GWR BLT signalling - ground discs at foot of home signal and/or dependant discs?

[The Great Bear]

Hello

 

On some plans I have seen ground signals located below the home signal. Is this instead of providing extra arms on the home signal? GWR examples I think include Lambourn, Mortenhampstead and also http://www.rmweb.co....al-box-diagram/

 

I'm asking because in current signalling plan for my BLT, Marlingford, I have a home signal with four arms or two arms and two discs and my experience when trying to build Ratio signal has been so bad - the wire conenctions to signal on the bracket arm being the main sticking point, exhausting my patience - so anything to make the signal construction as simple as possible avoiding the bracket arms would be welcomed. The ground signals would of course be non-working, painting them I can just do.

 

More or less current signalling plan:

Previous input from Stationmaster was that the FPL 8 & 11 could be combined on same lever if need be, but plan not redrawn yet.

 

I am wondering whether I could legitimately arrangement with a single arm home signal and ground discs for my layout. Snag might be that I'd need 3 stacked discs, is that unprecedented?

 

Or could I put ground discs next to the points and claim they were just point indicators of some sort? (I think this is called a "dependant" disc)

 

Layout is 1940s GWR.

 

Thanks for any suggestions.

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

Hello

 

On some plans I have seen ground signals located below the home signal. Is this instead of providing extra arms on the home signal? GWR examples I think include Lambourn, Mortenhampstead and also http://www.rmweb.co....al-box-diagram/

 

I'm asking because in current signalling plan for my BLT, Marlingford, I have a home signal with four arms or two arms and two discs and my experience when trying to build Ratio signal has been so bad - the wire conenctions to signal on the bracket arm being the main sticking point, exhausting my patience - so anything to make the signal construction as simple as possible avoiding the bracket arms would be welcomed. The ground signals would of course be non-working, painting them I can just do.

 

More or less current signalling plan:

Previous input from Stationmaster was that the FPL 8 & 11 could be combined on same lever if need be, but plan not redrawn yet.

 

I am wondering whether I could legitimately arrangement with a single arm home signal and ground discs for my layout. Snag might be that I'd need 3 stacked discs, is that unprecedented?

 

Or could I put ground discs next to the points and claim they were just point indicators of some sort? (I think this is called a "dependant" disc)

 

Layout is 1940s GWR.

 

Thanks for any suggestions.

 

Jon

Three stacked discs is 100% legit although unusual when co-located (but I do know it has been done because I have done it on 1:1 scale). The simple answer is if it is the easiest way for you to do it then go ahead, quote prototype precedent and challenge any doubters to prove you wrong.

[The Great Bear]

Mike, many thanks for your response.

 

If ground discs are stacked:

 

1) They still have separate (red) levers for each?

2) Presumably to access the loop, two levers are pulled, the home signal and the ground signal one?

3) Would the order of levers still be as the signals on my plan - reason I ask is in Combe Barton's plan they came after the FPL and point levers?

4) Are stacked discs below signal a more recent GWR thing, i.e. would it look more legit below a steel as opposed to wooden post signal? I'm thinking that would be the case.

 

Signal box interior is currently being worked which is main reason for asking, so I can put levers in right place and have nice feeling of having done something properly.

 

As for it being unusual, if it has been done by your good self then that's more than enough to convice me! I'd rather have a simple working signal than give up having any working signals because I can't build a complex one.

 

Once again thanks

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

Mike, many thanks for your response.

 

If ground discs are stacked:

 

1) They still have separate (red) levers for each?

2) Presumably to access the loop, two levers are pulled, the home signal and the ground signal one?

3) Would the order of levers still be as the signals on my plan - reason I ask is in Combe Barton's plan they came after the FPL and point levers?

4) Are stacked discs below signal a more recent GWR thing, i.e. would it look more legit below a steel as opposed to wooden post signal? I'm thinking that would be the case.

 

Signal box interior is currently being worked which is main reason for asking, so I can put levers in right place and have nice feeling of having done something properly.

