What type of signal does this diagram show?

[Harry]

Hi - as the title suggests, I don’t know what kind of signal is represented in the diagram below (Circled in red). Initially I thought it may be a shunt signal but it’s not as they’re shown in a different way.

 

It’s SR pre-1931 if that helps. Not posting larger image as not sure if it’s copyrighted or not. Any help would be much appreciated as would guidance on what MSE parts would make such a signal once someone knows what kind it is!

 

many thanks in advance.  
 

 

[Trainshed Terry]

I think that it is a co-acting home signal, as the signal arm can be sited by the drivers over the bridge that is in the rear of the.

 

Which region are you modelling, and the location that you are modelling. 

 

Terry.  

[Grovenor]

Its an ordinary semaphore home with co-acting arms, one high up to be seen over the bridge from afar and one low down to be seen as the train comes under the bridge. The normal MSE parts will do same as signals 3 or 4 but with a taller mast.

[RailWest]

9 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

Which region are you modelling, and the location that you are modelling. 

 

Terry.  

Looks like he is doing Ropley :-)

 

[Michael Hodgson]

I agree that this is a co-acting signal to overcome sighting difficulties caused by the bridge.  Co-acting arms are worked by the same lever (14 in this case), because they are required always to show the same aspect.  A banner signal before the bridge would be an alternative approach, though this was less common.  Very rarely a co-acting signal on a separate post might even be provided to overcome sighting difficulties, a practice which has also been used with colour light signals, but with semaphore it was far more common to use a tall post as here with one arm at normal level (easily visible from the footplate) and another at a great height so that it can be seen from afar - they were particularly favoured by the LNWR, but many companies used them where appropriate.  At Sutton Coldfield, there was a tall co-acting signal with the lower arm offset on a small bracket, so that it could be seen from below the platform canopy.

 

Clearly not the case here, but two signal arms on the same post at a facing junction can also be the equivalent of a bracket signal, the top arm reading to the leftmost track, the lower to the right.  That is an arrangement you sometimes found at passing loops where the signal box could close at night when only one track would be in use.  However in such cases, the arms would be closer together than shown here, and would generally be worked by different levers.

 

Had the loop been 100 yards longer, the home signal would have been on the other side of the bridge as it would not be necessary to have a co-acting signal there - a standard home signal would suffice.  However with the track as it is the far side of the bridge is over 100 yards in rear of No 9 points, too far for safety.  That is because when the signal is off, it locks FPL 10 and hence also 9 points, preventing the signalman from prematurely changing them ready for a departure in the other direction whilst a train is still entering the station. 

[Harry]

Thank you all for the replies - very useful and I should have thought of that really!

 

Yes, Ropley as it was pre-preservation and just getting onto signals. 
 

Thanks again. 

[RailWest]

Well, quite some while before preservation then, as by BR days it had no signals at all :-)

 

[RailWest]

Given that Ropley box was closed in 1931 and the loop abolished, I would hazard a guess that all  the main running signals were still LQ arms at the time and the shunt signals were probably still the Stevens 'drop flap' type, but a more detailed study of old photos might clarify that.

[Nick C]

There is of course a good example of an LSWR LQ co-acting signal still at Ropley, though now it's the down main starter. Keith @45655 is the one to ask - he's the MHR archivist.

[45655]

Here's a picture of the down home signal.  This is cropped from a larger photo, hence the poor quality.  

 

This was taken in the summer of 1922 and is the only image I know which shows the London end layout at Ropley before the box was taken out in 1931. It demonstrates that, contrary to the diagram above, the signal was actually on the up side of the single line.  

 

As others have said, it was a co-acting signal, necessary as the lower arm would be obscured by Bighton Hill bridge.  Having said that, it's enormous and the upper arm would have been visible from the mouth of Ropley Soke cutting, a mile and a half away.  I wouldn't have liked to have to lamp it!  Although it's not entirely clear from the photo, I think the post must be lattice as a wooden post that high would be impractical.  The up advance starter does appear to be wood, however.

 

The arms are clearly lower quadrant and it's safe to say that they remained so until the end.  Bear in mind that the Southern only started using upper quadrant arms with the opening of the Wimbledon & Sutton line in 1929.  The signals at Medstead and Alresford remained lower quadrant until after the War.

