Holiday trains to St Ives - how did they get there ?

[Grovenor]

Probably done to fit around something else as well - there was a proper signalled route off the branch onto the Down Main!

Unless the box diagrams linked to above are in error there was no such route after 1964, nor from down platform to branch.

Regards

Keith

[TheSignalEngineer]

I thought that connection came out around 1964/5

[The Stationmaster]

I thought that connection came out around 1964/5

October 1964 according to my source was when most the branch junction alterations were carried out.  From late 1987 a running signal for Down trains was provide at the west end of the Up Main platform (took a while to get that move legit!!).

[dibber25]

As far as I know, the one through train (in the 1950s) was the down 'CRE' on Saturdays only, the corresponding up working being around 09.20am off St.Ives but not a named train and of nondescript appearance. As a kid on holiday I saw and photographed the CRE empty stock leaving St.Ives on the Saturday evening. The one loco dropped off the front of the down arrival, was paired with another from the shed and put on the front of the ECS. The loco which had brought the down train into the platform then acted as banker on the steep climb out of the station, so the train had three locomotives, one at back, two at the front. From memory on that Saturday train, about 9 cars went through to St.Ives and just three to Penzance.

CHRIS LEIGH

[rab]

As far as I know, the one through train (in the 1950s) was the down 'CRE' on Saturdays only, the corresponding up working being around 09.20am off St.Ives but not a named train and of nondescript appearance. As a kid on holiday I saw and photographed the CRE empty stock leaving St.Ives on the Saturday evening. The one loco dropped off the front of the down arrival, was paired with another from the shed and put on the front of the ECS. The loco which had brought the down train into the platform then acted as banker on the steep climb out of the station, so the train had three locomotives, one at back, two at the front. From memory on that Saturday train, about 9 cars went through to St.Ives and just three to Penzance.

CHRIS LEIGH

Above confirmed in Stephen Austin's book 'Cornish Riviera Express - From The Footplate', p107.

A very interesting read .

Also gives details of the movements at St. Erth:

CREarrives St. Erth, runs through station stopping at advance starter signal.

Two 4500's couple onto back, and draw train over crossover into up platform.

Reference also to the Penzance portion following the St. Ives portion from Truro.

The book is based in summer 1957

[Nearholmer]

Hello Chaps

 

Interesting discussion - in "smug" mode, I worked out from the signalling layout that the move at St Erth was probably as described in rab's final paragraph.

 

Can I tap the assembled knowledge here to clarify some things that I'm not getting responses to when posted in the "signalling" part of the forum?

 

On signalling plans, there are two different ways of showing FPL, which I think indicate (a) a fouling bar, operated by the wheel flanges to achieve locking; and (b) what someone above called "finger in a hole" locking, worked by a lever at the GF or SB.

 

1) Am I right to read the drawings like this?

2) was there a change over time from (a) to (b) as usual practice?

3) if so, why?

4) why does the SR seem to have been much more keen on (b) and the GWR (a)?

 

I've got another question too, but I'll save that for later!

 

All thoughts gratefully received, Kevin

 

PS: No, I don't know where those emoticons came from. They were "a" and "b" in brackets when I typed them!

[The Stationmaster]

Hello Chaps

 

Interesting discussion - in "smug" mode, I worked out from the signalling layout that the move at St Erth was probably as described in rab's final paragraph.

 

Can I tap the assembled knowledge here to clarify some things that I'm not getting responses to when posted in the "signalling" part of the forum?

 

On signalling plans, there are two different ways of showing FPL, which I think indicate (a) a fouling bar, operated by the wheel flanges to achieve locking; and ( B) what someone above called "finger in a hole" locking, worked by a lever at the GF or SB.

 

1) Am I right to read the drawings like this?

2) was there a change over time from (a) to ( B) as usual practice?

3) if so, why?

4) why does the SR seem to have been much more keen on ( B) and the GWR (a)?

 

I've got another question too, but I'll save that for later!

 

All thoughts gratefully received, Kevin

 

PS: No, I don't know where those emoticons came from. They were "a" and "b" in brackets when I typed them!