 

As for it being unusual, if it has been done by your good self then that's more than enough to convice me! I'd rather have a simple working signal than give up having any working signals because I can't build a complex one.

 

 

Jon,

 

1. Same number of working levers as before and as as per your plan - Lever 2 would work the top most disc.

2. No - as before just lever No.2 would be pulled BUT if you do it for an arriving train don't pull the lever until the train has come to a stand at the signal (well if you're well behaved chap don't pull the lever until ... etc).

3. Order of lever numbers is ok as it stands.

4. They are a more recent thing, probably very late pre-war or (more likely I think) post-war. I know of one location for definite where one was added at the base of a timber post signal, I knew of far more places where they were found at the foot of tubular steel post signals where they had replaced older bracket arrangements - in exactly the manner you are doing as it happens. So quite o.k. for 1940s

 

(BTW I did it on a preservation site but some of the gear we were using came off a 'real' site where there had been co-located discs and HMRI were very happy with my signalling plan).

[RJS1977]

Incidentally if you can get hold of them the old Crescent whitemetal bracket signals have a ready-built linkage right down to the balance weights at ground level. OK, they're a bit "chunky", but they're lower quadrant and with a little bit of work can be made to look OK.

[wagonman]

May I make a comment? The separate lead to the goods shed road looks 'unusual' to say the least given the GWR's dislike of facing points. You could abolish points 12 and FPL 11 and extend the shed road to join the mileage siding. There would probably have been a double slip there thus providing traps for both sidings, though individual traps on the siding roads would also be possible. That would also do away with disc 4.

[The Great Bear]

May I make a comment? The separate lead to the goods shed road looks 'unusual' to say the least given the GWR's dislike of facing points. You could abolish points 12 and FPL 11 and extend the shed road to join the mileage siding. There would probably have been a double slip there thus providing traps for both sidings, though individual traps on the siding roads would also be possible. That would also do away with disc 4.

 

Thanks - yes, I can see that would be much more prototypical. The trouble is, what you can't see from the singalling diagram is that the layout is effectively on a tabletop (a 6x4 baseboard including the storage tracks) and largely uses setrack including setrack points and 1st radius curves. I think I may have tried this configuration at the track planning stage and it wouldn't fit. In time the layout may be reconfigured, room to add to baseboard so that's something I'll bear in mind.

[Coach bogie]

I found this GWR/WR signal at Exeter amongst my photographs. The discs giving access to Exeter shed are mounted on posts next to the main bracket rather than ground based. This could be adapted to your track plan.

 

Regards

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Coach bogie]

You post mentioned multiple stacked discs. The maximum number I have seen is four at Forders on the LMS/R

 

regards

 

Mike Wiltshire

[RailWest]

That signal was a BR (1970s??) replacement for an older GWR signal, on which the two discs were then short arms on additional dolls at left.

Whilst the GWR did of course used 'stacked' ground signals, I would suggest that the elevated style would be unlikely for a 1940s GWR layout.

[beast66606]

You post mentioned multiple stacked discs. The maximum number I have seen is four at Forders on the LMS/R

 

regards

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

If it needed more than 4 they used the ex LNWR miniature arms (see Lime Street signals), the based was too narrow for all the weights when discs were used.

[Coach bogie]

That signal was a BR (1970s??) replacement for an older GWR signal, on which the two discs were then short arms on additional dolls at left.

Which was itself a 1940 replacement of an earlier assembly where the two arms were a single arm and a backing signal when the whole constrcution was supended on an assembly attached to the bridge.

 

There were eleveated discs present well before the 1940s period. For example there was an elevated disc mounted on a large bracket next to the newly constructed Bristol East box in existence during the 1930's resignalling.

At Keyham, Plymouth, a bracket signal was replaced in 1941 with additonal twin elevated discs controlling the new facing connection to the wartime dockyard branch. (also installed, a real rarity, a ringed distant).

