Jump to content
 

Resignalling Central Croydon from the 1860's (initially just sanity checking signal layout)


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I think both of those would be appreciated - but especially the Central Croydon one. I'm another who has had a lifetime fascination with the station (since I read the march 1974 issue if railway world, which felt like the only source for years!)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, bécasse said:

I think that you have forgotten the quite minor matter of distant signals. Both platform starting signals at a Croydon Central with a separate semaphore box would require colour light distants below the stop arms so might as well be full colour light signals, and, as regards the home, while it was obviously commonplace for semaphore homes to follow on from multiple aspect signalling (which provided their distant), doing so for one signal would not only be considered poor practice but would probably prove unacceptable to the (powerful) ASLEF reps on the sighting committee.

 

Yes and No!
Back in early 50s I don’t think The ASLEF would have had reps on sighting committees, as far as I am aware, the WCML 70s resignalling SSCs didn’t.

What were the arrangements for semaphore distant for EC South Jn?  Nothing is shown, but there must have been something and back then, that would have been regarded as sufficient.  Even if there was a need for a new lower distant, SR practice back then was to blank out the green spectacle and put a colour light distant on the same post showing no aspect when the signal was On.  Intensified light in the red if required.

In the Down direction, standard fringe arrangements would apply.  There were many many places with a colour light distant and semaphore homes and the distant was just incorporated in the last colour light scheme signal.  That leaves 1 as a semaphore, but that’s fine.  Again, intensified lighting of semaphores if the Brethren made enough of a fuss.

 

80s BLRS is a different matter and would have been all encompassing, so if semaphore is desired then it has to be dated pre BLRS.

(There’s always a Rule 1 government project axe if wanted!)

 

Paul.

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

Might it be possible, for signalling-amateurs like me, to add a few diagrams of the options under discussion? I think I'm keeping up, but am not totally certain, and pictures always help!

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Yes and No!
Back in early 50s I don’t think The ASLEF would have had reps on sighting committees, as far as I am aware, the WCML 70s resignalling SSCs didn’t.

What were the arrangements for semaphore distant for EC South Jn?  Nothing is shown, but there must have been something and back then, that would have been regarded as sufficient.  Even if there was a need for a new lower distant, SR practice back then was to blank out the green spectacle and put a colour light distant on the same post showing no aspect when the signal was On.  Intensified light in the red if required.

In the Down direction, standard fringe arrangements would apply.  There were many many places with a colour light distant and semaphore homes and the distant was just incorporated in the last colour light scheme signal.  That leaves 1 as a semaphore, but that’s fine.  Again, intensified lighting of semaphores if the Brethren made enough of a fuss.

 

You clearly don't realise how powerful ASLEF were on the Southern then, they even dictated the colour that the insides of driving cabs were to be painted (very pale green).

 

The point about the platform starters is simply that they had, at least, to have colour light distants (as both I and you have described) and once one had provided any colour light aspects (and the power supply for them) it was cheaper to provide a full aspect signal - it wasn't done at normal fringe locations because one had to have a final semaphore signal somewhere at the fringe but this wouldn't have been a normal fringe location because it would have been the first signal that trains starting from the terminus encountered - it might well, in fact, have been the only signal before trains joined the up local line (which would address some of the potential workload issues that Oldudders mentioned since East Croydon would have had to control the junction anyway). Once one accepts that, the provision of one single motorised semaphore at the entry throat to the terminus, even ignoring sighting committee issues (and you would have been a brave man to have ignored them), would have been a nonsense. It wasn't done at Coulsdon North (and a colour light signal was provided as West Croydon A's outer home too) and it wouldn't have been done here.

 

I have added a pdf of East Croydon's 1955 signalling below but note that significant changes were made not long afterward to further increase capacity including the removal of the middle siding, bi-directional working of the easternmost line to/from South Croydon and the ability to route trains on the down local through platform 1 while another service turned back in platform 2. The last nearly led to a very serious accident in the early 1980s when a change of mind on the part of a signalman led to a down train being confronted with a red (and, more importantly, a conflicting movement) after the previous aspect had been double yellow - something that the locking should have prevented but didn't.

East_Croydon_1955.01D3.pdf

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

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Might it be possible, for signalling-amateurs like me, to add a few diagrams of the options under discussion? I think I'm keeping up, but am not totally certain, and pictures always help!

Apologies, words are easy, pictures take longer!

