Verney Junction with two splitting stop signals?

[ColHut]

G'day all,

 

I have been looking at junction signalling diagrams and came across that for Verney http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=93. What surprises me is that on the down line it appears to have a single distant, then a home with a splitting stop signal followed at the end of the platform before the junction proper, a starter with a splitting stop signal. Is this usual practice or have I misunderstood the diagram? I am not sure I follow the logic here. I looked here too but found no explanation http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/v/verney_junction/

Regards

[Joseph_Pestell]

That does look a bit unusual. I will see if any of my books have photos that give more explanation.

 

My guess would be that the interlocking is arranged such that the distant has to be at caution if the diverging (Banbury branch) route is set.

[kenw]

It would be common for a junction to have a single distant, which would clear only for the main line route, particularly if the diverging route was slow speed.

Without further information, doesn't make sense 2 & 6 being apparently shown as home junction signals when there's no diverging route before the next stop signals, 3/7. Unless 2/6 are repeaters, but don't seem to be shown as such

[Edwin_m]

The second photo on the Disused Stations site shows this splitting home signal in 1936 and confirms there are no connections at that end of the station it could apply to.  If there had been a connection into the loop platform, obscured by the train, then the other arm would have been off for the move the train was making.  In any case the loop platform appears to be controlled by the Metropolitan box (diagram also on Signal Box site) and although also has a splitting signal in roughly the same place, that has a long and a short arm and would have appeared further to the right on the photo.  This largely rules out any error in the signal diagram. 

 

Incidentally I think the caption is wrong in the third photo - the signals and the track it is on suggest the train is actually departing for Banbury, the captioneer possibly having been misled by an apparent tail lamp which I think must actually be a headlamp on a push-pull set. 

 

The later photos on the same site indicate that the splitting home was removed before the removal of the junction, but this photo suggests it was there in 1952 although a little hard to discern behind the Metropolitan starter signal. 

[The Stationmaster]

In effect they are repeating splitting signals although the outermost signals are also stop signals in their own right - once very common on the GWR although I didn't realise the LNWR also went in for them.  The Distant, as already noted, can only be cleared for the 'main line' route towards Claydon.

 

The purpose of repeating in this manner doesn't seem to have been too clear but seems to have been mainly intended as an aid to Drivers.  The GWR gradually did away with its and had very left by the 1920s with a firm commitment to by then to get rid of them completely.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I had the chance to look at the diagrams in the OPC "Historical Surveys.....". If anything, it adds to the confusion!

 

In about 1900, there was just the single home (or perhaps Outer Home) signal - but on a post that was shared with the starter towards Bletchley. The starter (or perhaps Inner Home as it is still east of the box) was not a bracket either but had two stop arms on the one post, the lower one being for the Banbury branch. One can easily see that the Railway Inspectorate would not have been keen on such an arrangement which relies a bit too much on the route knowledge of the driver.

 

There is a 1953 photo which shows this home signal as in your diagram but, as one would expect, the Banbury branch signal on a shorter doll than the Oxford signal whereas your diagram shows them as of equal importance.

 

After the Banbury branch closed (1964), this signal was abolished. But the distant remained as a single post even though there remained a bracket signal (Starter/Inner Home) which controlled access to the remains of the branch, designated as an "engineers' siding". 

 

Edit: Mike is right that this is effectively a repeater. Why they did not instal it as such is a mystery.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[micknich2003]

 Here is a very early example of "Direction 1st Homes", Alexandra Dock, H&B Rly and as signalled by Saxby & Farmer for the 1885 opening of the railway. I suggest in this case, the "1st Homes" were provided to "Hold the Road" and nothing else.

[beast66606]

The LNWR provided these at a few places LLandudlas on the North Wales Coast is another that springs to mind - iirc they were referred to as Routing Homes.

[Grovenor]

Here is a very early example of "Direction 1st Homes", Alexandra Dock, H&B Rly and as signalled by Saxby & Farmer for the 1885 opening of the railway. I suggest in this case, the "1st Homes" were provided to "Hold the Road" and nothing else.

All the down signals on this diagram seem to be indicating the routes at the divergence immediately ahead as normal.