 

I do not thnk they were that common but they did exist in the 1940's

 

Regards

 

Mike Wiltshire

[flyingsignalman]

 

If it needed more than 4 they used the ex LNWR miniature arms (see Lime Street signals), the based was too narrow for all the weights when discs were used.

 

Hooton South Jcn had a 5 disc stack at the Chester end of the Down Slow platform.

[chrisf]

What do the experts think of the idea of a route indicator?

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

What do the experts think of the idea of a route indicator?

 

Chris

They look very nice - especially working ones in 7mm scale However that is not the answer for here as we had - I thought - reached that by post No.4 in this thread. What Jon sketched for post No.1 is absolutely legit we then looked at a variation using a triple co-located disc (also absolutely legit) in addition to the running signal with a single arm as it would then read to only one route. Since then we've had comments about multiple discs and Beast has quite correctly pointed out that the LM used them in 'stacks' of as many as 5 arms - as far as I've ever been able to find out the Western maximum was 4 and they were pretty rare although triples were quite common.

 

We've also had a reference to elevated discs and we had started with a double disc mounted on the bracket gallery (there were real examples so nothing wrong with that although I've never heard of a triple so mounted - but that doesn't mean there wasn't one of course). What we do need to get plainly stated is that if the running signal was a single arm on a straight post the co-located disc would almost certainly be at ground level unless there was some sort of very, very good reason to do oytherwise. The Great Western doesn't seem to have been keen on elevated discs and they only became more widespread once the tubular steel WR pattern gorund signal emerged as it was much simpler to elevate that a lumpy great casting.

 

Sorry, route indicator? Very very unlikely I would think as we are talking about a signal with only one running route and what are in reality three shunt class routes which if signalled by a semaphore arm (and some were) would have used the shorter 3 foot arm (or something shorter still depending on the date the signal was installed) instead of the 4 foot arm.

[beast66606]

 

Hooton South Jcn had a 5 disc stack at the Chester end of the Down Slow platform.

 

All right more than 5 then (or was it 6??) can't remember off hand but there was a number after which they went to the LNWR type!

[RailWest]

"Why not a single disc, covering all routes not covered by the main arm?"

Because that was not the usual practice in older GWR layouts, where it was the case of "one disc, one route". Partly an issue due to the problems of applying the necessary conditional locking to some of the older patterns of interlocking frame.

 

"but would they go to all this expense for a small branchline terminus?"

Indeed they would! Take at look at somewhere like Kingsbridge.

[The Stationmaster]

"Why not a single disc, covering all routes not covered by the main arm?"

Because that was not the usual practice in older GWR layouts, where it was the case of "one disc, one route". Partly an issue due to the problems of applying the necessary conditional locking to some of the older patterns of interlocking frame.

 

"but would they go to all this expense for a small branchline terminus?"

Indeed they would! Take at look at somewhere like Kingsbridge.

Practice - as on most Companies - varied over the years. Originally locking design effectively meant that a ground signals could only be cleared for one of the routes available through points and it seems fairly certain that this restriction led to the introduction of 'white light' ground signals in the late 19th century in order to avoid moves having to pass a red light (although still a signal at danger in daylight of course. By the early 1920s the GWR was using 2 arm/disc ground signals (these had probably appeared before the Great War but I've no definite date for their introduction alas) while true multiple disc seem to have come into use in the late 1920s and they can be found in many schemes dating from then/the 1930s. By the late 1940s new work schemes and major replacements appear to have been back to using single discs but now reading to multiple routes as evidence of this can be found from several lever frames commissioned at that time and this henceforth became the standard practice with both semaphore disc and ground position light signals. The latter only began to change in the very late 1970s when it was agreed that GPLs (or the elevated version) from which a train could start away to several routes could be provided with a stencil route indicator but otherwise no indication of route would be given. From the late 1940s on it was usually the practice to renew existing multiple discs to avoid unnecessary locking alterations but if other changes were taking place they were usually converted to single discs.

