Heath Town L Frame - a GWR “what if”

[5BarVT]

22 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Now a question - why has 41 got what I take to be a \lower arm' distant when it only reads to a stop signal worked by the same 'box?

Easy one first: ‘cos Wolverhampton South did!

Swift vol 16 shows my 35 as the home signal for Heath Town Jn LMR box thus requiring a distant.  Both HTJ and WS show it as slotted.  There is a photo (in a Simon Dewey book I think) with a Hall shunting ECS on the bank.

I assume that the idea was a zero length block section to allow shunting up to 35 within station limits, but with a distant for running moves, avoiding the need for block working for the shunt moves.
Interestingly the opening notice for Wolverhampton PSB shows WN shunt signals controlling the connections between Heath Town Siding and the Branch to Portobello Jn and telephones to WS at the former junction for managing trains to Wednesfield Road Goods across the former junction protected by 35.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/pullfree.asp?FilePath=ArchiveSignals\Downloads\brmr&FileName=1965-745g.pdf

 

Heath Town Junction closed in ‘65 so theoretically the lower distant should have been removed, but it was still there in 68 although gone by 71 before the box closed in 72.

Modelling wise I’m assuming that LMR kept signalling control of the connections to the depot on the panel and the signal remained slotted.  But then would they have put in a 2/3 aperture head?  Ho hum, possibly more thought required.

 

Paul.

[The Stationmaster]

On 14/07/2023 at 19:57, 5BarVT said:

Easy one first: ‘cos Wolverhampton South did!

Swift vol 16 shows my 35 as the home signal for Heath Town Jn LMR box thus requiring a distant.  Both HTJ and WS show it as slotted.  There is a photo (in a Simon Dewey book I think) with a Hall shunting ECS on the bank.

I assume that the idea was a zero length block section to allow shunting up to 35 within station limits, but with a distant for running moves, avoiding the need for block working for the shunt moves.
Interestingly the opening notice for Wolverhampton PSB shows WN shunt signals controlling the connections between Heath Town Siding and the Branch to Portobello Jn and telephones to WS at the former junction for managing trains to Wednesfield Road Goods across the former junction protected by 35.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/pullfree.asp?FilePath=ArchiveSignals\Downloads\brmr&FileName=1965-745g.pdf

 

Heath Town Junction closed in ‘65 so theoretically the lower distant should have been removed, but it was still there in 68 although gone by 71 before the box closed in 72.

Modelling wise I’m assuming that LMR kept signalling control of the connections to the depot on the panel and the signal remained slotted.  But then would they have put in a 2/3 aperture head?  Ho hum, possibly more thought required.

 

Paul.

Ah, I get it now - so there should be a slot reference shown on your No.35 and the distant is Heath Town Jcn's not Heath Town's.   Thus this was one of those fascinating situations where the block section was literally the thickness of a signal post - so not exactly ' zero' but definitely only a few inches!   The two signal boxes were 728 yards apart so hardly closely spaced by GWR or LNWR/LMS standards

 

What this basically meant was that Heath Town Jcn would llkely have had special provision in respect of its Clearing Point and any shunting inside Station Limits at Wolverhampton South towards the branch might have been potentially restricted according to the gradients and any other local factors but there are none listed in the 1953 issue of the relevant WR Sectional Appendix.

 

As there's also nothing listed in the 1930s edition of the relevant LMS Sectional Appendix so i think we can reasonably assume that any Instructions would only have been contained in the Signal Box Special Instructions of the two 'boxes involved. It might well have been that Wolves South was not required to carry out anything additional for a shunt towards = your No/. 35 or it had to ask 'Is Line Clear?" for a shunt using a special bell code and the shunt was probably accepted under the Warning or some sort of modified Clearing Point or only under certain specified conditions and perhaps oinly with the engine at the leading end?

 

 

[5BarVT]

On 16/07/2023 at 16:03, The Stationmaster said:

Ah, I get it now - so there should be a slot reference shown on your No.35 and the distant is Heath Town Jcn's not Heath Town's.  

That’s the ‘also controlled by Wolverhampton’ note.  I haven’t shown a slot symbol: I think I saw that presentation on a box diagram on the SRS CDs or in NR records but where exactly I haven’t got a clue!!

Paul.

[5BarVT]

On 13/07/2023 at 21:03, The Stationmaster said:

Does that get things any further forward?

After a bit of a delay and some further research, yes it does. Thank you.

