Lie By Siding

[Seanem44]

I've been doing some research of the Settle to Carlisle line and a lot of stations have "Lie by Sidings". 

 

I am aware of what passing loops are, and just your run of the mill sidings.  However, what exactly would these lie by sidings be used for?  Are this for full length trains to wait for express goods/passenger engines to pass?  It appears as if these might have to be back in to.

 

Anyhow... just curious.  Thanks!

[LMS2968]

They were common all over Britain. Goods trains rarely exceeded 30 mph so got in the way of practically all other traffic, and had to be side tracked to allow this to pass. The Victorians had a dread of facing points, so the sidings were dead ended and access was by running past them and then setting back into them. The bobbies had to allow for the time to set back the goods when accepting and offering them forward into the next section.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Lie By Siding was the common name for them on the Midland. Other railways had different names, the GWR called them Refuge Sidings.

[Seanem44]

They were common all over Britain. Goods trains rarely exceeded 30 mph so got in the way of practically all other traffic, and had to be side tracked to allow this to pass. The Victorians had a dread of facing points, so the sidings were dead ended and access was by running past them and then setting back into them. The bobbies had to allow for the time to set back the goods when accepting and offering them forward into the next section.

 

Thanks.  This pretty much confirmed what I thought.  I do find it odd that a train would need to pass, then back up in to the siding.  But I suppose this does create some level of safety.  As you mentioned, it eliminates the potential for a fouled facing point diverting a high speed passenger train into a freight train.

 

I guess this brings up another question...

 

In an area such as the fells on the StoC line, it seems like there was plenty of land.  Why not just have a passing loop.  A fairly long would could have been incorporated.  I suppose there is some history to this, in addition to the facing points point.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Due to the limit on the length of rodding from the box to facing points, 180 yards when the S&C was built IIRC, If the box was pit in the middle of the loop you had at most 300 yards between the trap going in and the exit signal, which allowing for the Midland's small engine policy and a Brake Van would mean about 35 wagons capacity. Any longer would need a second signal box thus doubling the operating labour cost, capital and maintenace costs of over that of a trailing siding. Additionally in those days the patents on various locking frames meant that companies often had to pay a license fee to the Patentee on a per lever basis, so the fewer you could get away with the better. It explains some of the minimalist approaches to signalling on Victorian railways and the weird and wonderful 3-D metal puzzles produced as interlocking by individual railways.

[Wheatley]

Thanks.  This pretty much confirmed what I thought.  I do find it odd that a train would need to pass, then back up in to the siding.  But I suppose this does create some level of safety.  As you mentioned, it eliminates the potential for a fouled facing point diverting a high speed passenger train into a freight train.

 

I guess this brings up another question...

 

In an area such as the fells on the StoC line, it seems like there was plenty of land.  Why not just have a passing loop.  A fairly long would could have been incorporated.  I suppose there is some history to this, in addition to the facing points point.

 

Simply because a loop would require facing points, see LMS2698's answer. Because of the increased risk of derailment all facing points had to be lockable, which added to the cost both of installation and maintenance.   

 

In LMS/BR days loops were installed at Long Meg sidings and Blea Moor specifically to increase capacity. It meant you had two locations where goods trains could run 'straight in'. So you might let an express goods run to one of the loops rather than stop it a couple of boxes further back to set it back into the lie by.  The goods was still held for the higher priority train, but it was held that bit further on with that bit less ground to make up. The cost of providing the loops was balanced against the cost of holding up traffic, it was presumably not considered necessary / cost effective to put more loops in between those two.

 

At locations without lie bys (and with light-ish traffic) another option usually permitted was to use the main to main crossover on a double line to set the goods back onto the opposite running line (obviously provided you had time to do it). One of those things you never/rarely see modelled.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wheatley

[TheSignalEngineer]

WW2 was the driver for converting some Lie By sidings to Goods Loops. By that time the objections to facing points had reduced a little, and the availability of point machines such as the Westinghouse Style C powered by a hand generator at the signal box, favoured by the GWR in particular, made operation over longer distances possible. The LMS tended to use SGE Type HA machines which could be worked by a 30V battery trickle charged at 110v  over line wires on the pole route. This meant that the power surge needed to run the points could be economically stored at site until needed.

[The Johnster]

This sort of operation took more time than running into a loop through facing points, but this was ameliorated somewhat by the point that the freight could be brought fairly quickly past the box's clearing point; the signalman could then clear the section and accept the approaching passenger train as far as his home signal while the freight safely set back into the 'lie by' siding.  This went wrong at Charfield in Gloucestershire in 1926, when a goods setting back into such a siding was struck by a passenger train which had overrun signals; the passenger's stock was still gas lit and there was a disastrous fire.

 

This accident may have had some bearing on the conversion of lie by or refuge sidings to loops, along with the improvements in facing point lock technology; it certainly drew comment from the Inquiry on the suitability of gas lit stock, already a feature of previous accidents, on an express train, and hastened the withdrawal of such stock.