 

Backing signals - which in many respects served exactly the same purpose as some of the roles of ground signals - seem always to have been provided with route indicators if they read to multiple routes; they can certainly be traced back as having them in the early years of the 20th and the last (that I know of) survivor at Castle Cary had one until its final demise.

[The Stationmaster]

More questions, about "local practice" as much as anything else.

Would there have been any ground signals at all, depending on when the line was signalled? I ask as I was perusing Mike Fenton's book on the Malmesbury Railway, and the terminus had but two signals connected to the ground frame: the home and the starter, for controlling entry to the station and entry to the next section respectively (there may have been a working distant at some point, but it was fixed after 1912). There were not ground discs, except possibly (cannot remember) a point indicator or two. Shunting moves presumably simply involved throwing points and hand signals.

Granted the GWR by the late 1920s was using 2 arm/disc ground signals, but this would only be in new or revised installations, except in busy spots.

Does this possibility not simplify matters immensely?

It's all a matter of period (when the line was opened/signalled) and what the signalling had to achieve together with the nature of the line. In the case of a 'One Engine In Steam' terminus there would not be any need for a block post although the GWR might still have put a sign on the little hut saying 'Blogsbury Signal Box' and provided a Home and a Starting Signal to protect points worked from the lever frame. Handsignals could legitimately be used in connection with the working of points for shunting purposes (we were still doing that in the 1970s for unsignalled moves) and no doubt the Company would have argued that 'defence', plus the quiet nature of the location, if it had been taken to task. Malmesbury was definitely not alone on the GWR in not having fixed signals for some shunting movements but, like some similar places, it changed little over the years and was in reality far from busy in terms of shunting activity.

 

Malmesbury (according to George Pryer) was an Electric Train Staff block post until 1933 at which time the line was reduced to One Engine In Steam. Point indicators existed for the points leading from the runround loop/engine shed to the running line and similarly from the goods shed road but no ground signals were provided for movements towards those lines - possibly because in that direction the points were bolted by facing point locks but, as noted above, such a situation was not unusual on some of the lightly trafficked GWR branches and of course one of the points was immediately by the lever frame in any case (the other very definitely was not) so handsignals would have been no problem.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks. That confers with what I was told by someone who was very senior in BR of old: stations will need to be fully compliant with the requirments that were in force when they were last signalled, and in theory with major legislation, e.g. lock, block and brake acts - although even there, Ashburton fell under the BoT radar!

Well not exactly. Ashburton's 'signalling' was certainly unusual (especially in the fact of not having a signal directly interlocked with points it protected) but the interlocking was still there in the form of the Train Staff. The block instrument was in the booking office - a common arrangement until condemned following the Abermule collision in 1921 but even then the practice lasted in places until the 1960s and possibly even later and teh Starting signal was free of any sort of block control - which put it on a par with a hefty chunk of, for example, the Somerset & Dorset where many Section Signals remained free at the time of closure. So definitely something of an oddity but in many essentials not out of the ordinary.

 

 

To return to the OPs plan, this suggests a simpler possibility, with point discs in place of those operated by levers 7,10 and 13, and no requirement at all for discs numbers 2,3 and 4. Personally, I would have the home operated by lever 2, with lever 1 white or even an empty space, reflecting the fact that the distant was once operable. If your advance starting signal is for entry into the block section, then you do not have to have a starter as well: signal 16 can serve this function, though I would put the subsidiary arm at number 15 before it. I would also say that the ground frame release might be a simple point lever, or if the platform stopped short of the points, then a hand lever. How far away from the main points is thje road bridge? Should the home be the other side of it? And if so, would there be a calling-on or similar signal for shunting moves, as the loco would be poorly sighted to see any hand signals?

 

However, from a singalling perspective, the layout is identical to Watlington, other than points 9 and facing point lock 8, so there is a prototype there which can be used to inspire the signalling here.