Paul.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Yes and No!
Back in early 50s I don’t think The ASLEF would have had reps on sighting committees, as far as I am aware, the WCML 70s resignalling SSCs didn’t.

What were the arrangements for semaphore distant for EC South Jn?  Nothing is shown, but there must have been something and back then, that would have been regarded as sufficient.  Even if there was a need for a new lower distant, SR practice back then was to blank out the green spectacle and put a colour light distant on the same post showing no aspect when the signal was On.  Intensified light in the red if required.

In the Down direction, standard fringe arrangements would apply.  There were many many places with a colour light distant and semaphore homes and the distant was just incorporated in the last colour light scheme signal.  That leaves 1 as a semaphore, but that’s fine.  Again, intensified lighting of semaphores if the Brethren made enough of a fuss.

 

80s BLRS is a different matter and would have been all encompassing, so if semaphore is desired then it has to be dated pre BLRS.

(There’s always a Rule 1 government project axe if wanted!)

 

Paul.

I can't recall coming across anything about ASLE&F reps on Sighting Committees - the normal arrangement would be to have a Traction Inspector to represent the Drivers' situation in respect of signal sighting.  I would agree with 'Bécasse' that ASLE&F exerted a lot of pressure on the Southern Region but signalling and track layout alterations were dealt with under the consultation process, not negotiation, so whlie their views would have been listened to there was no need to become slavishly devoted to them.

 

The question of having a colour light repeater under the final semaphore signal before entering a colour light signalled area is an interesting one and there were considerable variations in practice between the BR Regions - for example in one WR situation, which existed for a number of years, the 'repeater' was a power worked lower arm semaphore distant.  In another instance,   Again on the WR and existing for over a decade there was no repeater at all the transition was from a semaphore stop signal to a 3 aspect colour light signal only a few hundred yards in advance but worked from the same 'box.  At the other end of the same scheme repeaters were provided but were less than braking distance from the 3 aspect signal next in advance of them.    Another example  was at Birmingham Snow Hill where there were colour light repeaters beneath all three semaphore stop signal immediately in rear of the colour light signalled area - but all of those semaphore signals were also slotted by Snow Hill panel

 

In other words there was more than one way to skin a cat and not necessarily any need to provide full braking distance between the repeater and the first multi-aspect signal because other controls could take care of that.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I can't recall coming across anything about ASLE&F reps on Sighting Committees - the normal arrangement would be to have a Traction Inspector to represent the Drivers' situation in respect of signal sighting.

A Traction Inspector who was almost invariably either a current or a former (having switched to the TSSA) member of ASLEF and who knew how his cards were marked, so not an actual SC/LDC rep but still a true drivers' representative whose views would be acted on. (There was almost no NUR membership among SR electric train drivers - a fact which had led to the unusual situation in 1955 of a skeleton steam service being provided on certain electrified routes.)

 

There was a tendency among some railway managers (usually former graduate trainees who weren't quite making the grade) to treat the Unions, and especially ASLEF, with disdain. However, I remember being told by one of tutors, while serving a three month "sentence" at The Grove in 1975, that, if you treated Union reps with proper respect and listened carefully to their views, they could be some of the most useful people on the railway, certainly more useful than the average middle manager (who often had their own axe to grind), and, indeed, that was my subsequent experience.

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

On 27/08/2021 at 11:50, Lacathedrale said:

West Croydon showing both colour lights and semaphores in this shot:

 

West Croydon

 

 

I think that dates from the stage works for the Victoria area resignalling.  The Wimbledon bay platform went onto Victoria C and the Wallington lines eventually went onto Three Bridges but all three south end signals were renewed at the same time during the Victoria works.  The two signals shown stayed with West Croydon after Victoria was commissioned and were later taken over by Three Bridges with the north end semaphores being replaced at the same time.  Iirc those north end semaphores had the typical Southern colour light distants under them for the colour lights leading towards the Gloucester Road et al junction complex.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Might it be possible, for signalling-amateurs like me, to add a few diagrams of the options under discussion? I think I'm keeping up, but am not totally certain, and pictures always help!

 

7 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Apologies, words are easy, pictures take longer!

Paul.

 

I've remembered I had one that BR(WR) prepared for you 74 years ago, with later additions probably only 50 years ago!

I'm afraid you will have to rotate it to read it properly:

At the right hand end you will see MS106 (slotted by B2) which is a motor worked semaphore with YGY distant below.

