Stations with two signal boxes

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Derekl said:

Does anyone know what the maximum length of rodding permitted was by say 1960?

I believe it was 350 yards.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, Derekl said:

Does anyone know what the maximum length of rodding permitted was by say 1960?

Up to 350 yards in the Requirements, but depending on the type of lever frame, lie of the rodding run and type of switches used it was in reality often less.

[Derekl]

4 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Up to 350 yards in the Requirements, but depending on the type of lever frame, lie of the rodding run and type of switches used it was in reality often less.

Thank you (and to Nick C). So 2.62 metres in 4 mm scale, which means that when I get to signal boxes (a while off yet) I will need two (or apply rule 1).

[bécasse]

The Requirements only cover facing points (eg for the entry to the passing loop), trailing points can be further away particularly if the rodding run is more or less straight.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 09/08/2021 at 18:35, Derekl said:

So 2.62 metres in 4 mm scale, which means that when I get to signal boxes

350 yards at 4mm scale is 4.6 yards (4.2 metres) I think.

 

Having one or two boxes was often down to operating convenience rather than distance. If  there were sidings at both ends it was often more convenient to have two boxes. It was also better to have two boxes if the platform also formed a loop where a stopping train waited for a faster train to pass as the signalman could give train out of section quicker because he had seen the rear of the train pass the box and didn't have to wait for confirmation from the guard that it had arrived complete.

 

Another factor sometimes overlooked by modellers is the history of the line. The distance allowed for points was defined by the Board of Trade Requirements in the 19th century, changing again in 1902 and 1925. See comments below for the distances at various times.

 

 

On 09/08/2021 at 20:09, bécasse said:

The Requirements only cover facing points (eg for the entry to the passing loop), trailing points can be further away particularly if the rodding run is more or less straight.

No. It applies to all points manually worked from the signal box. 

This is what was contained in the 1950 Requirements.

 

 

The 1885 edition specified 180 yards for all points

The 1902 edition specified 180 yards for facing points and 300 yards for trailing points in the main line and safety points in sidings. 

In 1928 this became 350 yards for all manually works points and unlimited for motor worked points. 

 

The practicality of working points as more modern heavier trackwork was installed led to the reduction of the distance or single ending of  previously multiple ended sets. This was further complicated by the introduction of the Health & Safety at Work Act which led to restrictions on the amount of mechanical effort which could be applied to a task. By the 1980s we were routinely providing motor working for multiple ended points over 250 yards from the signal box.

Edited April 10, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[Nimbus]

May I offer Hatfield, Herts on the ECML for discussion? That had three boxes up until the whole area went MAS in the early 70's.

One on the up side at the south end, and one each side of the throat at the north end. In busier days, in addition to through traffic there were three branches to handle from the north, and terminating outer suburbans from the south. 

 

A 60ft-plus shed might accommodate a 4mm model, with approaches. I spent too long dreaming though...

 

The Nim.

[uax6]

King's Lynn had a station box and then a Junction box within 1/2 a mile of each other, only KL Junc still remains.

Ely (cambs) had three boxes around the station - Station North, Station South and Dock Junction, until re-signalled in 1992.

March (cambs) still has March South and March East.

 

 

Andy G

[Michael Hodgson]

55 minutes ago, uax6 said:

King's Lynn had a station box and then a Junction box within 1/2 a mile of each other, only KL Junc still remains.

Ely (cambs) had three boxes around the station - Station North, Station South and Dock Junction, until re-signalled in 1992.

March (cambs) still has March South and March East.

 

 

Andy G

March once also had North and West boxes, and some trains passed all four. 

[uax6]

Just now, Michael Hodgson said:

March once also had North and West boxes, and some trains passed all four. 

Not to forget Whitemoor Junction, which was just around the corner... 

 

Andy G

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The signalman who "made an error" according to the accident report was (reasonably) expecting an overdue goods rather than a local.  They boxes were not interlocked and although the telegraph had been physically installed, was not yet in use. 

 

Pretty much why they needed the 1889 Act, though it took the Armagh disaster to force politicians to do something about mid-Victorian operating practices.

While critically important never overlook the fact that what the 1889 Act did in reality was to make mandatory and impose time limits for completion of what was already recommended and had been subject to six monthly detail monitoring of progress by the Board of Trade as a result of the 1873 Acts.  The existence of, and particularly the detail in the appendices to, the 1873 Acts was no doubt what allowed the 1889 Act to be remarkably brief for such an important and wide reaching piece of legislation.

[62613]

On 08/08/2021 at 11:36, Edwin_m said:

Is Stockport the only station that still has boxes at each end of the platform?  Here the boxes are at the arrival ends of the platforms, which I guess makes it easier for the signallers to see tail lamps of trains passing the box, although I guess Stockport is fully track circuited by now.  