 

Addendum (edit):

 

So, it could be:

 

1: Spare (was distant)

2: Home signal

3: Calling on

4: FPL for number 6 points

5: Points to loop

6: FPL for number 7 points

7: Points to back siding

8: FPL for number 9 points

9: Points to goods shed

10: Spare

11: Loco release points or ground frame release

12: Spare

13: Shunt ahead signal

14: Starting signal

 

I have put in the extra spares as this is the size of the MSE kit, but you could also use number 10 to operate the other goods yard points and 12 to operate the creamery points.

 

Just some thoughts: it all depends on the presumed traffic levels, and the date of construction/most recent alterations.

 

Seems an odd mixture of things from different periods to be honest. For instance if you're still in the time of point discs why has a Calling On been added at a low number in the frame which could probably have meant altering and renumbering the rest but clinging to older practices at the same time. And I can't understand what you have done with the platform starting signal - that was one which, if most other things were lacking, was almost invariably provided; so to leave it out of the simplified signalling would be quite unusual - it was the one (on a full locking frame) which proved the road was set for a departing passenger train. I'm also puzzled by your comment about using a Calling On signal for shunting - the only purpose it would serve is to admit a movement to the already occupied platform line; the way to signal shunting moves is to provide a co-located disc or discs, which sort of takes us round in a circle to where we were not so long ago.

[The Great Bear]

Simon, Mike et al

 

Thank you for continuing the discussion, I'm learning as I follow it.

 

How far away from the main points is thje road bridge? Should the home be the other side of it? And if so, would there be a calling-on or similar signal for shunting moves, as the loco would be poorly sighted to see any hand signals?

 

About a foot! The singalling plan makes my layout look a bit grander than it is:

 

So not some finescale materpiece, a bit of fun and a test to get me back into the hobby.

 

However, from a singalling perspective, the layout is identical to Watlington, other than points 9 and facing point lock 8, so there is a prototype there which can be used to inspire the signalling here.

 

Addendum (edit):

 

So, it could be:

 

1: Spare (was distant)

2: Home signal

3: Calling on

4: FPL for number 6 points

5: Points to loop

6: FPL for number 7 points

7: Points to back siding

8: FPL for number 9 points

9: Points to goods shed

10: Spare

11: Loco release points or ground frame release

12: Spare

13: Shunt ahead signal

14: Starting signal

 

I have put in the extra spares as this is the size of the MSE kit, but you could also use number 10 to operate the other goods yard points and 12 to operate the creamery points.

 

Just some thoughts: it all depends on the presumed traffic levels, and the date of construction/most recent alterations.

 

The concept of the layout, largely is based on Wallingford. But now that you mention it I can see that I subconsciously got my track plan from that Watlington...

 

Being true to the concept the layout would be operated as one engine in steam, if like Wallingford. In the layout thread when the signalling plan was first discussed I had said truth would be bent and possibly there might be two trains in the station at a t time, one in the loop hence it was fully signalled. I then balked at the idea of making the complex signals so was looking for ways to rationalise hence the ground signals. The layout has mostly operated just using the 14xx and autocoach, protypically. So the signalling probably could be rationalised further, except the interior of the signal box has been painted (albeit badly) and bits painted included a token machine.

 

What are point discs, as these "dependant discs", look same as ground signal but driven directly from the point?

 

Also I'm confused a bit by terminology, difference between a ground frame and a signal box; Wallingford was one engine in steam but had home and starting signals. Also it had ground signals but these may have been these point discs, replacements for rotating lamp type indicators in some photos?

 

Once again thanks for your collective input to date,

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

What are point discs, as these "dependant discs", look same as ground signal but driven directly from the point?

Perhaps it would help if I tried to stick to the correct name which is usually given as 'points indicators' or sometimes as 'non-independent ground signals'. On the GWR they consisted of a large circular (in plan form) lamp case mounted on or immediately adjacent to the sleeper end at the toe of the points and driven directly off the front stretcher bar. The lamp rotated through 90 degrees as the points moved over and it normally displayed a small square red target surrounding a red bullseye (so showing a red light at night) and when rotated it showed a green rectangular target and a small green light. Thus it could only show a proceed indication with the points in one position (normally when they were in reverse) or the other. They were commonly used on engine release crossovers and also at trap points although originally they seem to have been used with other points as well.