Above B4 is B23 (also slotted by Moor St) which reads directly up to semaphore signals not that far away.

At the left hand end there are B30 and B32 slotted by Hockley South in the same way as B23.

But for the incoming signals the HS Starting signals have been replaced by colour light, still controlled by HS.  The Up Main is slotted by Snow Hill (B1) because of the LoS within the overlap.  From SRS diagrams, the HS Inner Homes (less than 200 yards from the Homes) had YGY Distants beneath just like MS106.

N.B. As this is a Snow Hill plan the B prefix is omitted from all the signal numbers, but is seen on the signal ID plates.

 

Arrangements like this would very much suit a fictional St Katharines retaining (largely) semaphore signals.

 

Paul.

 

S283-2 100.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as per some sage advice from observers of this thread, that it may be prudent to adopt colour light signalling at least initially for this layout.

 

While I would very much love to see semaphores in action at some point and I have no compunction in invoking Rule #1 to that effect, unless I can find them off-the-shelf (or at least in working kit form) then I think the time taken to construct them may adversely affect the inertia of the project. I'll keep an eye out for a working bracket/junction signal, but in the meantime...

 

If I adopt colour light signalling I would like to ensure that there's something to do, rather than it being automatic - so, would one replace the semaphores like-for-like with the exception of the platform home signals being replaced with either a feather or theatre indicator?

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

 

If I adopt colour light signalling I would like to ensure that there's something to do, rather than it being automatic - so, would one replace the semaphores like-for-like with the exception of the platform home signals being replaced with either a feather or theatre indicator?

Down road

Three aspect G/Y/R plus miniature aspect Y plus theatre route indicator 4/3/2/1 sited immediately prior to the first crossover encountered. 

 

Up road

Three aspect G/Y/R sited at exits from platforms 4 and 1.

Three miniature aspect G/Y/R sited at exits from sidings 3 and 2 (which would be trapped).

Four aspect Y/G/Y/R sited at exit from branch on to up local line.

Motor-worked floodlit round red disc sited immediately before crossover facing to trains shunting back into platforms or sidings from the up road (no route indicator).

 

The southernmost platform would be platform 4, then sidings 3 and 2, then platform 1 alongside Katharine Street.

 

The miniature aspect signals are the same as the other signals in general dimensions but have a partially obscured lens.

 

The crossovers near the buffer stops would be worked by a 4-lever ground frame sited between the two sidings, two levers being the (electrical) release from East Croydon box, the other two levers working the actual crossovers, probably mechanically. There would be a shunting bell by the lever frame.

Edited by bécasse
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @bécasse - I obviously skipped all lessons on colour light workings as I'm a little confused, hopefully you don't mind me asking some questions?

 

This is the sketch I've come up with based on what you've said:

 

image.png.aa3f657a9d8dc2be337c6d353fe724ac.png

 

 

10. G/Y/R 3-aspect signal + theatre indicator for roads 4/3/2/1 - I seem to remember there being something about fixing distants to caution on termini - wouldn't this effectively be the same? i.e. only ever showing yellow (next section is clear, but then occupied/non-existent?) or red (no available routes) ?

11 + 12, 13 + 14 - Platform and loop starters - would these be on brackets together, or stand-alone?

15 - Y/G/Y/R 4-aspect signal - presumably the top yellow is permit running into the yard/branch? Or to act as a double-yellow for the junction signals further on?

16 - Red ground disc for shunting moves back to the platform/runarounds

17 - Miniature, single aspect Y - not sure of the purpose on this one? Same question - does it sit on the same bracket as 10?

 

With regard to the yard/branch - are there no signals from that into the station? Another ground-disc?

 

Beyond the limits of the layout, the East Croydon South Box (AKA fiddle yard) would have a lever to unlock the crossover between roads 1/2 or 3/4, and its own signals would exert on the Up line YGYR.

 

Is that about right?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to get complicated because running moves into and out of the runaround loops are signalled. Is that really necessary?
 

I can see that it might be if the loops are used as carriage sidings for ECS off-peak, but if not, wouldn’t starters at the platforms, and one shunt signal at the London End of each loop and platform suffice, with any running moves from the loops being authorised by the shunt to draw-up as far as   a signal protecting the junction with the main line Up Slow? Or isn’t there room?

 

Also, a shunt on the exit from the siding?