[Flying Pig]

This sort of operation took more time than running into a loop through facing points, but this was ameliorated somewhat by the point that the freight could be brought fairly quickly past the box's clearing point; ...

In the absence of continuous track circuiting, how did this work with sidings converted to loops? The back of the train would not pass the box, so the signalman could not see the lamp and confirm it to be complete.

[LMS2968]

There would be a requirement for the guard to inform the bobby that the train was inside, tail lamp complete.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Dead-end lie-by sidings are a particular feature of MR practice. While all railways tried to avoid facing points where practicable, the MR took this to a greater extent than all the others. Most GWR stations appear to use loops for this purpose.

 

Significantly, Charfield was an ex-MR line, with GW running powers. It doesn't seem to have had any influence on practice on ex-MR lines, given that the S & C retained dead-end sidings long afterwards.

Edited January 30, 2018 by D9020 Nimbus

[TheSignalEngineer]

There would be a requirement for the guard to inform the bobby that the train was inside, tail lamp complete.

There was usually a telephone, sometimes two in the case of long loops, for the Guard to call the box. With the introduction of the Guard in the back cab then DOO in freight trains some loops had a CCTV camera provided so the Signalman could look the back of the train to see the tail lamp as it entered the loop. 

[Edwin_m]

At locations without lie bys (and with light-ish traffic) another option usually permitted was to use the main to main crossover on a double line to set the goods back onto the opposite running line (obviously provided you had time to do it). One of those things you never/rarely see modelled.

Britain's worst train accident at Quintinshill arose when a Down local train was refuged onto the Up line because both loops were full (illustrating that some places did have loops as early as WW1 - there was only one box so were they electrically worked?).  An Up troop train was then accepted in error and ran into the local, with the whole lot being hit shortly afterwards by the Down express the local had been refuged to pass. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Edwin_m

[Seanem44]

Britain's worst train accident at Quintinshill arose when a Down local train was refuged onto the Up line because both loops were full (illustrating that some places did have loops as early as WW1 - there was only one box so were they electrically worked?).  An Up troop train was then accepted in error and ran into the local, with the whole lot being hit shortly afterwards by the Down express the local had been refuged to pass. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quintinshill_animation_1.gif

[TheSignalEngineer]

Britain's worst train accident at Quintinshill arose when a Down local train was refuged onto the Up line because both loops were full (illustrating that some places did have loops as early as WW1 - there was only one box so were they electrically worked?).  An Up troop train was then accepted in error and ran into the local, with the whole lot being hit shortly afterwards by the Down express the local had been refuged to pass. 

Loops at Quintinshill were Passenger standard to enable stopping trains to be regulated. 

 

The signal positions were:-

 

Down Main to Loop - 207 yards south of box

Down Loop to Main - 178 yards north of box

 

Up main to Loop - 204 yards north of box

Up Loop to Main - 172 yards south of box.

 

Those positions would be commensurate with the Facing Points being close to the 180 yards from the box specified in the 1902 Requirements.

[The Johnster]

There would be a requirement for the guard to inform the bobby that the train was inside, tail lamp complete.

 

This applied to loops as well.

[62613]

This sort of operation took more time than running into a loop through facing points, but this was ameliorated somewhat by the point that the freight could be brought fairly quickly past the box's clearing point; the signalman could then clear the section and accept the approaching passenger train as far as his home signal while the freight safely set back into the 'lie by' siding.  This went wrong at Charfield in Gloucestershire in 1926, when a goods setting back into such a siding was struck by a passenger train which had overrun signals; the passenger's stock was still gas lit and there was a disastrous fire.

 

This accident may have had some bearing on the conversion of lie by or refuge sidings to loops, along with the improvements in facing point lock technology; it certainly drew comment from the Inquiry on the suitability of gas lit stock, already a feature of previous accidents, on an express train, and hastened the withdrawal of such stock.

 

The Abbot's Ripton crash in the 1870s was another similar one, only this time the first express was lured to its doom by all the signals being frozen 'off', this being the normal position in those days; indeed it's often quoted as the major reason that the normal position of signals became 'on', only being cleared to allow the passage of a train

[The Stationmaster]

There would be a requirement for the guard to inform the bobby that the train was inside, tail lamp complete.

 

And delays (to following trains) could result if the Guard failed to smartly get on the 'phone to let the Signalman know that the train was in clear complete with tail lamp.  Refuge sidings (to use the term I was used to) had teh advantage that it was usually possible for the Signalman to see that tail lamp himself which could be a lot more reliable than relying on the Guard.

Dead-end lie-by sidings are a particular feature of MR practice. While all railways tried to avoid facing points where practicable, the MR took this to a greater extent than all the others. Most GWR stations appear to use loops for this purpose.

