Signalling Camerton following the prototype

[The Stationmaster]

I agree with your conclusion here but not necessarily with your reasons, and as Buffalo stated he did not intend these to be lever numbers. But with a simple layout like this it would be usual to have the fpl lever next to the points it locked, as it keeps things simple and there is no reason to do it any other way. So we would have the fpl for departures as 17, the crossover to the colliery as 18, the crossover to the loop as 19 and the fpl for arrivals as 20. Quite likely the lock stretcher would only be notched for normal and the fpls not used for moves over the points reverse, but Stationmaster would know the GW practice better on that one.

Keith

Your first point is very apposite Keith - the lever numbering was not necessarily Nick's intention for the frame that being a future problem and to some extent depending on the way the slip is organised as was discussed previously when we were trying to make sense of the number of working levers in relation to the track layout. But from Nick's comments it looks as if that one will soon need to be tackled.

 

Reading Drawing Office practice varied but certainly on all locking I have come across the facers would be bolted both ways although off hand I can't think of any frames in my acquaintance involving facing point locking which pre-dates WWI. However a bit of delving has revealed a 1913 minute regarding changes to be made to procedures after a train had inadvertently been directed towards a turntable line when a facing point lock had been disconnected and it suggests to me that such points were bolted both ways as does a minute regarding repeating signals in rear of facing points. On balance I would say that the facers were probably bolted both ways and definitely so in the case of the one currently numbered 20, also of course in GW practice the FPL bolts were driven by the Point Locking Bar(s) so a port would be necessary in order to avoid things bending when the lock bar was down .

[dave55uk]

In the latest diagram, do I see 2 points on the double-slip unmarked?

Also, I would doubt that the goods loop signal - #13 - would need to be cleared for the headshunt/siding (as there's no signals for the other direction).

[RailWest]

>>>Also, I would doubt that the goods loop signal - #13 - would need to be cleared for the headshunt/siding (as there's no signals for the other direction)...

 

But that was not uncommon on the GWR - after all, just look at the equivalent No 9 at the other end of the loop :-)

[buffalo]

In the latest diagram, do I see 2 points on the double-slip unmarked?

By latest, I assume you mean the one in post #19? If so, the slip is numbered 18/19 with 17 and 20 for the FPLs. No more levers are needed, though see also Mike's comments on different ways in which slips might be operated, especially post #34.

 

Also, I would doubt that the goods loop signal - #13 - would need to be cleared for the headshunt/siding (as there's no signals for the other direction).

As I mentioned in post #36. there is an error in the numbering there. I labelled it 13 for the signal and 14-16 for the RI. Of course there would only be three levers for this with the signal operated by any one of them. Photos show four operating arms and balance weights, so it is a reasonable conclusion that the signal would read to three routes, i.e. the colliery, the main line and the siding. Given that this signal is so close to the box, one might think it could all be done with hand signals, but such are the wonders of GWR signalling...

 

Nick