 

Shrewsbury nearly qualifies too I guess.  Both stations are probably busy enough that combining the boxes wouldn't reduce the staff numbers, so there wasn't really any reason to do so.  

Stockport in fact has five boxes; Edgeley Junction Nos. 1 & 2, Stockport Station Nos. 1 & 2 and Heaton Norris Junction; all fullt track - circuited, with electrically operated points, four - aspect colour lights and absolute block, unless the last has changed in the last few years.  There was another box at Adswood Road, south of Edgeley No. 1 to control the junctions where the quadruple line became double going towards Cheadle Hulme, but that was abolished in the 1980s.

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

While critically important never overlook the fact that what the 1889 Act did in reality was to make mandatory and impose time limits for completion of what was already recommended and had been subject to six monthly detail monitoring of progress by the Board of Trade as a result of the 1873 Acts.  The existence of, and particularly the detail in the appendices to, the 1873 Acts was no doubt what allowed the 1889 Act to be remarkably brief for such an important and wide reaching piece of legislation.

The 1889 Regulation of Railways Act was brief because a brief Act was all that could be agreed to in the short time available for its enactment, indeed a rather longer Act was initially proposed but had to be withdrawn when it became clear that it wouldn't pass in the very limited Parliamentary time available.

 

The speed of enactment was quite remarkable. It is universally accepted that the trigger for it was the Armagh (in Ireland) accident on 12 June 1889 which killed 80 and injured nearly 300 others, many children being among the victims. Parliament that year was already short of time to pass all the committed legislation before the summer recess and yet time was found to introduce and pass the Act with such rapidity that it came into force on 30 August, barely eleven weeks after the accident. I believe that the L&SWR's Netley-Fareham line was the first to open, on 1 September 1889, under the auspices of the new Act.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, bécasse said:

The 1889 Regulation of Railways Act was brief because a brief Act was all that could be agreed to in the short time available for its enactment, indeed a rather longer Act was initially proposed but had to be withdrawn when it became clear that it wouldn't pass in the very limited Parliamentary time available.

 

The speed of enactment was quite remarkable. It is universally accepted that the trigger for it was the Armagh (in Ireland) accident on 12 June 1889 which killed 80 and injured nearly 300 others, many children being among the victims. Parliament that year was already short of time to pass all the committed legislation before the summer recess and yet time was found to introduce and pass the Act with such rapidity that it came into force on 30 August, barely eleven weeks after the accident. I believe that the L&SWR's Netley-Fareham line was the first to open, on 1 September 1889, under the auspices of the new Act.

Yes, but what the 1889 Act required in detail in terms of interlocking etc had been spelt out in the 1873 Act hence there was no need to add it to the 1889 Act because the 1873 Act remained in force.  interestingly the 1873 Act also gave Inspecting Officers the powers to prevent a new line being opened unless the equipment, working methods, and manning were to their satisfaction.

 

Thus at the time the 1889 Act came into force the Board of Trade knew exactly the extent to which interlocking, block working, and use of the automatic brake etc had already been applied which allowed them to create the necessary Orders to enforce the requirements of the 1889 Act (which took several years to complete).

[Blandford1969]

Amazing no one has mentioned Leicester Central or Nottingham Victoria, although didn't the latter have 3?

[ColHut]

Thankyou all for your informative comments.  
 

I take it that it would be common to allow approach of trains under the warning arrangement to the box in rear to facilitate train working on busy lines.  Also the provision of outer homes and Advance starters would be helpful.

 

Does anyone know of a link to period signal box special instructions for such a set up?  were trains signalled from one box to the other in the usual way?

 

regards

[phil-b259]

On 09/08/2021 at 11:28, The Stationmaster said:

Resignalling at Shrewsbury has been deferred several times in the past for economic reasons (i.e. no money available to do it).

 

I'm told by a S&T colleague who works up that way that Shrewsbury was planned to be resignalled in the late 1980s. Then Clapham Junction happened..... and S&T costs, particularly labour skyrocketed (excessive overtime was cited by the investigation as a significant contributory factor to the accident) scuppering the scheme.

 

Since then Shrewsbury has simply never had the traffic levels to justify resignalling and unlike lots of 1960 / 1970 / 1980s schemes that are suffering badly from wire degradation, the mechanical signalling seems to be holding up OK.

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

I'm told by a S&T colleague who works up that way that Shrewsbury was planned to be resignalled in the late 1980s. Then Clapham Junction happened..... and S&T costs, particularly labour skyrocketed (excessive overtime was cited by the investigation as a significant contributory factor to the accident) scuppering the scheme.

