Odd Signal

[iands]

Now that the RMweb collective has provided an answer to the original post, in doing so it has brought to light an interesting, and different, way of operating a short branch off a "main" line. Both passenger and freight being authorised "propelling" moves on and off the branch. Would be interesting to model that and see what reactions the nay-sayers would raise.

 

If anyone is interested, on the Limit of Shunt website can be found the various Sectional Appendices - just search "Guisborough Station" to see what comes up.

[Michael Hodgson]

Given that it was in a 1947 Appendix, it was presumably there already - perhaps a wartime expedient?

[iands]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Given that it was in a 1947 Appendix, it was presumably there already - perhaps a wartime expedient?

Another interesting point. Doing a bit more digging, it seems that the propelling moves on the branch have been authorised under NER Regulations as far back to at least 13th November 1911, so until the change in operation (introduction of DMUs?) and accompanying "resignalling" during the early 1960s, the evidence suggests the "propelling" method of operation on the branch was in use for at least 50 years. It would be interesting to see what, if any, BoT thoughts were on this type of operation. Time for yet more digging I think. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I’d hate to have been the driver with eight on who forgot.

I remember a driver doing that when shunting a Freightliner into Lawley Street. Looking back for the ground signal he mistook his whereabouts when on a dead end rather than a through road. Wrecked a Class 45 when it reached Saltley Viaduct. The yellow paint from the nose was on the wall for many years and I think the imprint of the buffers remains in the brickwork to this day. 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, iands said:

It would be interesting to see what, if any, BoT thoughts were on this type of operation. Time for yet more digging I think. 

 

The NER had a few places where propelling moves, necessary because of very early junction layouts, remained authorised under "grandfather rights" as the BoT couldn't do anything about it unless a major change was required.  This could be one of them?

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, iands said:

Another interesting point. Doing a bit more digging, it seems that the propelling moves on the branch have been authorised under NER Regulations as far back to at least 13th November 1911, so until the change in operation (introduction of DMUs?) and accompanying "resignalling" during the early 1960s, the evidence suggests the "propelling" method of operation on the branch was in use for at least 50 years. It would be interesting to see what, if any, BoT thoughts were on this type of operation. Time for yet more digging I think. 

The interesting bit is propelling of loaded passenger trains - that was relatively unusual outside Station Limits with the exception of very short block sections such as at large stations where it was of course inevitable in the days of portion working.   However it seem to have been not so unusual on the NER where it took place at a number of locations at least one of which survived until the line closed well into BR days.  Scarborough - Falsgrave was an example where I'm fairly sure propelling was used to save time;  Saltburn was another and of course there was Guisborough.  In all these cases distances were short so there was a very low level of risk involved provided there was control of the brake from the leading vehicle

 

Instructions for passenger train propelling for both Saltburn and Guisborough were shown in the NER 1921 Appendix so it clearly wasn't a latter day idea although it appeara that the length of train authorised to be propelled had been increased at some time at guisborough.  Originally it was limited to 3 coach trains in both cases (1921 NER Appendix Instruction shown below).   It is probable that the Railway Inspectorate knew of these instances but provided there was a good reason for propelling a passenger train over a short distance and it was done safely I would think they would have little or no concern (as long as nothing went wrong).

 

In later days propelling was way outside the purview of HMRI and was a matter solely for authorisation, obviously with suitable Instructions for doing it safely, by the railway.  One always has to be very careful when authorising propelling outside the general authority to do so in Station Limits (or indeed when considering where that general aurthority exists and might need restriction).  But it started to be coming something folk grew ever more concerned about from the mid/late 1980s onwards but usually those who had the concern had never really been involved with doing it.  I was quite surprised on several occasions by people asking me to publish an Instruction prohibiting propelling in places where there no safety concerns at all, seems they just didn't like the idea of propelling.  And - as pointed previously - if you are in charge of a propelling move you will invariably work to known landmarks, such as signal posts, to help know how much room you have as you near the end of the movement.

 

 

 

[iands]

42 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The interesting bit is propelling of loaded passenger trains - that was relatively unusual outside Station Limits with the exception of very short block sections such as at large stations where it was of course inevitable in the days of portion working.   However it seem to have been not so unusual on the NER where it took place at a number of locations at least one of which survived until the line closed well into BR days.  Scarborough - Falsgrave was an example where I'm fairly sure propelling was used to save time;  Saltburn was another and of course there was Guisborough.  In all these cases distances were short so there was a very low level of risk involved provided there was control of the brake from the leading vehicle

 

Instructions for passenger train propelling for both Saltburn and Guisborough were shown in the NER 1921 Appendix so it clearly wasn't a latter day idea although it appeara that the length of train authorised to be propelled had been increased at some time at guisborough.  Originally it was limited to 3 coach trains in both cases (1921 NER Appendix Instruction shown below).   It is probable that the Railway Inspectorate knew of these instances but provided there was a good reason for propelling a passenger train over a short distance and it was done safely I would think they would have little or no concern (as long as nothing went wrong).

