, a signalman will bring a train to a stand ( or very nearly so ) to show intent to the driver that there is 'one in front'. When using a calling on arm, the signalman will put a collar on the distant signal  lever to avoid  having a passenger train approaching at speed. 

 

Absolute Block is only one train in the section at a time. Although, even here, there will be exceptions. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by tomparryharry
Text correction

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

But not by clearance of the main signals.  This was achieved by calling on signals in the same way as the the GW and WR used backing and shunting signals.  These signals required the driver to proceed with caution as he had to assume there was a train already occupying the section and, again, to be able to stop safely within the distance he could see was clear ahead of him; I was present at a 'heavy shunt' in P4 at Cardiff Central in the late 80s when a parcels train was called on behind another one being unloaded in the platform.  The driver had worked this job many times before and was always 'called on' into the platform from the down relief and usually arrived in the platform just in time to see the tail light of the previous train leaving the other end of the platform; this time he was caught out by the late running and delayed unloading of the previous train.  A few Royal Mail employees were knocked over but no serious damage done; there were strong views expressed firmly though!

 

I take your point, but would contend that this is not 'Permissive Block' working in the sense that I understand it.  It is working within station limits authorised by the Sectional Appendix, and can be done with (and to) passenger carrying trains.  Something like it can be done Martini style, any time any place anywhere, by hand signals under the authority of the signalman or the guard in the case of assistance provided in rear to a failure, but a signal is not cleared; rather, the signalman instructs the driver of the assisting train to pass the section signal at danger under his authority and proceed with caution looking out for the protecting guard, his detonators, and the failed train.  There's a wonderful world you can share...

I'm beginning to get fed up with correcting the incorrect stuff you post - it might help everybody if you checked it before you posted it.  So let's get it right this time -it was not essential to provide Calling On arms although they tended to be provided where large numbers of movements were made into occupied platforms although even then that didn't always happen.  For example at Oxford it was permissible to admit a second train to the station through platforms on both the Up & Down sides but there were never Calling On Arms below the section signals at either Station North or Station South signal boxes - and Oxford wasn't alone in that respect on the (G)WR.  Even when the signal were renewed with tubular steel posts Calling On arms were still not not provided.   And note - this was into a block section - not in Station Limits

 

So what happened if there was no Calling On arm - simples.  the train was brought to a stand at the signal controlling the entrance to the esection and the main signal arm (i.e. the only signal arm) was then lowered and the Signalman exhibited a green handsignal; held steadily.  And of course in semaphore signalling days, or pre MAS at Cardiff, there would be a person exhibiting a hand danger signal by the rear of what was already in the platform.  That happened at numerous places and was covered in the standard Rules.  The requirement for the Signalman to exhibit the green handsignal was taken out of the Rule Book some time in the 1970s/'80s - I'm afraid I can't exactly date the that without ploughing through a lot of Rule Book amendments.

 

The method of dealing with such movements within Station Limits was different and there the Driver would (should) be verbally instructed to pass at danger the running signal protecting the section of line he was entering in order to, say, attach or detach vehicles or attach an engine to a trains.  Similarly if entering s section for shunting purposes (where no subsidiary signal was provided) or entering a  section to assist a failed train etc the Section signal would also have to be passed at danger.

 

14 hours ago, WillCav said:

Is it only Permissive Block when it is between two signal boxes? Eg platforms in a large station with an East and West box?

 

I'm a little confused with semaphore signalling

 

Thanks

 

Will

The simple answer is - alas - a touch of 'yes' and 'no'.  Permissive Block working could of itself (as a Regulation for signalling the movement of trains) only exist between two successive signalboxes.  The reason for that is that the semaphore signalling Block Regulations existed to control and govern the working of trains between successive signal boxes.    Normally the only exception in the past would be where a goods loop line existed wholly under the control of one signal box and usually the Rules allowed for more than one train (not conveying passengers) at a time to be admitted to the loop if it was long enoiugh.  If a goods loop extended between two signal boxes trains would usually be signalled using the Permissive Block Regulations.

 

There was however another complicating factor in that in a number of cases at larger stations while trains were normally signalled using the Absolute Block Regulations (i.e. only one train at a time permitted to be in a block section)  a local variation was authorised to allow trains to be worked on a permissive basis in some circumstances - I have explained above how the signals might be worked in this sort of situation.

 

I won't go into what was known a s Station Yard Working which was another way of allowing various measures of permissiveness but if you hear the term the thing to remember is that basically it was akin to permissive working but not just ina bloc section between two signalboxes.

 

There is a difference with Track circuit Block signalling, found on most lines with continuous colour light signalling, where because the signal boxes/control centres covered considerable distances of railway there could be permissively signalled lines within the control area of one signal box.

