Jump to content
 

Southern single-line block-posts


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Also Withyham, for another LBSC example.

 

I thought about Withyam, but it didn't have a loop on the single line to my knowledge. 

 

And, did Lavant? I thought it was just a siding. There is a model of it around, and that might have a loop, either authentically, or for model operating reasons. [It did have a loop, i just checked a more modern plan than the one I was looking at]

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eastchurch on the Sheppey LR, at its fullest. Sensibly mean on signals, of course, being a LR, but a BP and a LC.

 

Whitstable Harbour, although more of a terminus really.

 

Hellingly, which i'd forgotten only had one platform - possibly not a loop as envisage, though, because it was really the hospital railway.

 

One we should all have remembered: Lymington Town.

 

Plymstock, where you get a double-dose.

 

Mornington Crescent (actually not).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Lympstone have been provided with a signal box?

I know when the Exmouth Branch was built provision was made for double track in the future, so possibly for that reason, (though in the event only Exmouth Junction to Topsham was doubled). The original signal box

at Lympstone was located on the down side of the line opposite the platform.

Would the provision of the signal box at Lympstone been needed to give flexibility to freight working on the branch?

From Topsham a freight shunt/trip worked down the single line to Odhams siding about half a mile south of Topsham. While at Exmouth the East Devon Brick and Tile Works had a siding off the single line half a mile north of Exmouth.

 

cheers 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:


You probably would if there wasn’t a locomotive present.

 

And, if there was a locomotive present, the driver would be in possession of the staff.

 

My question is about whether signals could be set against trains, and points reversed, at a station that wasn’t a block post, in the absence of the train staff.

 

 

Technically the answer is 'yes' although specific Regulations and Instructions might make provisions for the signals to be cleared when a train was expected.   And similarly there was no doubt an Instruction which required the points - if not released by the train staff - to remain set for the single line at all times.     But the only time I could think of it being necessary to reverse any points with no train present would be if there were sidings on both sides of the single line and a need to move wagons etc between them - I wonder how often that happened?

 

In effect the situation was no different from a signal protected level crossing which was not a block post and there were plenty of them around into the 1960s including some which didn't even have semaphore stop signals but showed a red target/red lamp on the gate towards an approacghing train when the crossing wasn't open to rail traffic.  In later years of course they were provided with repeater instruments so the Crossing Keeper knew what was happening.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But the only time I could think of it being necessary to reverse any points with no train present would be if there were sidings on both sides of the single line and a need to move wagons etc between them - I wonder how often that happened?

 

That's why I keep fastening on the Daggons Road example - there I think they may have had cause to do that.

 

Anyone got an LSWR rule book and appendices?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Which takes us back to my previous question, which I thought you'd answered in the affirmative.

 

Was it, or wasn't it, allowable to set the signals on, and reverse the points to allow shunting onto the single-line, for example using a horse, when not is possession of the train staff (location of protecting signals permitting - for example, at Daggons Road, it looks to me as if you could, to move wagons between the up-side and down-side sidings).

 

Cranbrook - on Disused Stations, there is a photo showing the original signals, a beautiful ringed, half-size arm on the same post as the home, to give entry to the loop.

Short answer - no. If the train staff (or a ticket) is not at Daggons Road, then there is no authority to occupy the single line there.

 

In later years of course the GF was locked by the short-section tablet/longe-section miniature staff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

echnically the answer is 'yes'

 

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

Short answer - no.

 

Hmmm ........

 

We really do need a rule book and appendices, from about 1890. I still cannot see for the life of me why multiple signals at Daggons Road if it wasn't a BP, or if it wasn't then that it was allowable to obstruct the single line under the protection of those signals.

 

My gut instinct is that rules/practices were different in 1890.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Eastchurch on the Sheppey LR, at its fullest. Sensibly mean on signals, of course, being a LR, but a BP and a LC.

 

Whitstable Harbour, although more of a terminus really.

 

Hellingly, which i'd forgotten only had one platform - possibly not a loop as envisage, though, because it was really the hospital railway.

 

One we should all have remembered: Lymington Town.

 

Plymstock, where you get a double-dose.

 

Mornington Crescent (actually not).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, should have remembered Lymington Town. I suspect the layout there arose simply 'cos it was originally a terminus and the extension to the pier was probably too short to support a service frequency which would have necessitated a passing-loop at Town.

 

I did think about Plymstock, but put that into the 'junction' category and not just a single single-line :-)

 

As regards having an SB at Lympstone, I suspect that it was a hangover from the days of TS&T working when there was a SB at Woodbury Road (Exton) as well, simply because of the siding points. With the change to ETT working it was probably kept at Lympstone  to break up an otherwise longer Topsham - Exmouth section. 