On technical plans/single line diagrams* drawn to the correct BS a Facing Point Lock (Locking) Bar should be shown as a single line immediately next to the running line to which it applies and short of the point toe (although I'm not sure without delving out the standard if it should be drawn in that way if it actually lies through the points rather in rear of the toe.  It wasn't normal practice, as I understand it, to add a symbol for a Facing Point Lock if there was a Lock(ing) Bar shown on the drawing.  If there was no Lock(ing) Bar then the standard symbol for a Facing Point Lock is a cross with one leg slightly elongated and leading into the point toe.

 

I believe such symbols should be standard when applied to things such as locking sketches and Signalling facility Diagrams.

 

However the various Companies and BR Regions had their own conventions for use on signalbox diagrams and many authors follow a similar course - especially if the have no knowledge of BS 376.

 

* N.B. A 'single line diagram' means a piece of railway track drawn as a single line on a plan, it has nothing to do with the number of tracks.

 

As ever it is worth pointing out that a Fouling Bar is NOT a Facing Point Lock(ing) Bar but serves a totally different purpose  (to detect something which is standing foul of a feature - hence the name 'Fouling Bar'.  A photo of a couple of Fouling Bars illustrating their use to perfection has recently appeared in Dave F's excellent picture thread and as noted by Ron Heggs in Post 4177 they are depression bars.  Facing Point Lock Bars were almost invariably rising bars in mechanical installations although depression bars could be used in electro-mechanical installations where there was no track circuiting.  Fouling bars I think probably tended to be depression bars to avoid the complication of two rising bars have to be worked from a single lever but undoubtedly mechanical bars would have been used in earlier installations although, compared to Facing Point Lock(ing) Bars, Fouling Bars were comparatively rare and also probably rarer than Clearance Bars.

[Nearholmer]

Stationmaster

 

Many thanks. Apologies for dragging fouling bars into the equation.

 

Got it, I think. But just let me check:

 

- presence of locking bar, indicated on drawing by little line, implies presence of FPL, so no need to mark that on the drawing too;

 

- FPL with no locking bar, draw that little "t" thing across the toe of the points.

 

New question:

 

- in which circumstances is a locking bar required, and which not?

 

I've looked at a lot of signalling diagrams lately, and if can't discern any great pattern/logic in the presence or absence of locking bars, apart from the GWR seeming to use them liberally, and the SR much less so.

 

And, to me they seem a complication that only adds marginally to the safety provided by a properly interlocked FPL in many circumstances - they protect against an extreme improbability.

 

I've tried to get my head around what the BoT/MoT "Requirements for Construction and Operation" are trying to convey in this area, and I'm still not sure my dull brain has "got it"! (Aha! Just found the 1950 edition, and that is a lot clearer; I can understand it. The earlier version was "written to confuse". Looks like the SR may have been exploiting the possibilities offered by a "may" in the crucial sentence, and using track-circuiting more widely).

 

Regards, Kevin

[The Stationmaster]

Stationmaster

 

Many thanks. Apologies for dragging fouling bars into the equation.

 

Got it, I think. But just let me check:

 

- presence of locking bar, indicated on drawing by little line, implies presence of FPL, so no need to mark that on the drawing too;

 

- FPL with no locking bar, draw that little "t" thing across the toe of the points.

 

New question:

 

- in which circumstances is a locking bar required, and which not?

 

I've looked at a lot of signalling diagrams lately, and if can't discern any great pattern/logic in the presence or absence of locking bars, apart from the GWR seeming to use them liberally, and the SR much less so.

 

And, to me they seem a complication that only adds marginally to the safety provided by a properly interlocked FPL in many circumstances - they protect against an extreme improbability.

 

I've tried to get my head around what the BoT/MoT "Requirements for Construction and Operation" are trying to convey in this area, and I'm still not sure my dull brain has "got it"! (Aha! Just found the 1950 edition, and that is a lot clearer; I can understand it. The earlier version was "written to confuse". Looks like the SR may have been exploiting the possibilities offered by a "may" in the crucial sentence, and using track-circuiting more widely).