 

They were displaced from many funstionsby 'independent ground signals' well before the end of the 19th cetury but were still appearing in new work on release crossovers into at least teh first decade of the 20th century and many survived in this role until the release crossovers vanished with dieselisation. In other uses the independent ground signals became the norm and they consisted of a small, cast, semaphore arm but this was found to be easily obscured by dirt so in 1911 the GWR came up with an enamelled steel semi-circular disc with a red stripe on a white background which was easy to clean and simply bolted onto the small semaphore arm. Some of these survived well into the 1970s in BR use and and can be seen in preservation. By the mid 1920s or thereabouts a new design of ground signal was in use which used a fully circular arm instead of the previous semi-circular type - still technically 'independent ground signals' the name was/is usually shortened to 'ground' or 'ground disc' and also by then changes in interlocking design made it possible for independent ground signals to be cleared whichever way the points were set.

 

Also I'm confused a bit by terminology, difference between a ground frame and a signal box; Wallingford was one engine in steam but had home and starting signals. Also it had ground signals but these may have been these point discs, replacements for rotating lamp type indicators in some photos?

Jon

Sorry here for diving into terms without explaining them. The difference is very simple, and usually totally invisible from outside . A signalbox is a technically a block post which means it is part of the block signalling system and it is manned by a Signalman (to use the proper term) and as such its signals are there to enforce a space separation between trains in addition to any other function such as protecting junctions etc.

 

A ground frame is not a block post although it still has (in traditional installations) a lever frame to operate points (and sometimes signals) and it gets its name from the fact that most examples have the levers situated at ground level although that is not the case in every example. It plays no part in block signalling and if it is only working immediately adjacent points it has no need for any sort of fixed signals as the points are close enough to observe before a handsignal is given to control a movement. However some larger ground frames do work points over a greater distance and do operate fixed signals. Unlike a signalbox, which is worked by someone with extensive knowledge of the Rules & Regulations, a ground frame is much simpler and can be operated by many more operating grades including traincrew.

 

A variety of ground frame is a gate box which controls a level crossing but plas no part in block signalling trains.

[The Great Bear]

Thanks, Mike

 

Perhaps it would help if I tried to stick to the correct name which is usually given as 'points indicators' or sometimes as 'non-independent ground signals'. On the GWR they consisted of a large circular (in plan form) lamp case mounted on or immediately adjacent to the sleeper end at the toe of the points and driven directly off the front stretcher bar. The lamp rotated through 90 degrees as the points moved over and it normally displayed a small square red target surrounding a red bullseye (so showing a red light at night) and when rotated it showed a green rectangular target and a small green light. Thus it could only show a proceed indication with the points in one position (normally when they were in reverse) or the other. They were commonly used on engine release crossovers and also at trap points although originally they seem to have been used with other points as well.

 

They were displaced from many funstionsby 'independent ground signals' well before the end of the 19th cetury but were still appearing in new work on release crossovers into at least teh first decade of the 20th century and many survived in this role until the release crossovers vanished with dieselisation. In other uses the independent ground signals became the norm and they consisted of a small, cast, semaphore arm but this was found to be easily obscured by dirt so in 1911 the GWR came up with an enamelled steel semi-circular disc with a red stripe on a white background which was easy to clean and simply bolted onto the small semaphore arm. Some of these survived well into the 1970s in BR use and and can be seen in preservation. By the mid 1920s or thereabouts a new design of ground signal was in use which used a fully circular arm instead of the previous semi-circular type - still technically 'independent ground signals' the name was/is usually shortened to 'ground' or 'ground disc' and also by then changes in interlocking design made it possible for independent ground signals to be cleared whichever way the points were set.