 

In later days propelling was way outside the purview of HMRI and was a matter solely for authorisation, obviously with suitable Instructions for doing it safely, by the railway.  One always has to be very careful when authorising propelling outside the general authority to do so in Station Limits (or indeed when considering where that general aurthority exists and might need restriction).  But it started to be coming something folk grew ever more concerned about from the mid/late 1980s onwards but usually those who had the concern had never really been involved with doing it.  I was quite surprised on several occasions by people asking me to publish an Instruction prohibiting propelling in places where there no safety concerns at all, seems they just didn't like the idea of propelling.  And - as pointed previously - if you are in charge of a propelling move you will invariably work to known landmarks, such as signal posts, to help know how much room you have as you near the end of the movement.

 

 

 

Thanks Mike. Reading various SAs again (on the Limit of Shunt site), I did notice an increase in the number of bogie coaches from 3 to 7 had occurred at some point in time, but unable to say when.

 

Out of curiosity, I also had a quick look at The Railways Archive site, primarily to see if there was reference to any Regulations concerning the propelling of Passenger trains, particularly on NER territory. Couldn't find any Regs, but interestingly there was reference to an accident at Guisborough on 15th February 1900 which unfortunately resulted in 1 fatality and 6 injured. Alas there is no document/report into this accident so not able to comment if "propelling" was a contributory factor in this accident.

[Compound2632]

On 17/02/2021 at 18:57, iands said:

When propelling less, the train may be set back into the station a corresponding distance past the marker board."

 

That part of the instruction seems fraught with danger. Quite apart from @Nearholmer's unfortunate driver with eight on, a driver with only three on, say, has to make a judgement. No doubt regular drivers had their own informal marker points. 

 

The seven vehicles limit only works if the average length is no more than 60 ft over the buffers; fine in NER days but with a rake of Gresley corridor carriages there'd be a nasty crunch up against the stop block. I suppose such a train is unlikely, though there might have been an excursion...

[iands]

48 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That part of the instruction seems fraught with danger. Quite apart from @Nearholmer's unfortunate driver with eight on, a driver with only three on, say, has to make a judgement. No doubt regular drivers had their own informal marker points. 

 

The seven vehicles limit only works if the average length is no more than 60 ft over the buffers; fine in NER days but with a rake of Gresley corridor carriages there'd be a nasty crunch up against the stop block. I suppose such a train is unlikely, though there might have been an excursion...

Indeed. I'm not sure how often the coach formations were changed, given that the service operated on a secondary main line. Would they be "captive" fixed-length rakes that operated the same service day-in, day-out, for months at a time with all coaches receiving the same maintenance inspections/repairs at the same time, or were the formations cobbled together on a weekly, or even daily, basis as stock became available? I suspect that if the latter, this would have more potential to "get it wrong" in terms of the stopping point if the number of coaches changed on a regular basis. I guess this level of detail is lost in the mist of time.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, iands said:

Indeed. I'm not sure how often the coach formations were changed, given that the service operated on a secondary main line. Would they be "captive" fixed-length rakes that operated the same service day-in, day-out, for months at a time with all coaches receiving the same maintenance inspections/repairs at the same time, or were the formations cobbled together on a weekly, or even daily, basis as stock became available? I suspect that if the latter, this would have more potential to "get it wrong" in terms of the stopping point if the number of coaches changed on a regular basis. I guess this level of detail is lost in the mist of time.

 

Almost certainly regular sets - probably several with the same formation that operated a number of circuits, with one spare on rotation. The railways had carriage marshalling books giving the details. Routine operation was not left to chance. Only for exceptional services such as excursions would trains be cobbled together from whatever stock was spare.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That part of the instruction seems fraught with danger. Quite apart from @Nearholmer's unfortunate driver with eight on, a driver with only three on, say, has to make a judgement. No doubt regular drivers had their own informal marker points. 

 

The seven vehicles limit only works if the average length is no more than 60 ft over the buffers; fine in NER days but with a rake of Gresley corridor carriages there'd be a nasty crunch up against the stop block. I suppose such a train is unlikely, though there might have been an excursion...

Technically the Driver doesn't have to make a judgement as he is not in charge of the movement and should only be working in accordance with handsignals from a Guard or Shunter.  and in most propelling circumstances - but definitely with a passenger train, the latter should have control of the brake from a position where he can see the line ahead - as is made very clear in the 1921 iInstruction which I posted above.  Strange to relate I was involved in the latter half of the 1990s with the planning the arrangements for propelling (empty) passenger stock over a similar distance to that between Hutton Junction and Guisborough.

