Signalling Queries on a Real Location

[WillCav]

Hi all,

 

I am researching Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road as a location for a layout. I have bought the Signalling plans (locking sketches) and have a few queries.

 

There are two boxes with three running lines and some sidings between them. The three running lines are all track circuited in the fringe between boxes. Would those lines operate all with Absolute or Permissive block? I want to try and model the block shelf with the right 'stuff'.  I'm only modelling MR west SB as the East SB is off stage.

 

Also, if a train is shunting to the goods sidings via the West end headshunt, would it have to be behind the shunt, or could it just be behind the points that need to move? There's no track circuit there, and the signaller could check out the window that the train is clear of the points that need to move.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

Will (whose day job involves modern signals but needs help with semaphore)

[Grovenor]

While you may have the plans, we don't which makes it pretty hard.

If you are worried of copyright do a sketch of the relevant info that you can scan and upload.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Grovenor

[ikcdab]

2 hours ago, WillCav said:

Hi all,

 

I am researching Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road as a location for a layout. I have bought the Signalling plans (locking sketches) and have a few queries.

 

There are two boxes with three running lines and some sidings between them. The three running lines are all track circuited in the fringe between boxes. Would those lines operate all with Absolute or Permissive block? I want to try and model the block shelf with the right 'stuff'.  I'm only modelling MR west SB as the East SB is off stage.

 

Also, if a train is shunting to the goods sidings via the West end headshunt, would it have to be behind the shunt, or could it just be behind the points that need to move? There's no track circuit there, and the signaller could check out the window that the train is clear of the points that need to move.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

Will (whose day job involves modern signals but needs help with semaphore)

 If you look At the signalling record society website then it may help you as they have lo-res box diagrams.

In general though, all passenger lines were absolute block. Permissive block was only used in freight only lines.

Where there are three running lines, my guess is that this will be an up and down passenger line and possibly the third is a goods running loop. So it might be a mix of both absolute and permissive.

 

[WillCav]

46 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

While you may have the plans, we don't which makes it pretty hard.

If you are worried of copyright do a sketch of the relevant info that you can scan and upload.

Thanks for the reply, Grosvenor.

I was worried about copyright - I'll try to explain it better until I get a diagram drawn

 

The two platform lines are signalled with main routes and call on routes in the normal direction. The Down line also has turn back signals to allow reversals. I think these are signalled as absolute block and assume that the track circuit is proved occupied if a call on route is used.

 

The third line is a goods running loop and is bidirectionally signalled. There are interlocking levers on each box associated with that line and it is track circuited. I assume the opposite box has to accept a train by reversing the lever  which then locks out their routes into that line.

 

Thanks

 

Will

[Michael Hodgson]

Permissive block was used for passenger trains in some exceptional circumstances.  For example in Lincoln, it was permitted (for passenger trains only) because two trains routinely had to occupy the platform at the same time, whilst the non-platform through roads (used mainly by freight) were absolute block. 

 

However I would be most surprised if Malvern Road justified permissive passenger working, but the GWR usually used permissive on its goods loops.  It is a good many years since I last travelled on the Honeybourne route, and I don't remember much, though 

I have been told that "Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road West Signal Box" and "Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road East Signal Box" were the longest signal box name boards on the GWR.

[Michael Hodgson]

I can't see a bi-directional goods loops being signalled permissively.  It sounds from your description that acceptance lever working was used on that.

[ikcdab]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Permissive block was used for passenger trains in some exceptional circumstances.  For example in Lincoln, it was permitted (for passenger trains only) because two trains routinely had to occupy the platform at the same time, whilst the non-platform through roads (used mainly by freight) were absolute 

 Was this between two signalboxes (which is my understanding of the term "Permissive block") or is it just one signalbox where two trains are allowed to occupy the platform atbthe same time, "Permissive working"?

[Michael Hodgson]

This was between Pelham Street and High Street boxes (one each end of the station)

[Stephen Freeman]

On the diagram for Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road East it says "Interlocking lever with West Box for goods loop:42", and for west box the corresponding lever was 29. The 2 main platform lines were not bi-directional. does that help?

