Ground frames and signalling

[SZ]

A general question, except for at level crossings have ground frames ever operated signals? - or does having the authority to operate them in itself make this redundant?

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by SZ

[Wheatley]

Depends on the location. Some did (Killin, Loch Tay, vaguely recall a discussion about some GWR BLT on here a few weeks ago) where they were useful for shunting purposes insofar as they avoided a lot of shouting and waving. 

 

The distinction between 'signalbox' and 'covered ground frame' could be as much about the grade of the bloke working it as the complexity of what it did. 

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Yes, ground frames (and ground switch panels) are used extensively to operate signals, both semaphore and independent position lights.

 

There are a lot of reasons why ground frames may be used for controlling signals, but mostly it’s an ops thing. The most common place was yards and depots.

 

Simon

[micknich2003]

Springbank West No2 on the H&BRly was a Ground Frame, but outwardly looked no different to a conventional signalbox. The difference between the two, a Signalbox works "Block" a Ground Frame dosen't.

[The Stationmaster]

Exactly so Mick - you have stated the essential difference between the two.  A signal box is involved in block working and is therefore a block post and a ground frame is not a block post.

 

The actual method of construction and height of the lever frame floor plates in relation to ground level is no guide at all to whether a building is a ground frame or a signal box and neither is the fact that it operates signals.  I can't think of a situation where a signal box/block post does not operate signals but there are numerous examples going back for many years of ground frames which did, and do, operate signals.

[Mike_Walker]

On 20/11/2020 at 10:41, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so Mick - you have stated the essential difference between the two.  A signal box is involved in block working and is therefore a block post and a ground frame is not a block post.

 

The actual method of construction and height of the lever frame floor plates in relation to ground level is no guide at all to whether a building is a ground frame or a signal box and neither is the fact that it operates signals.  I can't think of a situation where a signal box/block post does not operate signals but there are numerous examples going back for many years of ground frames which did, and do, operate signals.

Yes, that's the correct definition but as always there are exceptions. The ground frame which controlled North Town Level Crossing at Furze Platt on the Maidenhead to High Wycombe line was described as "North Town Crossing Signal Box" yet it was NOT a block post. Its levers only worked the crossing gate locks and protecting distant signals. The only instruments provided were repeaters so the crossing keeper knew when a train was in section and he needed to attend to the gates.

 

 

Interestingly, at Cores End just beyond Bourne End and at Spicers Crossing between Wooburn Green and Loudwater there were similar crossings both described correctly as Ground Frames.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mike_Walker

[Broadway Clive]

Were there any steam MPDs where a ground frame operated signals?

[micknich2003]

The H&BRly in the Appendix referred to Springbank West No2 as a Signalbox, the NERly after the take over soon changed things and refered to it as a Pointsman's job.

[Grovenor]

It is not really appropriate to describe the likes of Springbank West, ie a demoted signal box, as a Ground Frame. On the LMR when we demoted signal boxes in that way we called them "Shunting Frames".

eg Acton Lane Sidings SF and South West Sidings SF on here: http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Of course, where needed real ground level ground frames also operated signals but the majority where used for very local movements that could be safely managed by hand signals.  In some cases the ground frame may be used for movements that would have to ss signals controlled from a signal box in which case the signals would be slotted or dual controlled.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

Were there any steam MPDs where a ground frame operated signals?

Depends what you call a ground frame but if you accept a single lever (which in a practical and theoretical sense definitely counts as a ground frame) there was one on Weymouth shed- an oddity even by what passed for GWR normality.

 

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Yes, that's the correct definition but as always there are exceptions. The ground frame which controlled North Town Level Crossing at Furze Platt on the Maidenhead to High Wycombe line was described as "North Town Crossing Signal Box" yet it was NOT a block post. Its levers only worked the crossing gate locks and protecting distant signals. The only instruments provided were repeaters so the crossing keeper knew when a train was in section and he needed to attend to the gates.

 

 

 

Interestingly, at Cores End just beyond Bourne End and at Spicers Crossing between Wooburn Green and Loudwater there were similar crossings both described correctly as Ground Frames.

We have visited the interesting piece of GWRness in the past and that was definitely not the only example of the S&T Dept labelling structures containing a ground frame as a signal box.  However in some cases they had no doubt been downgraded from signal boxes to ground frames.  

 

Another GWR/WR thing designed to catch the unwary, and again down to differences between the operating and S&T sides was signal boxes which had two different names with the one on the nameboard being different from the one userd by the operating dept.  But then the GWR was good at that sort of thing with names sometimes using completely different spellings for a location from the one shown for that place on a map.