 

Does it need calling-on arms with the approach signal, to allow joining-up of units in the platforms? Probably not room really, but they are pretty!

 

And, did the 1954 scheme use those small-ish theatre route indicators (I think it probably did from dim recollection), or did it have those 3-light feathers (and ‘pigs ears’ on the main signal heads) that seemed to characterise SR schemes?

 

[Signalling designers are asked politely not to laugh at my thoughts; I learn best by having a stab, and hearing the critique!]

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nearholmer the biggest units I'm looking to hold are 2+4 car consists, really - so calling on arms could be quite fun.

 

I'm trying the find the boundaries of both semaphore and colour light signalling when it comes to complexity, and then I can safely work backwards from that.  I must admit I like the idea of shunt signals for the loops. There's definitely room between the area depicted and the Up Slow on the main line, so I'm not all that worried about that bit. Shunt exit from the siding seems to be mandatory?

 

Caterham (nearby) used square route indicator boxes on the overhead gantry so happy with those. Realistically, it's not in a position that can be viewed so other than some notional golden white LEDs behind a mesh, I'm not sure the specifics are that important.

 

I'm actually struggling more to find working colour light signals in the combinations required than I am semaphores, bizarrely enough...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

As promised here are my photos of the MT6 plan at Kew for Central Croydon on its reopening in 1886. I have included the Inspection Report too for those who want to decipher the handwriting. Hope that they provide some answers. I also have the same for Greenwich LC&DR station if of interest.

IMG_1113 MT6-417-17 Central Croydon Station LB&SCR 1886.JPG

IMG_1114 MT6-417-17 Central Croydon Station LB&SCR 1886.JPG

IMG_1115 MT6-417-17 Central Croydon Station LB&SCR 1886.JPG

 

IMG_1119 MT6-417-17 Central Croydon Station LB&SCR 1886.JPG

IMG_1117 MT6-417-17 Central Croydon Station LB&SCR 1886.JPG

Edited by Natalie
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/08/2021 at 12:26, Nearholmer said:

This seems to get complicated because running moves into and out of the runaround loops are signalled. Is that really necessary?
 

I can see that it might be if the loops are used as carriage sidings for ECS off-peak, but if not, wouldn’t starters at the platforms, and one shunt signal at the London End of each loop and platform suffice, with any running moves from the loops being authorised by the shunt to draw-up as far as   a signal protecting the junction with the main line Up Slow? Or isn’t there room?

 

Also, a shunt on the exit from the siding?

 

Does it need calling-on arms with the approach signal, to allow joining-up of units in the platforms? Probably not room really, but they are pretty!

 

And, did the 1954 scheme use those small-ish theatre route indicators (I think it probably did from dim recollection), or did it have those 3-light feathers (and ‘pigs ears’ on the main signal heads) that seemed to characterise SR schemes?

 

[Signalling designers are asked politely not to laugh at my thoughts; I learn best by having a stab, and hearing the critique!]

I have shown the minimum signalling for the layout but have since realised that that layout would not have been retained at electrification. If parcels traffic was worked in off-peak, which is certainly possible, the SR would have removed the run-rounds in the platform roads but added a run-round crossover, hand-worked, between the two middle roads, which in turn would have converged before joining no.1 platform road prior to the road over bridge which constrains the layout. This would have resulted in rather different signalling arrangements which would include the access to and from the "berthing siding" alongside the route towards East Croydon (which I had forgotten before).

 

The mid-1950s schemes used both three-lamp feathers and theatre-light route indicators but access to the platforms would have been indicated by the latter - and with only one signalled "small yellow light" route into the middle sidings (a hand lever selecting which siding), the platforms can assume their obvious designations of 1 (north) and 2 (south), which is what theatre-light indicator could display.

 

There are, in effect, calling-on signals because, until the December 1957 box at Cannon Street, the SR used a yellow light to permit access to a partially occupied terminal platform, a green light indicating that the road was clear to the stops. New installations from late-1958 showed a green light for a clear road and a red plus a pair of position lights for calling-on (the initial installations displayed a C in the third aperture on the position light signal but that practice was soon discontinued).

 

SR colour light signals at that period did indeed have pigs ears and they also had long "ARP" hoods, making them very distinctive but raising the possibility that in N and 2FS merely modelling the signals accurately might well be sufficient without actually lighting them. In fact, away from the beam, it was remarkably difficult to see if the real things were lit (which is why the pigs ears were provided for trains drawn up to a signal).