Edit: Mike is right that this is effectively a repeater. Why they did not instal it as such is a mystery.

Its not a repeater at all, its an outer home for clearance/acceptance purposes as explained by Natalie, although a single arm would be enough for that, for some reason the designers must have felt that the drivers needed an early warning if the route was set for the divergence, perhaps a gradient issue for freight trains.

Keith

Edited September 14, 2014 by Grovenor

[beast66606]

All the down signals on this diagram seem to be indicating the routes at the divergence immediately ahead as normal.

Its not a repeater at all, its an outer home for clearance/acceptance purposes as explained by Natalie, although a single arm would be enough for that, for some reason the designers must have felt that the drivers needed an early warning if the route was set for the divergence, perhaps a gradient issue for freight trains.

Keith

 

I see no evidence from the diagram that the outer homes were 440yds from anything so we don't know it was for acceptance purposes, let's not assume anything without hard facts. It could equally be argued the outer home was provided because of visibility problems (road or foot bridge / curve of line etc. - I don't know the location) and the routing arms simply reinforced to the driver which way they were to go at the junction.

 

Edit

 

The outer homes were just before the platform and the inners were at the other end - the platforms are not 440yds long

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/v/verney_junction/

[The Stationmaster]

Its not a repeater at all, its an outer home for clearance/acceptance purposes as explained by Natalie, although a single arm would be enough for that, for some reason the designers must have felt that the drivers needed an early warning if the route was set for the divergence, perhaps a gradient issue for freight trains.

Keith

Firstly it is a repeater but only repeating as well as serving the purpose of being a stop signal - in effect a preliminary indication of the state of a splitting signal in advance.

 

Secondly, and picking up from Beast's point, there is no tangible evidence to suggest that it was an additional Home Signal provided for acceptance purposes, it could just as readily have been provided for sighting purposes.  We don't know how far it was in rear of the splitting signal at the junction itself but unless that distance was at least 440 yards, or a Modified Clearing Point was authorised, then it wasn't there for acceptance purposes.  The fact that an additional stop signal existed somewhere doesn't necessarily mean it was there for acceptance purposes - there are plenty of other reasons for providing stop signals - and equally for all we know (or in reality don't know) Regulation 5 acceptance might have been authorised in which case the signal could have been quite useful.

 

In fact it appears in JH's plan that it might be protecting some sort of gated crossing and the latter is visible in some older photos of that end of the station along with what might be a wicket gate (as shown on JH's diagram).  The signal seems to have gone completely in later views when the crossing was in its earlier state and the splitting signal had been renewed in tubular steel form and was much taller.

[Joseph_Pestell]

All the down signals on this diagram seem to be indicating the routes at the divergence immediately ahead as normal.

Its not a repeater at all, its an outer home for clearance/acceptance purposes as explained by Natalie, although a single arm would be enough for that, for some reason the designers must have felt that the drivers needed an early warning if the route was set for the divergence, perhaps a gradient issue for freight trains.

Keith

 

I don't think it works for clearance purposes. It is only just off the ramp at the east end of the station. Verney Jct had short platforms (about 300') so the distance between the two sets of signals would only be about 120m, not enough to call forward a train from the previous block.

 

It's also a fairly flat stretch of line. So most likely explanation would be that view of the signal at the junction was impeded by the platform canopy. Oddly, once the junction signal was on a bracket, I don't think it would have been. But perhaps they took the decision to provide an extra signal when the junction signals were on a single post.

 

Edit: Sorry, I see that I have repeated Beast's edit comment. Ref Mike's gated crossing, I think that is right and will take another look to check. But only a foot crossing I think.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[ColHut]

Thanks all of you for your comments. I would be very curious to know if Reg 5 was authorised there.

 

Does anyone happen to know if the LNER used such combinations of splitting homes/starters?

 

Regards

[RailWest]

A slightly more complex version could be seen in the down direction at Bailey Gate on the S&DJR after it became the junction for the 'cut-off' line to Broadstone, see diagram at  www.trainweb.org\railwest\images\sb-diag\bailey-00.jpg  . Although the diagram is for 1900, this arrangement continued after the line northwards to Blandford was doubled in 1901 and only changed to 'single arm' signals when the junction was removed in 1905 icw the opening of the new SB and junction at Corfe Mullen.