Edited March 21, 2021 by Stephen Freeman

[WillCav]

1 hour ago, Stephen Freeman said:

On the diagram for Cheltenham Spa Malvern Road East it says "Interlocking lever with West Box for goods loop:42", and for west box the corresponding lever was 29. The 2 main platform lines were not bi-directional. does that help?

Stephen,

It does help - thanks. There are shunt signals that could lead into the platforms wrong direction, but they may just route to sidings before the platforms. I think I need to see if SRS have any locking charts for me to know for sure what was possible.

 

Thanks again

Will

[RailWest]

I would suggest that the interlocking levers for the goods line were unrelated to block working, but provided simply to ensure that a box at one end could not signal a wrong-direction move into the loop without 'approval' from the other box, the interlocking levers being used as a means to lock conflicting signals worked by different boxes. Similar arrangements existed for example over various passenger lines between the Middle and West boxes at Exeter St Davids.

[5BarVT]

15 hours ago, WillCav said:

(whose day job involves modern signals but needs help with semaphore)

No locking table or dog chart on SRS unfortunately, but have you tried asking Mac to see if he remembers anything?

When I get to the computer to see the diagrams in better resolution I’ll see if I can draw any conclusions.

There’s also The Stationmaster (Mike) who would be able to say what sort of instruments would be used for Passenger Permissive: would there be a need to count trains in and out if the line is tracked, so just work the call on arm ‘by instructions.  Sorry I didn’t know I needed to be more observant when I was in Exeter Middle in 1980!
As an aside, I was trawling around eB when I had plenty of spare time and still had access and found Toddington /12 on there.  Not the G&WR one, but the original!

Paul.

Edited March 21, 2021 by 5BarVT
Added Stationmaster and Exeter.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I can't see a bi-directional goods loops being signalled permissively.  It sounds from your description that acceptance lever working was used on that.

No, the Goods Line was not track circuited - no doubt worked in accordance with Instructions shown only in the Signal Box Footnotes and the interlocking levers.  The use of such levers in this situation was not unusual in the GWR and as 'Railwest' has already noted they had nothing to do with block working..

 

The Up Line through the station might have been Permissive as there is a subsidiary arm on Malvern Road West's Up Starting Signal but equally it could possibly have a been a Warning subsidiary,  The Down platform line appears to be Absolute Block.  The track circuits were probably provided for sighting reasons and in any event the GWR method of interlinking track circuits with the block was substantially different from the controls applied by some other Companies/Regions. (e.g the standard GWR/WR control dropped the block to Normal if the track circuit in rear of a Home SIgnal was occupied with the block instrument set at 'Line Clear'.  I didn't believe that either until I saw it happen one day and a few years later going through teh circuit diagram confirmed th it - such controls definitely lasted in to the 1980s).

 

In order to get at complete answers you need the 1960 Sectional Appendix - which will confirm if the Up Platform line was Permissive or not.  Ideally - but highly unlikely to still exist - the Signal Box Footnotes would tell the complete story.  incidentally the GWR lived in a world of its own as far as Permissive Block Regulations were concerned and even the 1960 version was different from the rest of BR - and it wasn't essential to use tell-tale block instruments (i.e those with a counter) either!  WR Permissive Block Regulations were not brought into line with the rest of BR until October 1966.

[WillCav]

Many thanks 5barVT and Stationmaster.

 

Rechecking the SRS diagrams:

 

Down platform shows a C (call on) by the sub arm, which is required for the St. James to Honeybourne and vice-versa to run round.

 

Up platform has sub arm on approach, if it is a Warner, it would allow an Up passenger train to get into the platform whilst the east end junction is in use? If so, that would help with capacity there.

 

Looking in the service timetable for 1948, no platform sharing is required, and passenger run round only in the Down.

 

Thanks

 

Will

 

[WillCav]

I'm afraid I've got more questions on the arrangements at Malvern Road.

 

I've found a 1932 photo from the west end and the junction signal looked a bit different to the 1960s arrangement in the SRS diagram.

The right hand doll is main line home and MR east distant slotted (not yellow at this date).

The middle doll must be for the Goods Running Loop.

Could the left doll be for all other routes? Why no white band?