 

It would be nice to replicate this signal today but that end of the layout is now rather more congested than it used to be.  What we have now is (very low) splitting down homes at the loop points and a Sykes banner repeater on the other side of the bridge.  There is however a down outer home around the corner, which there wasn't in the old days, so visibility is not quite the issue it was.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Keith

Currently overlooking milepost 53½ (from Waterloo via Guildford and Tongham).

 

Image © Watercress Line Heritage Railway Trust.

[bécasse]

19 hours ago, 45655 said:

Here's a picture of the down home signal.  This is cropped from a larger photo, hence the poor quality.  

 

This was taken in the summer of 1922 and is the only image I know which shows the London end layout at Ropley before the box was taken out in 1931. It demonstrates that, contrary to the diagram above, the signal was actually on the up side of the single line.  

 

As others have said, it was a co-acting signal, necessary as the lower arm would be obscured by Bighton Hill bridge.  Having said that, it's enormous and the upper arm would have been visible from the mouth of Ropley Soke cutting, a mile and a half away.  I wouldn't have liked to have to lamp it!  Although it's not entirely clear from the photo, I think the post must be lattice as a wooden post that high would be impractical.  The up advance starter does appear to be wood, however.

 

Given how solid the black-painted base of the post looks in the photo, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a wooden post. It probably isn't as tall as it seems, say no more than 30 feet. Remember that the LSWR only started using lattice posts around the turn of the century, give or take a few years.

[45655]

9 hours ago, bécasse said:

Given how solid the black-painted base of the post looks in the photo, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a wooden post. It probably isn't as tall as it seems, say no more than 30 feet. Remember that the LSWR only started using lattice posts around the turn of the century, give or take a few years.

I'd say 1890s, given that the ones we've dug up were manufactured by Dutton & Co, who only produced signalling equipment for around a decade. 

 

Keith

Alton.

[bécasse]

The earliest verifiable date that I could find for a LSWR lattice post was c1893 (as the North Cornwall line crept its way towards Wadebridge) but Newton Toney on the Bulford branch, opened October 1901, was initially equipped with wooden post signals - hence my "turn of the century give or take a few years". They continued to be installed as single posts (including on the former SECR and LBSCR lines of the Southern) until the middle of 1926 when concrete posts were used instead, they in turn being replaced by rail-built posts at the beginning of 1930. None of the dates should be considered as absolute, new works usually got the latest style a little earlier than random renewals.

 

It is interesting that you should have found LSWR lattice posts attributed to Dutton as one doesn't usually associate that company with lattice posts. However, the LSWR is known to have regularly asked around for tenders for the supply of standard signalling equipment to their design and that is obviously what happened here, although Dutton wasn't absorbed by Pease until 1899 and it is possible that contracted equipment (like these posts) continued to be manufactured bearing the Dutton name until 1901 when Pease themselves were absorbed into McK&H.

[45655]

10 hours ago, bécasse said:

The earliest verifiable date that I could find for a LSWR lattice post was c1893 (as the North Cornwall line crept its way towards Wadebridge) but Newton Toney on the Bulford branch, opened October 1901, was initially equipped with wooden post signals - hence my "turn of the century give or take a few years". They continued to be installed as single posts (including on the former SECR and LBSCR lines of the Southern) until the middle of 1926 when concrete posts were used instead, they in turn being replaced by rail-built posts at the beginning of 1930. None of the dates should be considered as absolute, new works usually got the latest style a little earlier than random renewals.

 

It is interesting that you should have found LSWR lattice posts attributed to Dutton as one doesn't usually associate that company with lattice posts. However, the LSWR is known to have regularly asked around for tenders for the supply of standard signalling equipment to their design and that is obviously what happened here, although Dutton wasn't absorbed by Pease until 1899 and it is possible that contracted equipment (like these posts) continued to be manufactured bearing the Dutton name until 1901 when Pease themselves were absorbed into McK&H.

We have several Dutton posts (or at least the cast bases thereof).  Dutton certainly did casting work outside the narrow confines of signalling equipment.  We have a Dutton branded barley-twist lamp post at Medstead and there is a Dutton branded rainwater gully in the  road outside Alton station - both of these are illustrated in Edward Dorricott's book.

 

Keith

Alton.

[Harry]

Thanks to everyone's replies - I am now in receipt of the parts to make the signal as advised by Andrew from MSE.