 

On 13/07/2023 at 21:03, The Stationmaster said:

If worked as a terminus would 47 still be retained? 

In this case, yes.  The platform behind 47 is more than a release xover - there is room for a 3 car DMU inside 47 and at start of service the timetable makes use of it.  A bit like the mid platform signal at Newquay on No. 3 line.

 

On 13/07/2023 at 21:03, The Stationmaster said:

The only debatable one is really No.40 which is in effect  the Up Platform Advanced Starting Signal, not an Up Main Signal as such and that in turn makes 36 the Up Main Starting  Signal and 41 is renamed to bring the description into line with 40.

That answers one question I had: can you ‘drop back’ in lever names i.e. Advanced Starting reading up to Starting at a line name change.  Further research has found some: Tavy Jn has an Outer Advanced Starting Up Goods Loop to Up Main reading up to the Up Main Outer Advanced Starting, but even better, Laira Jn has Up & Down Loop to Down Main Starting reading up to Down Main Inner Home.

 

Other research has revealed further lever name options: Weston-super-Mare when extended to cover both East and West had an Up Main Inner Intermediate Home (Home; Intermediate; Inner Intermediate; Inner) and Little Somerford had an Intermediate Starting (Starting; Intermediate; Advanced; Outer Advanced).  Whilst I don’t need the extra home signal names, the extra starting name gives possibilities.

 

So, retaining the Up Main line name I could have:

47 Up Main Starting

46 Up Main Intermediate Starting

40 Up Main Advanced Starting

36 Up Main Outer Advanced Starting

 

Whereas if I rename as Up Platform Line, I get:

47 Up Platform Starting

46 Up Platform Advanced Starting

40 Up Platform Outer Advanced Starting to Up Main

36 Up Main Starting

OR!

47 Up Platform Starting

46 Up Platform Intermediate Starting

40 Up Platform Advanced Starting to Up Main

36 Up Main Starting

My conclusion from all of this is that the important thing is for each signal to have a unique name but that can be by inclusion or otherwise of line names, signals on the same line have a progression in names but adjacent lines may or may not be in the same progression.

 

And while I’m at it, I could rename the branch to Up Branch Starting as the two signals reading up to it have different line names.

 

Paul.

[5BarVT]

As a P.S. to the above, part of me is inclined to the Up Main throughout option just so that I can have both an Intermediate Starting and an Outer Advanced Starting.

Paul.

[The Stationmaster]

On 01/08/2023 at 12:41, 5BarVT said:

After a bit of a delay and some further research, yes it does. Thank you.

 

In this case, yes.  The platform behind 47 is more than a release xover - there is room for a 3 car DMU inside 47 and at start of service the timetable makes use of it.  A bit like the mid platform signal at Newquay on No. 3 line.

 

That answers one question I had: can you ‘drop back’ in lever names i.e. Advanced Starting reading up to Starting at a line name change.  Further research has found some: Tavy Jn has an Outer Advanced Starting Up Goods Loop to Up Main reading up to the Up Main Outer Advanced Starting, but even better, Laira Jn has Up & Down Loop to Down Main Starting reading up to Down Main Inner Home.

 

Other research has revealed further lever name options: Weston-super-Mare when extended to cover both East and West had an Up Main Inner Intermediate Home (Home; Intermediate; Inner Intermediate; Inner) and Little Somerford had an Intermediate Starting (Starting; Intermediate; Advanced; Outer Advanced).  Whilst I don’t need the extra home signal names, the extra starting name gives possibilities.

 

So, retaining the Up Main line name I could have:

47 Up Main Starting

46 Up Main Intermediate Starting

40 Up Main Advanced Starting

36 Up Main Outer Advanced Starting

 

Whereas if I rename as Up Platform Line, I get:

47 Up Platform Starting

46 Up Platform Advanced Starting

40 Up Platform Outer Advanced Starting to Up Main

36 Up Main Starting

OR!

47 Up Platform Starting

46 Up Platform Intermediate Starting

40 Up Platform Advanced Starting to Up Main

36 Up Main Starting

My conclusion from all of this is that the important thing is for each signal to have a unique name but that can be by inclusion or otherwise of line names, signals on the same line have a progression in names but adjacent lines may or may not be in the same progression.

 

And while I’m at it, I could rename the branch to Up Branch Starting as the two signals reading up to it have different line names.

 

Paul.