 

(In the 1960s version of this signal, left and centre dolls are combined with one arm and a 4 way mechanical route indicator)

 

Thanks

 

Will

[Stephen Freeman]

Perhaps the white band has been covered by soot from locos exhaust?

[5BarVT]

Hi Will,

Why not start with the easy questions - who who taught you that trick? 

Going back to the Up Block signal: there is the spur just by the box (was this used i/c/w ‘Southern’ trains which terminated at Malvern Road not St James?).  I’ve looked at the 25” on the NLS maps site and the Up block signal is very close to the toes of the spur points.  I wonder if it was a Shunt Ahead to get a loco past it to set back into the spur without needing to cancel a line clear, or to get onto the back of ECS to shunt back into the Down Line?

And now to your bracket.  I’m going to stick my neck out and postulate that the alterations in 1960 were i/c/w the Diesel Fuelling Line.  The 1960 Gloucester appendix (available to SRS members!) has an entry about access at East box through padlocked hand points and needing to go to/from St James when going to or coming from Gloucester, and mentions that the west extremity is marked by a red flag (Engineers possession limit?).

So I’m going to suggest that 19 points (access to the fuel line at West box), 7 shunt (exit from fuel line) and 32 (UM to shed or fuel line) were new in 1960.  Prior to the alterations my suggestion is that the spares were 5, 6, 7; Up Dets were 32 and shunt into the spur was 19.  So your 1932 bracket is 34 to Up Sidings or Shed or Gloucester Road yard, 33 to Up Loop and 34 to Up Main.

Of interest, the STOP lamp between the shed road Gloucester Road yard refers to the Shed road despite how its show on the SRS diagram.  The appendix refers to how it can be passed when West Box is switched out - so you will need a block switch on your shelf.

 

Discuss!!!

 

Paul.

 

[WillCav]

3 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Hi Will,

Why not start with the easy questions - who who taught you that trick? 

Going back to the Up Block signal: there is the spur just by the box (was this used i/c/w ‘Southern’ trains which terminated at Malvern Road not St James?).  I’ve looked at the 25” on the NLS maps site and the Up block signal is very close to the toes of the spur points.  I wonder if it was a Shunt Ahead to get a loco past it to set back into the spur without needing to cancel a line clear, or to get onto the back of ECS to shunt back into the Down Line?

And now to your bracket.  I’m going to stick my neck out and postulate that the alterations in 1960 were i/c/w the Diesel Fuelling Line.  The 1960 Gloucester appendix (available to SRS members!) has an entry about access at East box through padlocked hand points and needing to go to/from St James when going to or coming from Gloucester, and mentions that the west extremity is marked by a red flag (Engineers possession limit?).

So I’m going to suggest that 19 points (access to the fuel line at West box), 7 shunt (exit from fuel line) and 32 (UM to shed or fuel line) were new in 1960.  Prior to the alterations my suggestion is that the spares were 5, 6, 7; Up Dets were 32 and shunt into the spur was 19.  So your 1932 bracket is 34 to Up Sidings or Shed or Gloucester Road yard, 33 to Up Loop and 34 to Up Main.

Of interest, the STOP lamp between the shed road Gloucester Road yard refers to the Shed road despite how its show on the SRS diagram.  The appendix refers to how it can be passed when West Box is switched out - so you will need a block switch on your shelf.

 

Discuss!!!

 

Paul.

 

Thanks Paul - loads to think about here!

 

Firstly, the spur by the box is not very long - 3 car max. The one on the down side is about 6 car. I can't find any use for either them in 1948 timetable. I also couldn't find any terminating trains. Most photos show them unoccupied or with empty coaches in them. The block signal sub could have uses as S, C or W - strangely, the SRS diagram doesn't show a B on the post.

 

I like your idea on what the signalling was before. It would explain the different treatment of the detonators in 1960.  Looking at earlier photos, 14 signal seems to be closer to the exit (by points that are later 19 pts) and 18x2 and 19 traps are not visible. I'm thinking one trap point beyond 19 pts would be simpler with the earlier arrangement.

 

I'll have to work up a locking sketch of a what might have been 1948 scenario to ensure I have the levers painted correctly. 