 

Regards, Kevin

Very simple really - the Requirements  stated  'Facing points on passenger lines, and all points regularly used in a facing direction by passenger trains to have - .....A bolt lock through a third stretcher bar, with its bolt either worked through a locking bar or controlled by a track circuit.  Locking bars, if used, to be longer than the greatest inter-axle dimension of vehicles likely to pass over them. ... ... Apparatus to detect that each switch is in its correct position, and that they points are bolted, before the relative signals can be cleared.'

 

Simple as that - so in summary all facing points on passenger lines had to have a Lock(ing) Bar unless there was a track circuit running through them which locked the lever operating the facing Point Lock (bolt).  Facing point Lock(ing) Bars were a common sight well into the 1960s until the spread of fully track circuited colour light signalling and line closures began to significantly eat into their numbers although they were still to be seen in subsequent decades.

[Nearholmer]

Thank you, Stationmaster, and now I've re-read the 1928 edition, having read the 1950 edition, I realise that it says almost exactly the same, but buries it slightly within other verbiage.

 

So what is your view of this typical example http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/sra/R1948.htm, which seems to lack locking bars in two key places? An omission by the person who transcribed the drawing, or non-compliance, dragging on under grandfather rights? A later, BR, diagram has locking bars.

 

And, the example nicely tees-up my next question:

 

Is it permissable for a non-passenger train to enter a single line section, when in possession of token/staff/ticket, from a "non passenger" road, where no fixed running signal exists for the move, under flag/hand-signals from the signalman?

 

Westerham did have a fixed running signal for such a move, but a lot of places didn't, and I'm convinced that goods trains started from yards under flag signal, but others differ from me on that.

 

Kevin

[The Stationmaster]

Thank you, Stationmaster, and now I've re-read the 1928 edition, having read the 1950 edition, I realise that it says almost exactly the same, but buries it slightly within other verbiage.

 

So what is your view of this typical example http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/sra/R1948.htm, which seems to lack locking bars in two key places? An omission by the person who transcribed the drawing, or non-compliance, dragging on under grandfather rights? A later, BR, diagram has locking bars.

 

And, the example nicely tees-up my next question:

 

Is it permissable for a non-passenger train to enter a single line section, when in possession of token/staff/ticket, from a "non passenger" road, where no fixed running signal exists for the move, under flag/hand-signals from the signalman?

 

Westerham did have a fixed running signal for such a move, but a lot of places didn't, and I'm convinced that goods trains started from yards under flag signal, but others differ from me on that.

 

Kevin

I suspect it is down to incorrect drawing - don't forget it is not an official diagram so you are getting the style of the person who drew it and he might not understand the conventions for drawing a single line diagram (and he wouldn't be alone in that respect judging by other example I have seen).

 

Nothing at all wrong with a train entering a single line section from a siding etc where no fixed signal exists provided the move is in accordance with the Regulations - however if it is a regular occurrence, and more particularly if it is a timetabled occurrence then a fixed signal should be provided, otherwise a hand signal would be quite ok.

 

Interestingly this takes us back to St Erth and Chris Leigh's explanation of how the CRE was crossed over.  That crossover didn't - back then - have a Facing Point Lock but it did have a  fixed signal which, inevitably, would have detected the position of the points.  Now as it was a regular event an FPL should really have been provided but no doubt if taken to task the GWR/WR would have said, with a large degree of truth, that the movement was 'occasional' and therefore it their view did not warrant the addition of an FPL - and they would have got away with it (I wonder if they clipped the points - I suspect that was probably the case (as 'belt & braces') with the long train which was involved.

[Nearholmer]

Thank you, Sir, for that further step in my education. Kevin

[jonny777]

All thoughts gratefully received, Kevin

 

PS: No, I don't know where those emoticons came from. They were "a" and "b" in brackets when I typed them!

 

b in brackets seems to mean something else in emoticon-speak.

 

To eliminate this problem, just add an extra space i.e.   (b ) or ( b )