 

As an aside, it should be noted that - although in later years Exmouth had a Down Outer Home on both its branches - the one on the Topsham line (No 1) was not far out enough from the Up Advanced Starting (No 62) to allow the signalman to accept a train from Lympstone if shunting was in progress on the single-line which then fouled the Clearing Point between the Outer and Inner Homes. When L was abolished an additional (further out) Outer Home was added (No 10) so that trains could be accepted from Topsham while shunting was underway, otherwise there would have been an impact on the passenger service.

Edited by RailWest
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Eastchurch on the Sheppey LR, at its fullest. Sensibly mean on signals, of course, being a LR, but a BP and a LC.

 

Whitstable Harbour, although more of a terminus really.

 

Hellingly, which i'd forgotten only had one platform - possibly not a loop as envisage, though, because it was really the hospital railway.

 

One we should all have remembered: Lymington Town.

 

Plymstock, where you get a double-dose.

 

Mornington Crescent (actually not).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eastchurch is a good one. It was definitely used to recess the daily goods when the passenger train passed. But no signal box, although a crossing box existed, but from when I am not clear.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, RailWest said:

 

As an aside, it should be noted that - although in later years Exmouth had a Down Outer Home on both its branches - the one on the Topsham line (No 1) was not far out enough from the Up Advanced Starting (No 62) to allow the signalman to accept a train from Lympstone if shunting was in progress on the single-line which then fouled the Clearing Point between the Outer and Inner Homes. When L was abolished an additional (further out) Outer Home was added (No 10) so that trains could be accepted from Topsham while shunting was underway, otherwise there would have been an impact on the passenger service.

The presence, or absence, of an advanced Starting Signal is irrelevant in respect of shunting movements into a single line section on Electric Token/Tablet etc Regulations. The key factors are where the movement will  in relation to the Home Signal.  While not explicit in the Southern Railway Regulations it certainly was made very clear in the 1960 BR Regulations.  Thus a movement which will take place inside the outermost Home Signal would be dealt with as a 2-4 (Inside Home Signal) Block Back and a movement needing to go beyond the outermost Home Signal. would be dealt with as as a 3-3 (Outside Home Signal) Block Back.  The driver could only proceed outside the Home Signal  on the specific authority of the Signalman (Rule 114(c). (1930s RCH Standard Rule and BR 1950 Rule).

 

Effectively providing an Outer Home is only of advantage if all shunting can be done within the protection of the Home Signal (assuming a Clearing Point exists between those two signals) because that is the only way the need to Block Back can be avoided.   The instant either sort of Block Back is applied a train cannot be allowed to approach from the signal box in rear.  An Advanced Starting Signal serves no purpose at all with the possible exception of reminding a Driver that he could go no further but even then if he has been authorised to go beyond an Outer Home Signal it would be implicit in that authority that he would pass the Advanced Starting Signal at danger if he reaches it before arriving at the Outermost Home Signal.  Simple point - the vast majority of stations on singe lines didn't have Advanced Starting Signals yet Block Backs were inevitably needed at many stations to allow shunting of sidings to take place at the numerous locations where s Shunting Tokens/Tablets were not in use.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 21/02/2021 at 11:32, Nick Holliday said:

Other examples on LBSC lines in West Sussex might include Slinfold, Rudgwick and Petworth, perhaps.

I've just looked in my copy of Pryer's SR Lines in West Sussex - all three of the above are valid, along with Lavant, although Slinfold and Rudgewick are listed as "Not a Staff Station" - anyone know what that means? It's clearly different from Cocking, Fittleworth and Selham which are listed as "Not a Block Post"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I've just looked in my copy of Pryer's SR Lines in West Sussex - all three of the above are valid, along with Lavant, although Slinfold and Rudgewick are listed as "Not a Staff Station" - anyone know what that means? It's clearly different from Cocking, Fittleworth and Selham which are listed as "Not a Block Post"

 

I suspect the term 'staff' might well mean as in 'train staff'. The LBSCR used this quite a bit - its effectively a more chunky version of the electric token and was in use on the Bluebell until the 1990s when it got replaced by the smaller and less easily damaged* key token system.

 

see https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-staffs/

 

* the rings on it had a habit of shifting due to being chucked about by train crew which of course meant it jammed up the issuing machine meaning piloltman working required until someone had been able to free it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not a staff station" means that the station can't be used for passing trains travelling in the opposite direction (whether passenger or goods), whereas "not a block post" means that the station can't be used either for passing trains in the opposite direction or for breaking up the block section and thus allowing two trains in the same direction to follow each other (using, for example, staff and ticket or divisible METS).