 

Thanks again

 

Will

[keefer]

Regarding the 1960 Sec. App., the online version (via The Wayback Machine, as some links weren't working)

https://web.archive.org/web/20161113102053/http://www.britishrailways1960.co.uk/WRGD04.html

 

The blue square w/white arrow refers to Goods lines.

There are no 'local pages' on this site, where individual locations/instructions were sometimes further described.

There unfortuneately doesn't seem to be any info on the signalling type used either - AB, TCB etc (which should be in col.1 or 2 of the real document)

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, keefer said:

Regarding the 1960 Sec. App., the online version (via The Wayback Machine, as some links weren't working)

https://web.archive.org/web/20161113102053/http://www.britishrailways1960.co.uk/WRGD04.html

 

The blue square w/white arrow refers to Goods lines.

There are no 'local pages' on this site, where individual locations/instructions were sometimes further described.

There unfortuneately doesn't seem to be any info on the signalling type used either - AB, TCB etc (which should be in col.1 or 2 of the real document)

I would be careful when using that site - I've just checked one of the London Division entries and it is wrong.  Clearly whoever took the detail from Table A didn't bother to read, or didn't understand, the notes in the left hand side of the columns.

[WillCav]

Following 5BarVT's suggestions on how to backdate alterations to bring the diesel fuelling line into use, I have done a mock up of what the signalling could have been in 1948.

I have swapped what Paul suggested for 32 and 34 as it puts the UM dets next to the UM signals.

 

I've also made the exit from the yard and loco sidings the same signal with hand points beyond - it's difficult to see but I think this matches the earlier layout from photos. It also allows 19 to be used on 17 bracket rather than selecting both signals from 17 lever.

 

Have I made any glaring errors? Unfortunately I don't think it will ever be known for sure but it would be nice to model something that could have been.

 

I'm planning to model between the bridges - which is why I've added some detail from Malvern Road East box.

 

I've shown the 1960s track circuits - would they have been put in when the layout was changed in 1908 or would they have gone in later? What types would they be - and would they have location cases hidden somewhere nearby?

 

Thanks

 

Will

 

Edit... just noticed that I'd assumed that the UM slotted distant by MR west box has a note to say to St James but it probably applies to both routes?

Edited April 14, 2021 by WillCav
Edit added

[5BarVT]

Like it (but I’m biased).

You’ve got me thinking about distants now!

It’s only 528 yards between East and West boxes.  In the down direction, West has worked distants (No.1) under East Starting and Inner home from Honeybourne, fixed under Home from St James (although the SRS plans for East and St James show it as worked).  765 yards from St James and 743 from Honeybourne to the home signal.  In the up direction it’s only 310 yards from East 2 to 3 so Reg 4A must apply (still used through Newbury on the Up in 1975).

Whether 2 applies to Honeybourne and St James I’m not sure. The junction was 25 to/from Honeybourne in 1911 and 1946 (and the curve remained 25 in my ‘73 West of England appendix).  I can’t find any reference to the speed towards St James so I think it must have been ‘line speed’ (50 from Lansdown in ‘73) unfortunately that is inconsistent with the height of the arms on East 5/7/9.  Could the higher arm be for the through line even though it were a lower speed?  My feeling is that your note re to St James only is probably correct.

Thank you for more enjoyment!

Paul.

[WillCav]

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

...

In the up direction it’s only 310 yards from East 2 to 3 so Reg 4A must apply (still used through Newbury on the Up in 1975).

...

There's another East 2 on the wrong side of the road 530 yards in rear of East 3, but still seems too short for braking distance unless the speed crossing Landsdown Junction is low approaching.

I've never looked at modelling a real location before - in some ways it is more interesting, but time passing has, I fear, made some questions impossible to answer.

Will

[The Stationmaster]

The relative elevation of distant signal arms on a splitting distant has nothing to do with line speeds (except when arms are worked/fixed at caution etc as explained below)  in respect of the GWR.  So with worked distants the highest elevated distant arm would apply to the principal route through the junction a splitting distant applies to.  Malvern Est jcn might well turn out to be an exception or to have been altered at some time.  I would have expected the worked distant to apply to the route towards St James if it was the only route faster than 40 mph but things might have been altered, or arranged, to give a worked distant towards the rising gradient on the Honeybourne line. 