[Trog]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

..................The use of the nomenclature 'Fast' and 'Slow' seems to have originated with the LNWR and according to one source that was why the GWR rapidly (in the 1890s) changed to using 'Main' and 'Relief' instead because they had no wish to be associated with LNWR type idea. .............

 

Jealousy not the most attractive of emotions, and one that drives its victims to strange extremes.  

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Trog said:

 

Jealousy not the most attractive of emotions, and one that drives its victims to strange extremes.  

I doubt James Grierson was much inclined to jealousy as he had been well established as the GM of the GWR (since 1866) when he decided that from 1 January 1880 the GWR would change from calling the lines Fast and Slow to calling them Main and Relief instead.  And he lasted another 7 years after that before his death at the early age of 57.   I wonder if the change might have been prompted by the fact that as the Relief Lines were gradually extended further out from Paddington they were purely narrow gauge while the Main Lines were dual gauge (and trains running on the Reliefs carried different headlights from those running on the Mains).

[2251]

The timing of the change in nomenclature seems unlikely to be coincidental.

 

The two additional lines (as has been said above, standard gauge only) opened from Southall to West Drayton on 25 November 1878, and then to Slough on 1 June 1879 (and then on 8 September 1884 to the east end of Maidenhead Bridge -- no further extensions were made until the 1890s).

 

My source for these dates is MacDermot (as revised by Clinker), vol 2, p 170.

[KeithMacdonald]

I was surprised to see that Devizes was a four-track station. Was it a left-over from when Devizes was on a mainline?

 

 

[beast66606]

On 17/10/2020 at 10:52, tomparryharry said:

IWhen using a calling on arm, the signalman will put a collar on the distant signal  lever to avoid  having a passenger train approaching at speed.

 

The distant could not be pulled off if the C/O was being used because of an occupied route, no collar needed the interlocking would prevent the distant being cleared.

[ikcdab]

45 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

I was surprised to see that Devizes was a four-track station. Was it a left-over from when Devizes was on a mainline?

 

 

I dont think it was.  It was the usual passing loop on a single track branch. There was an additional platform line call the "back platform". The remainder of the lines were goods loops. So no, it wasn't a four-track station.

Ian

[tomparryharry]

9 hours ago, beast66606 said:

 

The distant could not be pulled off if the C/O was being used because of an occupied route, no collar needed the interlocking would prevent the distant being cleared.

 Thank you, you're quite right.  I'm trying to remember when a collar would go on a distant lever...

[beast66606]

1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

 Thank you, you're quite right.  I'm trying to remember when a collar would go on a distant lever...

 

Distant levers weren't normally collared, the interlocking wouldn't allow them to be cleared unless the relevant stop signals were off - if the distant failed for some reason, cable snapped for example, then the lever would be collared. I believe they could also be collared if some form of temporary speed restriction was imposed and it was felt best to keep the distant at caution, so trains were kept at a lower speed - the collar of course was to remind the Bobby not to pull (it) off.

Edited October 19, 2020 by beast66606

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

I was surprised to see that Devizes was a four-track station. Was it a left-over from when Devizes was on a mainline?

 

 

It wasn't.  Devizes was a crossing station on the single line between Patney & Chirton and Holt Jcn but, from 1911, it had a Back Platform Line which was probably used to turn round any terminating passenger trains while leaving the two crossing loop lines clear; that line was removed in 1965.  Originally there appears to have been a looped siding off the back platform which at one time connected to the engine shed (reportedly that closed in the 1870s.  By 1910 an additional looped siding had been added as shown in the plan you posted.  One source implies there was a third looped siding but the plan posted above suggests to me that might have been a drawing error because it would have been pretty short and there doesn't appear to have been room for it.

 

Devizes had a considerable amount of siding space which suggests it was provided to hold vehicles for various peaks (e.g. animal markets) and possibly even for military purposes because Devizes was at one time an important military centre.   Nearby Patney & Chirton had a special platform solely to handle military traffic but limited siding space so it it quite possible that vehicles for such movements might have been stabled at Devizes.   For a modeller it provides the ultimate scenic entertainment of not only having a tunnel at one end but said tunnel passes under the grounds of a substantial castle.  (The present tense is correct for the tunnel because it is the only piece of railway infrastructure which has survived - and is now in use as a rifle range.)

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, beast66606 said:

 

Distant levers weren't normally collared, the interlocking wouldn't allow them to be cleared unless the relevant stop signals were off - if the distant failed for some reason, cable snapped for example, then the lever would be collared. I believe they could also be collared if some form of temporary speed restriction was imposed and it was felt best to keep the distant at caution, so trains were kept at a lower speed - the collar of course was to remind the Bobby not to pull (it) off.