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

I've just looked in my copy of Pryer's SR Lines in West Sussex - all three of the above are valid, along with Lavant, although Slinfold and Rudgewick are listed as "Not a Staff Station" - anyone know what that means? It's clearly different from Cocking, Fittleworth and Selham which are listed as "Not a Block Post"

...but at Lavant the loop siding was not opposite the platform, unlike Lympstone (or Cranbrook of Lymington Town etc), so does not match my interest - sorry :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
50 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I suspect the term 'staff' might well mean as in 'train staff'. The LBSCR used this quite a bit - its effectively a more chunky version of the electric token and was in use on the Bluebell until the 1990s when it got replaced by the smaller and less easily damaged* key token system.

 

see https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-staffs/

 

* the rings on it had a habit of shifting due to being chucked about by train crew which of course meant it jammed up the issuing machine meaning piloltman working required until someone had been able to free it up.

I assumed that, as all the sections in question used the electric staff - what I was wondering was the difference between a "staff station" and a "block post", as I can't see how you could have a block post on a single line that wasn't also able to take and issue the single line authority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I suspect the term 'staff' might well mean as in 'train staff'. The LBSCR used this quite a bit - its effectively a more chunky version of the electric token and was in use on the Bluebell until the 1990s when it got replaced by the smaller and less easily damaged* key token system.

 

see https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-staffs/

 

* the rings on it had a habit of shifting due to being chucked about by train crew which of course meant it jammed up the issuing machine meaning piloltman working required until someone had been able to free it up.

Under Staff and Ticket working this would typically have been a lump of wood, labelled with the stations between which it was required to be carried, simply handed over between driver and signalman.  If a second train was to follow in the same direction, the first was shown the staff but given a signed paper ticket authorising the journey, and the staff would follow on the last train before a train could run the other way.   There would only be one such staff for any section.  OES Staff working ("One Engine in Steam") was the same system without the paper tickets, used on short branches whose entire traffic could be handled by a single loco.

 

The bluebell link is to electric train staffs, which are metal rods and they are used the same way as key tokens or tablets.  They must be put into instruments at each end.  There are several such staffs for the section, but the instruments only allow one staff to be in circulation at any one time.  This is more flexible as you can change the direction of travel without worrying about which end of the line the staff is at, just so long as there's nothing already on the line.  The full size instruments use staffs perhaps 20" long and about 1" in diameter, so quite heavy.  Miniature Electric Train Staff was the same thing reduced in size, the staffs are about 6" long and about 1/2" diameter. 

 

The configuration rings ensure that a staff can only be put into the instrument for the right section of line.  If the staff is turned from a single piece of metal, the rings can't move, but of course if they are made more like washers forced onto the staff, there is the risk of the type of damage referred to by Phil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Under Staff and Ticket working this would typically have been a lump of wood, labelled with the stations between which it was required to be carried, simply handed over between driver and signalman.  If a second train was to follow in the same direction, the first was shown the staff but given a signed paper ticket authorising the journey, and the staff would follow on the last train before a train could run the other way.   ....

 

To be clear, consider a line A - B - C, where A and C are both block and staff posts, but B is only a block post. If A has the staff then he can send a train to C with a ticket. Once that train has passed B a second train can be sent with a ticket, but it can't pass B until the first train has reached C. Hence the need for signals at B in order to keep the two trains apart (apart from anything else).

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The configuration rings ensure that a staff can only be put into the instrument for the right section of line.  If the staff is turned from a single piece of metal, the rings can't move, but of course if they are made more like washers forced onto the staff, there is the risk of the type of damage referred to by Phil.

To be more accurate, there is only one configuration ring on a large ETS, which is separate from the other four. The main group of four serve merely to locate the staff in the instrument and operate the lock. The fifth ring controls the configuration by virtue of its location relative to the other four, so that is the one which is made 'loose' and rivetted in position on the staff as required.

 

See here www.trainweb.org/railwest/gen/signal/sl-intro.html#config 

Edited by RailWest
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, RailWest said:

To be clear, consider a line A - B - C, where A and C are both block and staff posts, but B is only a block post. If A has the staff then he can send a train to C with a ticket. Once that train has passed B a second train can be sent with a ticket, but it can't pass B until the first train has reached C. Hence the need for signals at B in order to keep the two trains apart (apart from anything else).

Thanks, that explains it! Just re-checked and Baynards - Christ's Hospital was staff and ticket, not electric staff.

Edited by Nick C
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick C said:

Thanks, that explains it! Just re-checked and Baynards - Christ's Hospital was staff and ticket, not electric staff.

 

Yes, you wouldn't have a "block post only" on a route with token type instruments - I believe the only UK exception of was Berney Arms on the GER route from  Reedham Junction & Breydon Junction using permissive tablet instruments and before that on the GNR Hertford Loop using the same pair of instruments whilst that was still single track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...