 

Standard GWR Principle for Distant Signals at Facing Junctions

 

Speed 40 mph or greater over each route at the junction - worked distant provided for each route.

Speed 40 mph or greater through only one route at the junction - a single worked distant provided and applying solely to that route, maintained at caution for any other route.

Speed less than 40 mph through all routes at the junction - a single distant signal fixed at caution.

 

By the early 1920s virtually all splitting distants on the GWR which did not accord with the above principle had been removed.

In some cases at important junctions where it was considered that advanced indication of a clear route through the junction would improve the working of traffic a separate worked arm might be provided on a splitting distant if the speed on diverging route was a little below 40mph.  Such instances seem to have been extremely rare and even as late as the 1950s/60s splitting distants where both routes were at or above 40 mph were replaced with single head colour light distants when renewal was needed (e.g Heywood Road Junction.

 

Two situations applied in short section working. The first applied to the acceptance of trains IF the outermost Home Signal of the 'box in rear was less than 440 yards in rear of the outermost Home Signal of the next 'box in advance.  This appears not to have applied at Malvern Road.

 

However Regulation 4A might have applied as it was dependent (until August 1965 when it application was revised) on the gradient and specific distances between various signals.  Malvern Road was approached from Cheltenham Racecourse on a generally falling gradient apart from short stretch of rising gradient just under a mile from the station.  Once past that rising gradient the line descended at 1 in 108 towards Malvern Road.  in the opposite direction. there was a rising gradient varying between 1 in 218 and 1 in 687 between Lansdown Jcn and Malvern Road station.

 

Until August 1965 Regulation 4A (which was exclusive to the GWR/WR) was to be applied if the distance between a 'box's Home Signal and its lower arm Distant at the 'box in rear was -

less than 600 yards on a rising gradient steeper than 1 in 200, or

less than 800 yards  on a rising gradient not steeper than 1 in 200 or level, or

1,000 yards where the line is on a falling gradient.

 

In view of the steep falling gradient from the Honeybourne direction towards Malvern Road any lower arm distant for the West 'box would have to be at least 1,000 yards in rear of its Home Signal to avoid applying Regulation 4A.   It appears that its outermost (lower arm) distant was not that far from the Home Signal so a Regn 4A acceptance would have to be used if Malvern Road West had been unable to obtain 'Line Clear' from Lansdown Junction.  It looks probable that it was also the case for East 'box  as it's outermost lower arm distant would have needed to be at least 800 yards in rear of its Home Signal.

 

ABR 4A was revised in August 1965 when it became  applicable only where authorised in the Signalbox Special Instructions - almost certainly a direct consequence

 of Colonel McMullen's recommendations in his 1964 Report into the collision at Knowle & Dorridge where it was evident that the Signalman directly involved had a poor understanding of the Regulation.  By restricting authority to use to to the 'box Instructions it removed from Signalmen the need to understand the way in which gradients and distances applied in deciding whether or not to apply the Regulation, however the basis need to calculate where it should apply was not really changed but instead moved from the Signalman to the staff preparing and reviewing the signal Box Special instructions.   The regulation was removed from the standard Block regulations when they were revised to be nationally applicable in 1972 and the separate WR book was discontinued.  From that date onwards what had been the Regulation simply became an entry in the Special Instructions of any signal box where it applied - the usual approach when a place still needed to use what had once been a Regulation but had been discontinued in the printed Block Regulations.  interestingly it was still used on former (G)WR lines which had come under the control of another Region thus I came across in it in the Special Instructions in a 'box at Shrewsbury in the early 1990s

[5BarVT]

Thanks Mike.

I had taken the 4A from my 1960 WR Regs and assumed that such things had transferred into box instructions in 72.  I can quite see the logic of having the ‘how to’ in regulations but ‘at this box’ specifically in the box instructions.
 

18 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

the height of the arms on East 5/7/9.  Could the higher arm be for the through line even though it were a lower speed?  

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

So with worked distants the highest elevated distant arm would apply to the principal route through the junction a splitting distant applies to.  

Am I being too influenced by modern thinking over height meaning speed for stop signals? East 5 is Starting to Honeybourne, 7 Starting to St James (lower) and 9 a short arm into the Sidings (lowest).

Paul.