 

Thus the '7 sign' is really no more than 'belt & braces' and probably took into account the diffuculty of seeing the Guard/Shunter when he was in the poorer light under the station canopy.   The increase to 7 might have been for excursions or possibly military reasons although the only military reference I can find to Guisborough is that there was a 'Starfish' bombing decoy site was there during WWII. 

 

17 hours ago, iands said:

 

Out of curiosity, I also had a quick look at The Railways Archive site, primarily to see if there was reference to any Regulations concerning the propelling of Passenger trains, particularly on NER territory. Couldn't find any Regs, but interestingly there was reference to an accident at Guisborough on 15th February 1900 which unfortunately resulted in 1 fatality and 6 injured. Alas there is no document/report into this accident so not able to comment if "propelling" was a contributory factor in this accident.

As far as I can ascertain there have never been any Regulations in respect of, or affecting. propelling except for the Continuous Brake Regulations in so far as they were applicable (i.e. a train conveying passengers had to have Continuous Brakes).   Propelling has always been covered solely by Rules and - where additional authorities or information were required, or exclusions were made - by Instructions.  

 

There is a subtle distinction between a Regulation and a Rule or Instruction with a Regulation deriving from a legal document which normally means an Act of Parliament or a legal agreement delivered by a Railway under official seal (best example of the former being the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act hence the railways had Brake Regulations and Block Signalling Regulations).  Everything else - including propelling - is covered by Rules etc because there is no legal force beyond that of the railway itself talking authority for the Rule by having it approved by its directors etc,.  Basically they might almost be described as common sense and the lessons of experience written down (plus avoiding financial claims).  

 

HMRI could comment on Rules and Instructions and recommend changes or tightening of them (and at various times, as today, have had legal powers to enforce their recommendations)  - as was often the case in earlier years - but the legal authority rested with the railways and not through an Act of Parliament.  So you won't find an source of Regulations dealing with propelling - but you will find Rules and they in turn have gradually evolved over time.

[iands]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Technically the Driver doesn't have to make a judgement as he is not in charge of the movement and should only be working in accordance with handsignals from a Guard or Shunter.  and in most propelling circumstances - but definitely with a passenger train, the latter should have control of the brake from a position where he can see the line ahead - as is made very clear in the 1921 iInstruction which I posted above.  Strange to relate I was involved in the latter half of the 1990s with the planning the arrangements for propelling (empty) passenger stock over a similar distance to that between Hutton Junction and Guisborough.

 

Thus the '7 sign' is really no more than 'belt & braces' and probably took into account the diffuculty of seeing the Guard/Shunter when he was in the poorer light under the station canopy.   The increase to 7 might have been for excursions or possibly military reasons although the only military reference I can find to Guisborough is that there was a 'Starfish' bombing decoy site was there during WWII. 

 

As far as I can ascertain there have never been any Regulations in respect of, or affecting. propelling except for the Continuous Brake Regulations in so far as they were applicable (i.e. a train conveying passengers had to have Continuous Brakes).   Propelling has always been covered solely by Rules and - where additional authorities or information were required, or exclusions were made - by Instructions.  

 

There is a subtle distinction between a Regulation and a Rule or Instruction with a Regulation deriving from a legal document which normally means an Act of Parliament or a legal agreement delivered by a Railway under official seal (best example of the former being the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act hence the railways had Brake Regulations and Block Signalling Regulations).  Everything else - including propelling - is covered by Rules etc because there is no legal force beyond that of the railway itself talking authority for the Rule by having it approved by its directors etc,.  Basically they might almost be described as common sense and the lessons of experience written down (plus avoiding financial claims).  

 

HMRI could comment on Rules and Instructions and recommend changes or tightening of them (and at various times, as today, have had legal powers to enforce their recommendations)  - as was often the case in earlier years - but the legal authority rested with the railways and not through an Act of Parliament.  So you won't find an source of Regulations dealing with propelling - but you will find Rules and they in turn have gradually evolved over time.

As ever Mike, many thanks for providing clarity on the distinction between Regulations and Rules/Instructions.

[Pinza-C55]

I finally got a look at the photo and my only theory was that it was associated with track circuits. I know that the NER were early users of track circuits and that their signals had a "track circuit diamond" that looked different to the BR standard ones. However the theory here is more plausible. As to "why not simply use the signal as a marker ?" maybe this was for the benefit of staff crossing the line ? It is very similar to the LNER Pilmoor - Knaresborough signals I mentioned earlier, so I think it would be of LNER vintage, though the lamp is the NER pattern commonly known to collectors as a "bomb" because of its huge weight.

[russ p]

Hutton Junction where the Station joined what became the mainline was protected by gas lit mechanical colourlights is this anything to do with it ?