No problem at all having a platform or loop line Starting Signal reading to a Home etc Signal because in that case the meaning of 'starting' is different from the meaning of starting when it's on the normal successional order of signal naming.  Hend ce aplatform ( (usually a bay, or loop starting signal can be in rear of the signal box which works it - as at Laira Jcn to take the most obvious (but rather unusual) exaMple where the Down Loop to Down Main Starting Signal 101 read to the Down Main Inner Home 112.  The unusual about 101 at Laira Jcn was that signal 101 was on a bracket structure with Signal 91 which was described as the 'Up & Down Loop to Down Loop Home'.  

 

Whether somebody in the Drawing Office got a bit confused over their nomenclature or whether they simply copied the lead for 100 - the disc starting from the Ocean Siding reading to the Down Main which was called 'Starting is something we'll probably never.  But technically 101 was actually a Home Signal within teh meaning of the Regulations as it was the rearmost stop signal on the Up & Down Loop.

 

 

[5BarVT]

INDICATIONS

As mentioned earlier, the GWR L Frames had red and green indications for On and Off for each signal lever and since each lever controlled only one route that gives a separate indication for each two aspect head on a signal.  So what to do when combining levers to use point selection?  Here’s my latest diagram for reference.

 

Lime St comes to my rescue here: consider if a single lever operated 29 and 30b.  Lime St had an exact equivalent Down Fast to Down Slow and Down Slow to Down Slow.  The indications were:

 

Both signals On - two reds; one signal off - green plus one red (of the signal not cleared).  I can apply that to my signal 1(an and b) - signal On two reds, 1a Off green plus bottom red, 1b off green plus top red.  The remaining red indication shows the signalman that the complete signal is still showing the correct display.

 

Then there are the double Ground Signals which show an imitation of a double disc, except there is only one red.  So I’ve gone for repeating the three lamps to show on the indicati9ns the same as what is on display outside.  (See 4, 5, 7, 14, 20 and 23.)

And finally, there is the main aspect with calling on signal.  (See 2 and 8 above.)

My initial thoughts were on the left with the c/o button above:  red, On; green, Off; and red plus white, Calling On.  When I went back to my notes of my first Crewe visit I discovered a not that described the arrangements on the right.  Red On; green Off; red pus Green Calling on.  It gives the same information using only two roundels (including for failure modes I think).

 

As a future post will show, getting the button and indications in a standard three high space will solve another problem I had with the order of the levers.

 

Getting there, slowly!

Paul.

Edited September 5, 2023 by 5BarVT
Duplicate words

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Here’s my latest diagram for reference.

I hope there's a big concrete block between the ends of the middle sidings and the signal box...

[5BarVT]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I hope there's a big concrete block between the ends of the middle sidings and the signal box...

Nope!  See top photo in this link.

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wolverhampton_low_level/index63.shtml

 

Paul.

[5BarVT]

On 05/09/2023 at 09:43, 5BarVT said:

Nope!  See top photo in this link.

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wolverhampton_low_level/index63.shtml

Gradient was 90R from Dunstall Park to Low Level and ~350F from Low Level to Priestfield.  Obviously levelled out a bit through the platform.  Looking at photos I think the top was around South Jn so uphill to those traps.  There was a banner for the Up mid platform signals just off the north end of the platform which is consistent with needing to keep things rolling on the way in and needing to know On or Off as early as possible.

Paul.

Edited September 6, 2023 by 5BarVT
Not Dunstable Park!!

[The Stationmaster]

On 05/09/2023 at 13:12, 5BarVT said:

Gradient was 90R from Dunstable Park to Low Level and ~350F from Low Level to Priestfield.  Obviously levelled out a bit through the platform.  Looking at photos I think the top was around South Jn so uphill to those traps.  There was a banner for the Up mid platform signals just off the north end of the platform which is consistent with needing to keep things rolling on the way in and needing to know On or Off as early as possible.

Paul.

Somewhat worse than that as according to the Ian Allan gradient charts (which usually seem fairly accurate from what I know of the real world) Woverhamton LL station was on a level stretch which then had a short stretch of 1 in 139 falling towards Priestfield (not listed in the Appendixs so it was less than 200 yards long).  Followed by 1 i9n 528 falling towards Priestfield, then 1 in 355 falling towards Priestfield followed by a shirt stretch of level and finally 1 in 150 rising towards Priestfield, 

 

So basically there was a dip between Priestfield and Wolves Low Lwvel which no doubt explains why there were no runaway catch points anywhere in that section (Source 1953 Appendix to the Timetable).