 

However, I can't find a good reference photo for how the ladder would have attached at the top of the signal - would there have been a platform or straight onto the post? And would there have been anything for the lower arm in a co-acting or would the staff just be expected to reach it from the ladder?!

 

Does anyone have a decent reference photo for this?

 

Many thanks again,

 

[Compound2632]

On 14/07/2022 at 14:37, 45655 said:

Although it's not entirely clear from the photo, I think the post must be lattice as a wooden post that high would be impractical. 

 

The LNWR had wooden post signals at least as tall as that - up to 60 ft tall - in similar situations. It's a question of guying.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The LNWR had wooden post signals at least as tall as that - up to 60 ft tall - in similar situations. It's a question of guying.

Wooden posts that tall were not uncommon - the LNWR, as you say, had them and in fact had plenty of them and the GWR also used timber posts that tall as did some other Pre-Group companies.  If timber was good enough for a ship's mast I don't see why it would have been unsuitable for a railway signal?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

If timber was good enough for a ship's mast I don't see why it would have been unsuitable for a railway signal?

 

A further factor is the quality of timber available then, at reasonable prices, compared to now. 

[Stephen Freeman]

On my last batch of etched signal posts from PPD in 4mm scale I included a tall post, around 42ft mainly for the Kingswear layout group but of course not very often needed for LSWR as they very quickly went over to lattice posts.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 15/07/2022 at 10:12, bécasse said:

Given how solid the black-painted base of the post looks in the photo, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a wooden post. It probably isn't as tall as it seems, say no more than 30 feet. Remember that the LSWR only started using lattice posts around the turn of the century, give or take a few years.

Judging by the signal arm size I would estimate that the bottom arm is about 16 feet above rail and the top arm about 50 feet. My late Grandfather told me that the Lineman's district he took over in 1947 had a wooden post 70 feet high at that time.

 

On 27/07/2022 at 14:55, Harry said:

However, I can't find a good reference photo for how the ladder would have attached at the top of the signal - would there have been a platform or straight onto the post? And would there have been anything for the lower arm in a co-acting or would the staff just be expected to reach it from the ladder?!

There were plenty of tall signals up to about 50 feet I worked on when I joined BR in the 1960s. Very few had working platforms or hoops but that depended on company and era. In the 1970s we had a box which had Midland signals with platforms and LMS ones without standing close to each other. In most cases the ladder was just fitted to the post with stays at intervals on the way up where necessary.

[45655]

Thanks all for helpful contributions. The firm consensus seems to be that it’s a wooden post!

 

Now, with apologies for a slight thread hijack, here’s a related question.  Is anyone aware of a prototype for a rail built co-acting signal post? Both Bluebell and Swanage have new build examples but I’m not aware of any on the ‘big railway’.

 

Keith

Alton.

[RailWest]

23 minutes ago, 45655 said:

 Is anyone aware of a prototype for a rail built co-acting signal post? Both Bluebell and Swanage have new build examples but I’m not aware of any on the ‘big railway’.

 

I can't think of any off-hand, but that's not to say that they did not exist.

 

However I would suggest that, by the time that the SR were (a) using rail-built posts and (b) replacing old wood or lattice posts with co-acting arms, then there was probably a tendancy (and certainly a few examples) where the signal was replaced as a single arm on a 'normal' height post with a banner repeater provided some distance in rear.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I don't know about rail-built ones but we had a lattice one at Four Oaks on the Aston to Lichfield  line, shown on this page

https://www.roscalen.com/signals/WestMids/index.htm

[RailWest]

22 hours ago, RailWest said:

I can't think of any off-hand, but that's not to say that they did not exist.

 

Actually, I have now thought of one :-)

 

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/_4789840_orig.jpg

 

This was the Up Home (No 40) at Barnstaple Junction 'A' box. Note that the lower arm was shorter than usual in order to clear the adjacent building. Ironically it replaced an earlier L&SWR RH lattice bracket signal of about the same height which did not have a lower co-acting arm! I suspect that, with the nature of the local traffic, having simply a banner repeater somewhere in the rear would not have been much use for drivers of trains which were 'waiting time' at the platform.

[45655]

Thank you!  I'm not familiar with the location but presumably the reason for the co-acting lower arm is that the the upper arm would not be visible to a guard (or driver) standing under the canopy, although perhaps "off" indicator would have done the job?

 

My faith in the old Railway Modeller adage, that there is a prototype for everything, is secure.

 

Keith

Alton.