'Out-of-Use' semaphore signals

[TX]

Does anyone have a picture of semaphore signals which are ’out of use’?  I seem to remember that they had a cross attached to the arm of the signal, but cannot remember details.

Thanks.

[Johann Marsbar]

On a preserved line, but should answer the question!

[Ray H]

Would the lamp be left unlit or would it be lit to show a proceed aspect?

 

Presumably the former would apply where out of use arms were mounted along side other in use ones on a gantry or bracket.

[ikcdab]

4 minutes ago, Ray H said:

Would the lamp be left unlit or would it be lit to show a proceed aspect?

 

Presumably the former would apply where out of use arms were mounted along side other in use ones on a gantry or bracket.

The signal may be under construction do might not even have a lamp (or ladder!) installed. On the basis that out-of-use colour lights are totally hooded over, I would say the lamps are unlit. 

[Michael Hodgson]

Quote

 

SIgnals not yet in use (new work) had a cross on them.  Old signals awaiting demolition/re-use elsewhere wouldn't.

 

Signals no longer in use have the arm removed instead - somebody would have to climb up the ladder anyway if he were to fit a cross so he might as well start the removal process by taking off the arm while he's up there.    

 

No point in a  lighting the lamp in a new signal other than temporarily in order to test a lamp indicator.  As it isn't officially a signal until it's commissioned, it shouldn't show a light.

[The Johnster]

I very much doubt that an out of use signal would ever be allowed to display a proceed aspect, due to the possibility of it being taken as a proceed aspect despite the X.  Similarly, no lamp would be displayed, the assumption being that an out of use signal, or stick as they are otherwise known, is best if it is invisible at night.  My memory of disposal of semaphore signals replaced by new ones, mostly at the time of the Swansea MAS scheme, so colour light replacements, was that the new signals were hooded with an X on the front of the hood until the scheme went live, when the semaphore arms were removed very quickly; so much so that I cannot recall them being fitted with X's, they just disappeared almost overnight, though some of the posts remained for a while.  It was nearly 50 years ago though and my memory is not perfect, so don't take that undisputed fact!  

 

Xs, as in the photo here, are in my mind associated with new signals not yet in use.

[Michael Hodgson]

46 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

The signal may be under construction do might not even have a lamp (or ladder!) installed. 

 

It wouldn't have an arm if it hadn't got its ladder yet.  Somebody has to climb up it to fit the arm, even if it is winched up on a rope rather than carried over his shoulder while he climbs ... the lamp wouldn't be up there either.

[Mike_Walker]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I very much doubt that an out of use signal would ever be allowed to display a proceed aspect, due to the possibility of it being taken as a proceed aspect despite the X.  Similarly, no lamp would be displayed, the assumption being that an out of use signal, or stick as they are otherwise known, is best if it is invisible at night.  My memory of disposal of semaphore signals replaced by new ones, mostly at the time of the Swansea MAS scheme, so colour light replacements, was that the new signals were hooded with an X on the front of the hood until the scheme went live, when the semaphore arms were removed very quickly; so much so that I cannot recall them being fitted with X's, they just disappeared almost overnight, though some of the posts remained for a while.  It was nearly 50 years ago though and my memory is not perfect, so don't take that undisputed fact!  

 

Xs, as in the photo here, are in my mind associated with new signals not yet in use.

You are correct. Semaphore arms/lamps are removed immediately when replaced by colour-lights as part of the commissioning of the latter. X's are only used for new semaphore installations - still some being installed form time to time. Today, new colour-lights awaiting commissioning are hooded but the application of the white cross seems to be something from the past now.

 

[Captain Kernow]

Signalling Rules & Regulations would absolutely prohibit the presence of any kind of aspect in a signal that is not in use. The unauthorised presence of such an irregular aspect would be considered a potentially serious operational incident, which could bring about confusion on the driver's part and possible consequential issues.

 

[Captain Kernow]

Just to add that the bringing-into-use of new signals (eg. semaphores with a white cross on them and with no ilumination pending commissioning) is strictly managed and controlled by the issue of appropriate operating notices, which all in receipt of same have to acknowledge receipt of.

 

You cannot simply bring a new signal into use, without the due official notifications having been made to all railway staff who's roles and responsibilities are affected by it.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

Yes - it's part of the route knowledge the driver is expected to have.  The notice tells you exactly when any new signals (or signal boxes) come into use, and the white crosses or bags are removed after the last train before that point and before the next one after that time.  For a resignalling scheme, that's going to be during an engineering possession when the line is closed (probably overnight) for the engineers to do final testing and commission the new arrangements,

 

Similarly notices also tell you when the old ones are no longer going to be there.  It sometimes happens that a signal ceases to function without notice, for example if it fall downs because the post has rusted through (shouldnt happen if inspections are up to scratch of course) and in such cases drivers have to be told until such time as it has appeared on a notice.  Drivers are required to report signals that they are expected to see if for any reason they are missing or not showing a proper aspect.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 19/10/2020 at 10:08, Michael Hodgson said:

It wouldn't have an arm if it hadn't got its ladder yet.  Somebody has to climb up it to fit the arm, even if it is winched up on a rope rather than carried over his shoulder while he climbs ... the lamp wouldn't be up there either.