The GWR Regulations required a Distant Signal to be maintained at caution if there was a restriction of speed to 15 mph or less between the Home and Section signals to which it applied -normally done using a Fixed distant.  additionally Divisional Superintendents had authority to iss Instructions for Distant signals to be maintained at caution should it be considered necessary to reduce the speed of trains in certain circumstances.  it was also GWr practice to leave teh distant at caution if there was temporary restriction of speed.

[The Johnster]

I was taught that working, as opposed to fixed, distant signals were only provided where the line speed through the station limits of a box was 40mph or more, and that this was the case for splitting distants as well; at junctions where one or more routes were speed restricted to less than 40mph.  If the road was set for such a routing, the distant was kept on, and of course if all the routes were speed restricted to less than 40mph, a fixed distant was provided.  

 

If this is incorrect, I apologise for the irritation Mike, but this is what I was taught at the West Box Guard's Academy in 1970, and observed in practice during my railway career.  The MAS version was a single yellow and feathers; some MAS signals, including junction signals, could be set to be 'approach lit', as could searchlight distants at semaphore boxes.  The approach to Margam reception from the down could be almost guaranteed to be approach lit from a point about 50 yards from the post if you were 'going inside' the yard.

 

I am of course talking about BR(W) practice, but to the best of my knowledge this perpetuated GW practice as far as semaphore signalling was concerned.  The 1955 rule book may have introduced some changes, but as I was unfamiliar with them being changes having only worked with or been an enthusiast after this was published, being unaware of earlier methods of working, but they were not mentioned to me by the old hands ('we used to do it properly under the old company, more'n your job's worth not to, we were proper railwaymen in those days' etc.).

 

We were also taught that one could identify a signal post that had lost it's board by the colour of the finial, yellow for distants and red for stop signals, but was of the view that this information was not necessary if you'd signed for road knowledge properly and assiduously; not all of my fellow new intake did, so I was rather proud of the fact that I took the trouble!  I knew where I was, by and large anyway, even in the dark and the fog, and insisted on learning roads in brake vans.  It may well have been you. as train crew supervisor at STJ, that provided me with brake van trip with Tunnel guards through the Severn Tunnel not long after I passed out and was sent on the cushions to 'learn the tunnel'. once with a D63xx and once with a Warship which failed at Stoke Gifford.  By the end of the week I was happy to sign Stoke Gifford and East Depot as well.  The Warship job also featured a Queen Mary working home, so that week saw my only cab rides aboard D63xx and Warship, and my only ride in a QM van.  This would have been in the spring of 1970, and I was managing two trips a day on Stoke Gifford or East Depot transfer jobs.  

 

We learned roads at Canton in the following order, according to jobs in the bottom 'spare' link we were to be placed, from Canton; Severn Tunnel Jc including Cardiff Tidal branch and Radyr Quarry, Jersey Marine including Margam, Gloucester, Hereford, Llanelli (was told I would never need to learn this in a van, but insisted and got some very strange looks from TCS Margam when I turned up there and asked for a van job over the Swansea District to ride with, but got one), Swindon, Vale of Glamorgan, Radyr Junction (which I never really felt really fully conversant with), Swansea and Cockett route Llanelli, Westbury, and Bridgewater (which included T.M. and West Depot, Malago, and St Phillips.  Later signings were Didcot, Carmarthen, Pontypridd, Aber Jc, Worcester both ways, Birmingham New St via Bromsgrove only, Reading, and Uskmouth Branch.  When I was put on Valley ticket work, I was very reluctant to sign the roads 'passenger only', and appended my signature 'UP' for under protest, both as a (probably pointless but I had my principles) protest and to be hopefully noted if any incident requiring route knowledge inside colliery exchange or similar situations ever arose.

 

My view was that signing a route knowledge document had legal implications in the event of incidents of the 'please explain' sort! There were a number of us from these last couple of intakes at Canton who were of similar view, not all of us previous enthusiasts, and it went some way to helping us gain respect from some of the drivers.  There were more than one that I won't mention by name now who signed roads 'back cab only' after using their learning weeks to skive off, and had I been a driver, I'd have been highly ambivalent about, say, putting off a hot box at Pontypool Road on a dark and stormy winter night with them in the back cab; you'd have been pretty much on your own!  I was and still am critical of a management that allowed this; route knowledge is, or should be, more than knowing where to put the brake on in a van, and while the system was left to individual conscience and respect for the job when it came to the actual signing (you signed that you were competent to work trains over the route, which meant knowing the gradients, line speeds, signals, where you had to display white side lights on a van, the layouts of loops, yards, refuge sidings, the working of any ground frames, and any other local instructions that pertained, in all weather conditions and visibility, and at night),

 

I actually overheard a Canton train crew manager, who I will name because he should have been ashamed of himself, Bill Griffiths, informing a new guard that he could sign a road 'back cab only' and would never be given a brake van job over a route.  Of course, he had jobs to man, overtime budgets to manage, and fully fitted work was increasing while brake van jobs halved in 5 years, but these men were in my view fundamentally incompetent and unsafe to work on trains, incapable of protecting in rear, and one of them proved me right within weeks of the above incident by throwing a fpl protected lever underneath a train at Grangetown G.F.  My view was that he was to blame, but not as much as Bill was, but managerial and corporate responsibility was an unheard of concept in the early 70s.  