 

OK, understood so like 6th from bottom here:

http://www.r.heron.b...k/hsignals.html

 

These are what are on pre-war photos of Wallingford, but in post war photos they are replaced with ground discs. If I understand this correctly, the bottom item in the table would be direct replacement for these?

 

Sorry here for diving into terms without explaining them. The difference is very simple, and usually totally invisible from outside . A signalbox is a technically a block post which means it is part of the block signalling system and it is manned by a Signalman (to use the proper term) and as such its signals are there to enforce a space separation between trains in addition to any other function such as protecting junctions etc.

 

Again understood, so Wallingford Station Box, with no block telegraph and manned by the lead porter or yard foreman is actually a (large) ground frame.

[The Stationmaster]

Not so, I am afraid: the simple truth is that Ashburton was never locked properly, and certainly not via the train staff. The only inter locking was in the form of detectors in the signal wires, preventing the home signal from being pulled if the loop and goods points were not set. The ground frame itself (which did not even include the home signal until the 20s!) was locked by a padlock, kept in the station building.

How else could the goods be shunted? It arrived before the passenger train, and would have arrived with a ticket: the passenger train would have had the train staff, yet the goods train was clearly shunting for a while before the passenger train arrived at Buckfastleigh, and indeed would have been able to arrive only in the platform road, if the staff was required to unlock the frame?

Interesting then - George Pryer noted that there was locking on the ground frame (which didn't include the Starter of course). I can see your point about the goods having to shunt clear (I'll have to look at the timetable) but as an aside where else would it arrive but in the platform line - that line offered the longest runround so I would be very surprised if anything out of the norm happened with the arriving goods - but you never know!!

I see your point, or at least your signal.

Maybe a goods (ringed) signal?

I realised not long after posting that a calling-on signal was not the right one, but by the time I realised, and thought that maybe a ringed signal would do the job, I was not near a computer.

I'm sorry but I'm now completely lost - I thought we were talking about a GWR line, not one on the Southern, so how could there be a ringed signal as part of the Home Signal on a passenger line?

Well, it could still prove the locking even if it wasn't on the platform, and it could just as easily be placed at the platform end: what I was trying to say was that only one "starter" was necessary, but given the layout of the goods yard, I wondered if it might be more convenient to have it somewhere else, such as close to the bridge. End of the platform is fine by me.

How on earth could it prove the locking for a trailing point when it is in advance of it and would therefore lock it both ways? You are simply left without a protecting signal therefore leaving all points unprotected against a starting passenger train and vice versa - one Ashburton (with all its oddities born of its history) does not create a precedent for other lines, especially lines which need a full signalling system because more than one train can be at the terminus at any one time. Talking about the 'convenience' of having it near the bridge seems to be an abrogation of one of the most basic safety principles.

[The Stationmaster]

Having now done a bit of research into the Ashburton branch Instructions it is very clear that it was an unusual situation being still worked in accordance with what had been South Devon Railway procedures plus some local differences which hardly make it an example to compare with anywhere else.

 

On a point of fact the 1938 SX Service TT shows the goods arriving at Ashburton while there was a passenger train already there - the latter having to stand at the platform. The passenger train subsequently departed and another arrived and departed before the goods left - thus creating an unusual situation where the goods would have been required to shunt while not in possession of the train staff, very much at odds with the standard Regulations. The Saturday working was slightly different but again teh goods arrived when there was already a passenger train at Ashburton.

 

The working had changed by 1947 when the SX goods crossed a passenger train at Buckfastleigh and then crossed (immediately before deaprture) an arriving passenger train at Ashburton. On Saturdays teh working was slightly different as a passenger train arrived and departed while the goods was at Ashburton and it crossed another passenger before departing.

 

It is immediately clear from these times that some unusual Instructions were in place as the train staff cannot have been at Ashburton while the goods shunted (which was normally required in the Regulations). This only adds to the point that Ashburton was a very long way from typical - in many ways - and that the working on the branch (and consequently the signalling) should not be used as an example in the application of basic principles.