That's where the Grandad comes in albeit on a bracket signal. The ladder was up to the platform but none on the dolls of a 3-doll bracket. The signal was to be brought into use on the day it was put up After problems with the crane work the job was running late and the operating wanted to pass the first booked train. The main doll had a lower distant arm so Grandad climbed up to the platform then hauled up the arm and a signal lamp. He stood on the Distant arm lamp bracket and handrail to put the main arm on then put the lamp into its case. When the train appeared it was faced by a red light and flagged past the signal. We then got on with finishing the job.

Actually if you do it right it's much easier to winch a tall semaphore up up with the ladder already attached to the top then pull out the bottom to the correct angle.

[The Johnster]

I have a print somewhere in the lost boxes of a photo I took many years ago during the last years of Radyr yard before it became a housing estate, of a disconnected but other wise complete ground disc signal, in the middle of a large area of, well, nothing.  This is of course an example of the opposite to the rule that disused signals must be immediately removed so as not to display an aspect; it could display an aspect, but the railway had been removed so that no driver could see it's aspect...

[RJS1977]

7 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I have a print somewhere in the lost boxes of a photo I took many years ago during the last years of Radyr yard before it became a housing estate, of a disconnected but other wise complete ground disc signal, in the middle of a large area of, well, nothing.  This is of course an example of the opposite to the rule that disused signals must be immediately removed so as not to display an aspect; it could display an aspect, but the railway had been removed so that no driver could see it's aspect...

 

There are several instances of semaphore signals remaining in place long after the line has been closed - there is one alongside the M3 on the DN&S and there are a number of others (such as the Crompton & High Peak) - I think it's become quite fashionable where a railway is being converted to a footpath to leave a signal as a point of interest.

[The Johnster]

And of course there are plenty of signals in peoples' gardens and such, owned by memorabilia collectors.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I have a print somewhere in the lost boxes of a photo I took many years ago during the last years of Radyr yard before it became a housing estate, of a disconnected but other wise complete ground disc signal, in the middle of a large area of, well, nothing.  This is of course an example of the opposite to the rule that disused signals must be immediately removed so as not to display an aspect; it could display an aspect, but the railway had been removed so that no driver could see it's aspect...

This sort of thing happened when lines closed under Beeching etc.  Contracts were let with demolition/salvage firms to have the line lifted and signals etc were typically part of the deal.  Of course to the bloke driving a crane or bulldozer, if it wasn't a rail it wasn't what his boss had told him to do, so the rails were mostly recovered but the odd bit here and there was easily overlooked and the foreman wasn't really interested in chasing up a few bits of relatively little scrap value.  and some fixtures such as boundary markers were planted so deeply that the effort required wasn't cost-justified.

[Baldyoldgit]

This signal was at Race Course siding, between Derby Friargate and Breadsall. Apparently the signal arms were removed when there was no racing.

 

 Regards Tony.

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

This sort of thing happened when lines closed under Beeching etc.  Contracts were let with demolition/salvage firms to have the line lifted and signals etc were typically part of the deal.  Of course to the bloke driving a crane or bulldozer, if it wasn't a rail it wasn't what his boss had told him to do, so the rails were mostly recovered but the odd bit here and there was easily overlooked and the foreman wasn't really interested in chasing up a few bits of relatively little scrap value.  and some fixtures such as boundary markers were planted so deeply that the effort required wasn't cost-justified.

 

I would imagine the boundary markers to have been retained anyway until BR either sold the land, or Marples repurposed it for a road scheme. Just because there isn't a railway any more doesn't mean there's no need to know whose land it is.....

[Michael Hodgson]

They removed the arms at one or two boxes elsewhere that were only used on race days.

 

It doesn't need an X as it hasn't got an arm.   Maybe somebody thought the somersault pivot might be mistaken for a signal arm?  Even so they would have thought it at Danger.

[TX]

Thanks to all who contributed, and for the useful observations on the original question – it’s amazing what one can learn! I guess I had it the wrong way round in that the ’X’s’ were pre-activation rather than pre-dismantling.

[Michael Hodgson]

A perfectly reasonable assumption if you don't know.

"not if use" does sound like "out of order" as seen on everything from telephone boxes to public toilets.