 

I will provide a diagram of what I think the layout and signalling would have been from the 1955 resignalling but I am away for a few days and diagrams take some time to prepare.

 

All the features that I have mentioned can, in fact, be found somewhere on the Gloucester Road and East Croydon box diagrams that I posted in pdf format and which repay study as they represent an interesting period of colour light signalling using Westinghouse miniature lever frames (which, I might add, were an absolute delight to work).

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 30/08/2021 at 21:48, bécasse said:

Down road

Three aspect G/Y/R plus miniature aspect Y plus theatre route indicator 4/3/2/1 sited immediately prior to the first crossover encountered. 

 

Up road

Three aspect G/Y/R sited at exits from platforms 4 and 1.

Three miniature aspect G/Y/R sited at exits from sidings 3 and 2 (which would be trapped).

Four aspect Y/G/Y/R sited at exit from branch on to up local line.

Motor-worked floodlit round red disc sited immediately before crossover facing to trains shunting back into platforms or sidings from the up road (no route indicator).

 

The southernmost platform would be platform 4, then sidings 3 and 2, then platform 1 alongside Katharine Street.

 

The miniature aspect signals are the same as the other signals in general dimensions but have a partially obscured lens.

 

The crossovers near the buffer stops would be worked by a 4-lever ground frame sited between the two sidings, two levers being the (electrical) release from East Croydon box, the other two levers working the actual crossovers, probably mechanically. There would be a shunting bell by the lever frame.

 

Hi becasse, can I ask for some clarification on this based on your most recent reply? This is what I can gather from your description:

image.png.0982fa68deead8603d2f4c006dd56fd7.png

  

1. Plat 1 starter

2. Road 2 starter

3. Road 3 starter

4. Plat 4 starter

5. Home signal for P1, with feather if heading into P4, yellow for calling on, and miniature yellow* for access to R2/3

6. Red shunt signal for access from Up main to P1 and R3

7. YGYR for access from the aggregate siding/runaround into P1 or R3

 

Is that correct? The number of three aspect signals doesn't make me all that happy!

 

I'm not clear what the extra Y is for on signal 7, nor why there are no signals at the Lever frame end? Even if the release for the ground frame in the ECR box would lock out all conflicting movements, there would be no positive indication of the point position? If the same release for the ground frame unlocked both the 1-2 runaround and the 3-4 runaround, presumably this would lock 5 on red, so no parallel movements would occur?

 

The more I look at the plan, the more I think that I want to keep semaphores!

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

William

I will reply, hopefully fairly comprehensively, but it will take me a week or so.

Bear in mind that the site was very constrained, limiting effective train lengths, and that it was actually only open for two very short periods:

1868-1871 when the track layout was rather different with no run round facility,

1886-1890 when the track layout was similar (but with a scissors crossing to make it workable) to that that you have shown, with the weird run-round loop arrangements necessary to allow run-rounds to take place (even though the GER and LNWR trains using the station were quite short).

After 1890 the site west of the road bridge was sold and a new town hall built on the station site (the remainder becoming an engineers yard until c1930), but if one assumes that it wasn't sold I suppose that it is just possible that the station could have become a terminus for 3rd rail electrics although the size constraints would have been problematical. There is no way that the track layout of 1886-1890 could have survived into post-grouping times.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would have expected 5 and 7 to be 2-aspect signals (either R/G or R/Y depending on era of installation) with calling-on subsidiaries and route indicators? Rather helpfully my SR rule book says, of such a situation , "When multiple aspect signalling is in use, special regulations will apply"

 

On 03/05/2022 at 19:05, Lacathedrale said:

Even if the release for the ground frame in the ECR box would lock out all conflicting movements, there would be no positive indication of the point position?

 

You'd have electrical detection of either the point and FPL positions, the frame, or most likely both, so the box couldn't give up the release until the points and frame were normal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick, thank you - to be clear though, this would give no S&T indication to the engineman at all about whether a) the points were released, or b) that the route was set correctly for them?  i.e. hand signals only?

 

Which era was R/Y vs R/G? Becasse has suggested that a 3-aspect in the 1950's could indicate on the SR that the platform was occuped but movement into it was permitted (effectively replacing the calling-on arm). interesting!

 

I'm reading another book on steam-era signalling and just can't help but think that Semaphores would have more visual impact in this kind of situation....

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...