[Natalie]

Apologies for posting incorrect information. You are all correct in what you say re the distance. I think I just saw the two home signals and did a very dangerous thing- I assumed and not based on any credible evidence.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Natalie
Withdrawal of my previous incorrect assumption.

[The Stationmaster]

A slightly more complex version could be seen in the down direction at Bailey Gate on the S&DJR after it became the junction for the 'cut-off' line to Broadstone, see diagram at  www.trainweb.org\railwest\images\sb-diag\bailey-00.jpg  . Although the diagram is for 1900, this arrangement continued after the line northwards to Blandford was doubled in 1901 and only changed to 'single arm' signals when the junction was removed in 1905 icw the opening of the new SB and junction at Corfe Mullen.

Chris that link seems to be a dud - it keeps bringing me back to this page 

[Free At Last]

http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/images/sb-diag/bailey-00.jpg

[RailWest]

Sorry - I did try it after posting and it worked for me......

 

Never mind, hopefully you all got there in the end.

[Natalie]

I know that I have resurrected a very old thread but there is an article in BackTrack Jan 2018 by John Jarvis entitled 'Change at Verney Junc' which might be of interest if not already aware of it. It includes numbered diagrams of the LNWR box, Met box (which makes an assumption of rhe number of the shunt signal leading from the loop line into the Met yard. Mr Jarvis puts it at no 6 but it is in a gap between 7, 9 & 10 signals. I think it is his no 6 is more likely to be 8 based on the numbering pattern of the adjacent shunt signals- but I have no definitive proof as this signal was not on the Met diagrams that I have seen.) But I digress.

 

Back to the relevant signals. I seem to recall from reading Richard Foster's LNWR Signalling that the LNWR provided two homes like this as routing signals to give advance warning of a junction- rather like flashing yellows I suspect- and I seem to recall that splitting distants were initially provided- which would likely have been no 5. I shall have a nose in the book to see which sort of junctions the splitting homes were provided for. I shall have to access the SRS archive on Friday and Sunday to collect the display stand for Guildex at Telford and see what I can find out. I shall also ask Richard Foster to see if he can shed any light.

 

John Jarvis' relays that the original lack of a footbridge and the consequent need for passengers to cross the line on the foot crossing potentially over four lines (2 Met ones and the LNWR main)  raised safety concerns which were expressed at a public meeting in Buckingham in Feb 1894. The death of a porter on the crossing also raised fears that the crossing was unsafe. The result of this was a file of correspondence between the BoT, LNWR,  Met and Sir Edmund Verney. The Met replied that it wasn't their infrastructure,  the LNWR denied any safety issues but Sir Edmund Verney threatened to take it further. Seemingly there were plans by the Met to double their route and knowing that reconstruction of the station was likely to be needed the LNWR played a waiting game.

 

Eventually plans were submitted and approved with the result that the reconstruction and resignalling of the station was completed and ready for inspection in January 1897 with new Met and LNWR boxes- and a 'substantial lattice footbridge'. The author makes no mention of the splitting home signals being commented upon in the BoT Inspection Report  on January 6th 1897 by Major Francis Marindin. It is possible that I have previously photted it at Kew. He does however describe the track layout with following:

 

"Also provided was a splitting outer home (2/6) which gave the driver of a through train advance notice of how the junction was set, so that he could adjust his speed accordingly.  This replaced the original (1878) single post home signal which also carried the up starting signal for Bletchley trains. The junction home signals (3/7) again replaced a single post version where the upper arm read towards Oxford and the lower towards Banbury.  The configuration of the other running signals on both the main line and Banbury branch remained unaffected by the station reconstruction. " BackTrack Jan 2018 p13.

 

There seems to be no interlocking between the signals and the foot crossing. Unfortunately no distances of signals from the box or each other are recorded but I think it is quite clear that my original assertion that they were for acceptance purposes is quite clearly incorrect.  I again apologise for my incorrect information as like everyone else here my intention is not to deceive but to try to help people get things correct.  I am sorry that the BackTrack article doesn't really give us a definitive answer but is nonetheless an interesting piece on an interesting location signalling wise.