[micknich2003]

3 hours ago, Grovenor said:

It is not really appropriate to describe the likes of Springbank West, ie a demoted signal box, as a Ground Frame. On the LMR when we demoted signal boxes in that way we called them "Shunting Frames".

eg Acton Lane Sidings SF and South West Sidings SF on here: http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Of course, where needed real ground level ground frames also operated signals but the majority where used for very local movements that could be safely managed by hand signals.  In some cases the ground frame may be used for movements that would have to ss signals controlled from a signal box in which case the signals would be slotted or dual controlled.

Springbank West No2 was not a demoted Signalbox,  from opening in 1907 till closed in May 1944 it never worked block.

[Grovenor]

6 hours ago, micknich2003 said:

The H&BRly in the Appendix referred to Springbank West No2 as a Signalbox, the NERly after the take over soon changed things and refered to it as a Pointsman's job.

Sounds like a demoted signalbox to me.

[beast66606]

6 hours ago, Grovenor said:

On the LMR when we demoted signal boxes in that way we called them "Shunting Frames".

 

 

Also level crossing frames for example, I think they were generaly called xxx Shunt Frame rather than Shunting

Edited November 20, 2020 by beast66606
Typo

[Grovenor]

Spondon Station Shunting Frame (Derby scheme) did deal with the level crossing but also shunting. I would not expect to use the term Shunting Frame if its sole purpose was a level crossing, but I never dealt with one like that. All the Shunting Frames I worked on were just that, not abbreviated to Shunt Frame. But such things are not set in stone, they change, its all pretty arbitrary and there are always exceptions.

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Grovenor said:

It is not really appropriate to describe the likes of Springbank West, ie a demoted signal box, as a Ground Frame. On the LMR when we demoted signal boxes in that way we called them "Shunting Frames".

eg Acton Lane Sidings SF and South West Sidings SF on here: http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Of course, where needed real ground level ground frames also operated signals but the majority where used for very local movements that could be safely managed by hand signals.  In some cases the ground frame may be used for movements that would have to ss signals controlled from a signal box in which case the signals would be slotted or dual controlled.

The LMR called them Shunting Frames but that seems to have been an LMR term that was not used universally by BR (did any other Region use it?).  

 

On the WR the term used was ground frame as for example at Taplow where the signal box structure and lever frame were retained to work all the running line connections seen in the layout plan below including the Up Yard to Up Relief crossover on the extreme right of the sketch which was motor worked.

 

Taplow GF was only manned when it need to be opened for the freight trips to shunt the yard.  However Llandarcy Signal Box which was reduced to a ground frame some years later under the Port Talbot Extension resignalling was manned on three shifts for much of the week because it worked the connections into the oil refinery.

 

 

 

[RailWest]

On 20/11/2020 at 10:41, The Stationmaster said:

 I can't think of a situation where a signal box/block post does not operate signals.....

Err, what about Kernick? Apparently a GF at each end which worked the signals and points, with the SB in the middle just housing the ETS instruments?

Admittedly a long time ago......:-)

[SM42]

7 hours ago, RailWest said:

Err, what about Kernick? Apparently a GF at each end which worked the signals and points, with the SB in the middle just housing the ETS instruments?

Admittedly a long time ago......:-)

 

Wasn't Nairn a similar set up complete with bicycle?

 

Andy

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, RailWest said:

Err, what about Kernick? Apparently a GF at each end which worked the signals and points, with the SB in the middle just housing the ETS instruments?

Admittedly a long time ago......:-)

That is an interesting question.  Following the Abermule collision the GWR looked into a number of matters connected with signalling on single lines including the position and working of single line instruments.   It was noted that while interlocking between 'Starting signals' and tablet instruments would be relatively simple it would be difficult in respect of staff instruments.

 

At that time (March 1921)  the GWR had1,356.5 miles of single line with 323 sections worked by Electric Train Staff, 20 worked by Electric Train Tablet,  29 worked by Electric Train Token, and 1 worked by Miniature Electric Train Staff.  The single line instruments were located in the booking office at 52 places on the Company's lines and while an Instruction that the instruments should only be worked by authorised persons was reiterated the Rules & Regulations Committee recommended that all such instruments should be relocated to signal boxes with, if necessary, extension bells in the booking office.  

 

The relevant minute has a footnote referring to the recommendations of the MoT Report which suggested a way in which the instruments could remain in a booking office provided they were interlocked with' starting signals'

 

I don't know what the senior committee decided in respect of the recommendations because don't have copies of its minutes.   while I don't know offhand of any instances on former GWR lines there were definitely instances of Section Signals at single line crossing stations still not being interlocked with the single line instruments as late as the 1960s.

 

Going back to your question the situation is I think readily resolved because the Signalman was responsible for ensuring that trains had the correct token and for working the signals leading into single line sections and only he or another authorised person (usually the Stationmaster if the instruments were not in the signal box) was authorised to work the instruments.