 

All the Railways were required to avoid the use of facing points except where absolutely unavoidable although the wording was relaxed by the start of the 20th century.  I doubt that in reality the Midland made any less use of them than any other mainline Railway company. As 'Signal Engineer' has pointed out the big incentive to convert sidings to loops came with WWII when traffic pressures increased enormously on many routes but plenty of dead end Refuge sidings survived for many years after that.

 

Incidentally the practice of 'shunting across the road' (as was done with the local train at Quintinshill) also continued for many years and it was a regular occurrence at one of the 'boxes on my patch in the 1970s although it was mainly done with a petroleum train which had a habit of arriving at the wrong time of day when there was nowhere else to shunt it to (the next 'box regularly in switch actually had loops but the train had insufficient time to get there so it was shunted instead).  Perfectly safe way of working if done properly.

[LMS2968]

This applied to loops as well.

I thought they're what we were talking about, mste. With a siding, the bobby would see the brake past his box and into the siding.

[Talltim]

I always thought there must have been an element of risk routinely propelling long trains of four wheel stock back into sidings.

Also, I would have thought that in a lot of cases the procedure must have taken quite a long time, meaning that the train that was recessing would be blocking the line for ages, almost as long as if it had just continued to the next place it could be overtaken

[TheSignalEngineer]

I always thought there must have been an element of risk routinely propelling long trains of four wheel stock back into sidings.

Also, I would have thought that in a lot of cases the procedure must have taken quite a long time, meaning that the train that was recessing would be blocking the line for ages, almost as long as if it had just continued to the next place it could be overtaken

In the days when these were originally provided the progress of a freight train was usually very leisurely. Although passenger trains were reaching speeds of 60mph and more, unfitted freights struggled to get above about 20mph. As congestion became a problem companies started to provide Outer Home signals to enable the Block to be cleared and another train accepted into section whilst the first train was backing in.

[LMS2968]

Propelling a raft of wagons into a siding involved no risk; it was a daily occurrence and I can recall doing it in the 1970s - often. As to the delay to following trains, the bobbies or control knew when they were expected and would allow for it in sending the goods forward or setting it aside. The setting back move didn't take as long as you seem to think.

[Ken.W]

Not mentioned so far, but Refuge Sidings could also be facing to direction of travel - the train would run straight in and be backed out.

 

There were several like this on the Newcastle - Carlisle line. The 'box would have a pair of Refuge Sidings, one each direction, running parallel to each other from the points at the 'box, with one in the trailing direction and the other facing. In most cases they appeared to be formerly Goods Lines, but as an economy the 'box at the other end had been taken out leaving them as dead-end sidings.

 

Incidentally, where a Refuge Siding is in the facing direction the buffer stop displays a white light, not red. (This can still be seen on the Reversing Siding for the Wensleydale branch at Northallerton)

[The Stationmaster]

I always thought there must have been an element of risk routinely propelling long trains of four wheel stock back into sidings.

Also, I would have thought that in a lot of cases the procedure must have taken quite a long time, meaning that the train that was recessing would be blocking the line for ages, almost as long as if it had just continued to the next place it could be overtaken

 

When you think about it that was how the entire railway was operated.  The only way you can get anything into a dead end siding is by propelling unless you want to trap a loco against the stopblocks.  Local station yards and many marshalling yards all used propelling.

 

It seemed to be only in the late 1980s that a fear of it began to develop on BR.  Now it did have a couple of disadvantages and the biggest was undoubtedly the risk to staff working out on the ground in having something creeping up on them fairly quietly and that no doubt killed and injured far too many people over the years.  The other risk was the results of propelling something too far when you couldn't see the leading end of the movement - technically that was against the Rules (various) but it happened all the time.  Skilled shunting staff knew the length of what was being propelled and how much room there was in the road it was being propelled into, as did skilled Drivers.  But it could still go wrong and many a stop block bore the scars of things going awry.  But coming back to where I started basically for many railway movements there was no alternative to propelling and done correctly it was perfectly safe and not particularly slow.

[The Johnster]

Not mentioned so far, but Refuge Sidings could also be facing to direction of travel - the train would run straight in and be backed out.

 

There were several like this on the Newcastle - Carlisle line. The 'box would have a pair of Refuge Sidings, one each direction, running parallel to each other from the points at the 'box, with one in the trailing direction and the other facing. In most cases they appeared to be formerly Goods Lines, but as an economy the 'box at the other end had been taken out leaving them as dead-end sidings.

 

Incidentally, where a Refuge Siding is in the facing direction the buffer stop displays a white light, not red. (This can still be seen on the Reversing Siding for the Wensleydale branch at Northallerton)

 

 

At Pontypool Road in the 70s, with a very 'rationalised' layout, one entered a refuge siding in the facing direction and set back into one in the trailing direction, a movement not fouling the running lines.  These refuge sidings could be accessed from the up or down roads.