It was not so much Clapham as Sectorisation that killed a lot of schemes. The real price inflation then took off in 1993/4. Shrewsbury resignalling was still actively bring planned in 1991. At the same time I was Signalling Project Engineer for Blackpool Resignalling. That had got to the stage of the Signalling Plan being on its way through the approval process ready for detailed design to start. It was to be controlled by Preston PSB.  Responsibility for the line and paying for the scheme was then transferred to Regional Railways. The box and signalmen at Preston were the responsibility of Inter City. The project  got completely bogged down in the political infighting that took place during the run up to privatisation and the whole investment programme virtually disappeared overnight. It took about another 25 years before Blackpool was finally done. 

[Poor Old Bruce]

14 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

Amazing no one has mentioned Leicester Central or Nottingham Victoria, although didn't the latter have 3?

Same applies for Leicester Midland and Derby Midland. I think Derby also had a box half way along the platforms controlling scissors crossovers between Platforms 1-2 and 3-4.

 

This is where we start getting into the realms of Permissive Working for passenger trains in large stations but I think I will leave that for others, who know more about the subject than I do, to explain

Edited August 11, 2021 by Poor Old Bruce
To add second para.

[Edwin_m]

4 hours ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

Same applies for Leicester Midland and Derby Midland. I think Derby also had a box half way along the platforms controlling scissors crossovers between Platforms 1-2 and 3-4.

 

This is where we start getting into the realms of Permissive Working for passenger trains in large stations but I think I will leave that for others, who know more about the subject than I do, to explain

Derby did, and it's still there (unless it's gone recently) as the office under the footbridge on platforms 2/3.  This version dated from the post-war rebuild but is probably now the oldest structure on the station.  

 

Nottingham Midland had one for each island, and it is very obvious where they were in the station buildings.  I believe Nottingham Victoria did too.  

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, ColHut said:

Thankyou all for your informative comments.  
 

I take it that it would be common to allow approach of trains under the warning arrangement to the box in rear to facilitate train working on busy lines.  Also the provision of outer homes and Advance starters would be helpful.

 

Does anyone know of a link to period signal box special instructions for such a set up?  were trains signalled from one box to the other in the usual way?

 

regards

The Great Western was apparently rather fond of allowing passenger trains to be accepted towards stations under the Warning prior to the early 1920s and it was a contributory factor to several collisions including the 1900 Slough one plus the one at Yeovil Pen Mill and in both cases it was heavily criticised by the Inspecting Officer who investigated those incidents.  I presume it might have happened as a result of that but certainly in later years on the Western just about everywhere I knew of on the WR where the Warning was authorised it was not permitted if there was a passenger train in rear of the Clearing Point.   Inspecting Officer's Reports are probably the best available source for some contemporaneous information older Signal Box Special Instructions as, in my experience, the railways tended not to hang on to them once they had been reissued/overtaken by changes..

 

Of course Outer Homes would probably have helped but where sections were short there wasn't really much room for them and additional advanced starting signals wouldn't really contribute much (in fact they can be something of a collision waiting to happen if they are in use where a train can be accepted under the Warning into the section in advance if they don't have a subsidiary Warning Signal as many Drivers tended not to notice the subtlety of the meaning of a Section Signal being lowered if they were standing at it out of sight of the signal box)

[ColHut]

Thankyou.  I am spending far too much reading many of the accident reports on the Railways Accident Archive.  (Collisions involving  Light engines seem to be a major problem   ).  II have also been enjoying Adrian Vaughans books.  Plenty of distractions for the signalmen on occasion.

 

regards

[Michael Hodgson]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The Great Western was apparently rather fond of allowing passenger trains to be accepted towards stations under the Warning prior to the early 1920s and it was a contributory factor to several collisions including the 1900 Slough one plus the one at Yeovil Pen Mill and in both cases it was heavily criticised by the Inspecting Officer who investigated those incidents.  

For many years I used to work a fully signalled O gauge layout with a friend, sadly no longer with us, whose father had been a GWR driver.  He always accepted everything under Reg 5 "Because that's what the GWR did" - even when the line was clear to his clearing point.  

 

Of course the other thing the GWR did to a wide extent where stations had multiple boxes was apply their Reg 4A "Line clear to Clearing point only".  However this was more to do with braking distances and control of distant signals.

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

For many years I used to work a fully signalled O gauge layout with a friend, sadly no longer with us, whose father had been a GWR driver.  He always accepted everything under Reg 5 "Because that's what the GWR did" - even when the line was clear to his clearing point.  

 

Of course the other thing the GWR did to a wide extent where stations had multiple boxes was apply their Reg 4A "Line clear to Clearing point only".  However this was more to do with braking distances and control of distant signals.