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Yet again it's incorrect.  I suspect that you have confused two different things as the situation was made extremely clear in training notes which were in use all over the WR at that time for various courses and which the West Box trainers would definitely have had access to (because I saw copies of those notes in West Box in 1972 and they had been around on the GWR/WR since the 1930s - I have a 1937 copy and had a copy of the 1967/68  version as well when I first did the rules course)

 

The 40mph  applied in connection with junctions where on GWR/WR principles a worked distant was only provided for the routes at a facing junction if the speed on a route was 40mph or greater.  Generally splitting distants on the Western were only used at physical junctions, i.e where one route diverged from another, but they could very occasionally be found at running junctions (i.e a connection between one running line and another that was paired with it)  although the only one that I knew of also involved a physical junction so that was probably why a worked distant was also provided for the running junction.

 

So - yet again - let's try to get it right.

Following a review of policy prior to WWI (can't give you the exact date I'm sorry because my son is WFH in the room where my reference is kept) the policy in respect of distant signals on the GWR, and then the WR, was as follows (and was included in the 1936 GWR General Appendix and the 1960 WR Appendix hence their inclusion in training documents) -

 

The GWR (and the WR in new work until 1958) used a Distant Signal Fixed At Caution ('Fixed Distant')  if there was a permanent restriction of speed to 15mph or less between the Distant Signal and all the stop signals to which that Distant Signal applied.   The consequence of this was that on the (G)WR distant signals at single line crossing stations were inevitably fixed at caution as were distant signals approaching termini (and the same applied on lines worked by permissive block used only by freight trains).

 

After 1958 in new work worked distants were provided at single line crossing stations but existing fixed distants were not altered.  Thus when our local branch was singled in 1961 the intermediate crossing station accordingly had worked distants but the terminus retained a fixed distant (although it had become a colour light signal).

 

Distants at splitting junctions (normally excluding running junctions) were worked for each route routes where the speed was 40mph or greater on each route.  If only one route had a speed of 40 mph or greater then only one (worked) distant signal arm was provided  - for that route only of course.   It was also the usual policy to provide only a single fixed distant if all routes at a diverging junction had a p.r.o.s of less than 40 mph but occasionally this might be varied for specific operational reasons (p.r.o.s. = permanent restriction of speed) .  

In the case of junctions Station Limits were irrelevant, what mattered was the permitted speeds through the various routes at the junction although obviously the junction itself would have been in advance of a stop signal 

 

Apart from the 1958 change mentioned above all the foregoing remained WR policy in respect of distant signals up to the demise of the Region in 1992.   The only change which occurred was when splitting semaphore distants were replaced by colour light distants and the new signal only had one head and only applied for the fastest route.  

 

However in one instance in the late 1960s the WR installed a splitting colour light distant as part of an MAS scheme at a junction which had speeds in excess of 40mph on both routes but the BRB found out about it and the splitting distant was never commissioned.  Splitting colour light distants within MAS signalled areas re-emerged in the 1990s and are now commonplace.  Thus on the WR there was no colour light equivalent of a splitting distant until the first was installed in the early 1990s for the new Airport Junction west of Hayes which was created for the rail link to Heathrow Airport.

 

Junction signal controls on MAS areas are a considerable subject in themselves and have changed a lot over the years.  The original control was by approach release (of the 'junction' signal) from red and this even applied to connections where the diverging speed was 40 mph or greater.  When the approach control activated the signal cleared to whatever aspect signals in advance allowed (i.e. it could be single yellow, double yellow, or green) together with an appropriate indication of route using either a junction indicator (ji - often called a 'feather') or an alphanumeric indication in a theatre type route indicator.   The problem with approach control was that the signal in rear of the junction signal showed single yellow and thus this method of approach control could severely restrict train speeds at faster turnouts hence as turnout speeds were raised other, less restrictive (of speed),  methods were devised to signal divergences.

 

I'm slightly puzzled by reference to a '1955 Rule Book' because there wasn't one!  There was a 1950 Rule Book, which was reprinted reflecting some changes, but nothing major, in 1962 - which is what you would have been trained on.  A new Rule Book was authorised in 1972 to apply from 1 October of that year