Reversing point throw direction.

[OldNick]

I am currently trying to work out the (dummy) point rodding requirements for our club's new model of Kineton station on the S&MJR, later LMSR. I have hit a couple of little snag.

 

I am working from photos of a hand drawn plan in the Nation Archives, contemporary at the time in 1918 that a change to the layout was proposed. This has points and signals labelled with lever numbers.

 

The station was a through station on a single line branch. It was a block station with two platform lines and a signal box on the up platform. There was minimal room below the box.

 

The up line ran straight through the station, with at each end of the station a crossover converting the single line into two lines through the station, and a siding extending in line with the the down platform loop. There is also a trailing crossover to give access to the entrance to the small up side yard. I enclose a drawing section showing the down end.

 

 

As each end crossover is facing to arriving trains, protection is shown on the plan by a line parallel with the track extending the blade end of the point, and numbered with a lever number (18) adjacent in the series to the point lever  (17) . I would expect an FPL - is this a symbol used to represent one? Alternatively does it represent a fouling bar to lock point 17? If the latter does this mean that the FPL is on the same lever (17) as the point? Some of the points also have a hachered out area (as shown) continuing along the straight stock rails - would this indicate a fouling bar here as well?

 

 

My other question, and probably the more important one for modelling, relates to the implications of normal and reversed. I am looking to see which rod runs would require cranks to reverse the throw. I think I can work out the design of the cranks required to do this, but where I am puzzled by is which setting would be treated as normal, and which reversed.

 

Assuming that normal is the default safe position, at the end crossovers, would normal be to put the arriving train onto its appropriate loop (ie turn left for an down arrival and go straight for an up arrival) or would it be to give a straight uninterrupted run through on the up line? 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

No. 18 would be the facing point lock(ing) bar and is shown by use of (one of?) the standard symbols for such as bar - it would be worked from the rodding run and in turn would drive the facing point lock bolt.  Lever No.17 would work the two ends of the crossover itself, i.e. it is the one which would cause the position of the switches to change from one position to another.

 

Judging by the nearby trap point I assume the shading indicates the direction in which the crossover is normally set - for arriving trains in both cases.  There should be no need for any sort of fouling bar as there is a facing point lock(ing) bar in rear of both point toes.

 

I'm not sure about the provenance of the drawing as it appears the number had s been altered for one of the lock bars and in my experience it would be unusual for the same lever to work both although practice obviously varied between Companies and indeed between locations but with lock(ing) bars it would have been quite a challenge to both set up and keep properly adjusted (it's bad enough with a single lever driving two bolts in that situation) and using a single lever also creates problems during disconnections.

[OldNick]

I'm not sure about the provenance of the drawing as it appears the number had s been altered for one of the lock bars and in my experience it would be unusual for the same lever to work both although practice obviously varied between Companies and indeed between locations but with lock(ing) bars it would have been quite a challenge to both set up and keep properly adjusted (it's bad enough with a single lever driving two bolts in that situation) and using a single lever also creates problems during disconnections.

 

Thanks for the very speedy response 

 

I'm happy with the provenance: the original, together with a drawing for Byfield, accompanied an original letter from the SMJR to the Board of Trade which referred to both.

 

The dark numbering is my addition to the photo on my computer to make it easier to read as the pencil markings are faint on my photos. I certainly made one mistake, now corrected, as the Down Home and Down Starter both ended up as '2' with no '1'. It's possible I made more, but there are no spares that the 2 x18 could be assigned. 

 

Now to my questions, 

 

No 21 is (by reference to other plans and photos) not a trap point, but the entrance to the down side goods yard, which had one further point splitting between a goods shed and an end loading bay. My presumption is that this point was worked by a local lever. There's nothing protecting the exit through 21 as it leads onto a headshunt / siding labelled 'Refuge siding',rather than a running line. 

 

OK - we have 18 as 2 x FPLs  for 17, and a normal route shown as straight through.

 

At the other end we have a similar configuration with 4 as a single (arriving) FPLfor 5, with no exiting FPL from the down platform loop in an up direction, and very faint hachures indicating that normal would be to diverge onto the down loop. This seems to make sense indicating that normal is the normal route into the appropriate single line loop.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the very speedy response 

 

I'm happy with the provenance: the original, together with a drawing for Byfield, accompanied an original letter from the SMJR to the Board of Trade which referred to both.

 

The dark numbering is my addition to the photo on my computer to make it easier to read as the pencil markings are faint on my photos. I certainly made one mistake, now corrected, as the Down Home and Down Starter both ended up as '2' with no '1'. It's possible I made more, but there are no spares that the 2 x18 could be assigned. 

 

Now to my questions, 

 

No 21 is (by reference to other plans and photos) not a trap point, but the entrance to the down side goods yard, which had one further point splitting between a goods shed and an end loading bay. My presumption is that this point was worked by a local lever. There's nothing protecting the exit through 21 as it leads onto a headshunt / siding labelled 'Refuge siding',rather than a running line. 

 

OK - we have 18 as 2 x FPLs  for 17, and a normal route shown as straight through.

 

At the other end we have a similar configuration with 4 as a single (arriving) FPLfor 5, with no exiting FPL from the down platform loop in an up direction, and very faint hachures indicating that normal would be to diverge onto the down loop. This seems to make sense indicating that normal is the normal route into the appropriate single line loop.

 

kineton signals other end.png

 

In some respects it doesn't matter where 21 also leads but it acts as a trap for the passenger line so will inevitably lie normal to take an errant movements away from that line.

 

The arrangement at the other end seems perfect logical as it gives the normal lie of the points for an arriving train as in the first example - the SRS 'box diagram (although for a slightly different layout) also shows both points standing normal towards the appropriate loop for an arriving train.

[OldNick]

Thanks again,

 

IIRC, the SRS diagram is undated, and appears to be after the station layout was revised after the closure of passenger services (1952). I haven't managed to find any diagrams for after the 1925 LMS revisions, which I think were left untouched until the goods service changes.