Regulation 4A applied all over the place and not just at large stations (and then not at all of them) - for instance the Knowle & Dorridge collision was largely a result of Regulation 4A not being applied when it should have been although some generally sloppy working by the Signalman concerned also played its part.  That collision led to the Regulation being applied where authorised in the Signal Box Special Instructions instead of its application being up to individual Signalmen being relied on to do their job correctly.

 

The situation between 'boxes at some larger, and not so large, Western stations could be quite interesting although acceptance towards the 'boxes from those further away was either full 'Line Clear' or Regulation 4A.  I know of one platform line between two 'boxes where a train or movement could be accepted in five different ways - the running signal would be cleared for two of them and other three each had their own letter on the stencil indicator which illuminated when the subsidiary signal was lowered.  You could sometimes see where that sort of thing applied on the Western if there was a subsidiary signal with a stencil or mechanical indicator below the Section Signal reading into a platform line between two 'boxes.

 

20 hours ago, ColHut said:

Thankyou.  I am spending far too much reading many of the accident reports on the Railways Accident Archive.  (Collisions involving  Light engines seem to be a major problem   ).  II have also been enjoying Adrian Vaughans books.  Plenty of distractions for the signalmen on occasion.

 

regards

Beware of embroidery with that author, he used to spen d a lot of time on the 'phone on night turns collecting tales from various places and some of the stories folk told him definitely fell into the 'tall' category   He was a tad rude about me in one of his books but I suspect the reason was - not that he mentioned it - that I told him that unless I could see an immediate  improvement in a certain (very important) part of his work he wouldn't be a Signalman for much longer.  

 

As for 'distractions' there was what amounted to a 'standard list' which could be called upon when need and circumstances arose and over the years I think I heard most of them - the most common being 'Signalman in toilet' (used by some when tardy in responding to the block bells)  another was 'surely my time sheet should agree with the times of changing duty entered in the Train Register Book' (used when a signal,man was caugfht copying times into the TRB off notes left by his colleague on the previous shift - shades of Quintinshill but without the other risks that incident involved).  Another interesting practice was showing a red flag if tw trains were preseent when instructing a Driver to pass a signal at danger 

[Trog]

On 10/08/2021 at 23:02, TheSignalEngineer said:

.............................

 

The project  got completely bogged down in the political infighting that took place during the run up to privatisation and the whole investment programme virtually disappeared overnight. 

.....................

 

I was once at a meeting with quite a few rather senior people about gauging in tunnels for Channel Tunnel traffic on the WCML. I was nothing important just the minion who would have ended up setting up the required tamping or planning and organising any track relaying required. *

 

Freights needs could largely be accommodated by tightening up the 6' space a little bit to give a bit more clearance for the outer top corners of containers. This however would mean that there would not be enough space to allow two CT passenger trains to pass each other in the tunnel. So the passenger business would then have to pay to have the track lowered and probably relaid in hardwood sleepers (lack of ballast depth) so as to maintain the freight sectors clearances when they slued the tracks back to more or less their original spacings.  As the freight service was starting first they intended to get their required clearances by doing the cheap and dirty slewing. Lumbering the passenger side with the huge costs of the lowering needed to do the job properly. When the senior manager representing the passenger side objected to this his freight equivalent just laughed and said tough s**t. They then nearly came to blows in the meeting room. 

 

* (You often found at these meetings that there would be senior managers from the other departments and a lowly technical officer representing the Civil Engineers. At one such meeting I found myself tactfully asking a high up from the freight side, if he thought that the operating would be happy with his intended method of shunting a proposed cement siding at Camden. As I felt that it might be worth double checking with them just in case they had any objection to eight movements a day setting back into his new siding off the North London Line from the down slow in Primrose Hill Tunnel.  Which would have tied up half the lines to and from a little out of the way station called Euston for about four or five hours a day.)

[TheSignalEngineer]

 'War Stories' @Trog

HaHa.

Been there, done that. I was STO acting MS1 when I got a call to attend a meeting concerned with line speed improvements for HST introduction. Most attendees were high MS grades or above. The person taking the minutes was paid more than me.

We came to an item for one station with a severe speed restriction on all lines where total rebuilding was proposed to enable line speed for non-stop services, saving them about two minutes in running time. The civils estimate was in excess of £3million over 40 years ago. We hadn't been asked for a cost at the time but would have needed to completely resignal 3 miles of existing 4-track MAS with a new junction at each end.

All innocent like, I asked the meeting how many express trains were going to run through non-stop. The person planning the service said "Three, two up and one down". 

At that point the Head of the project development called a halt to the discussion with a few choice comments regarding not wasting money for marginal gains. The platform layout remains the same today.