Signalling for Braeintra - Interlocking

[Rick_Skateboard]

Hello All.

 

I'm getting to the point where I might be able to start building a 'proper' layout in the not too distant future and although I'm not ready to start construction yet, I have a plan in mind and want to develop it. One thing I'm interested in is having proper signalling on the layout.  Braeintra isn't necessarily going to be the final name. 

 

The station is supposed to be a fictional passing loop on the line between Dingwall and Kyle of Lochalsh, where trains divide or turn back to go down a fictional branch line, possibly to Ullapool.  I guess this operation will be similar to what went on at Georgemas Junction.  The junction wont be part of the station layout, but will be a short distance back along the line towards Dingwall, operated by another box.  I was thinking the short distance between the two boxes could be track circuit block, although the lines heading away from the area will be electric token block, and the Distant signals be slotted on the Home of the other box.  The station is signalled for trains to pass through, cross, or for arrivals to be split or combined coming to and from the fictional branch.  Any train that will depart eastwards will have to do so from platform 1 because there is no FPL on the points into the goods yard, so that line is signalled for wrong direction arrivals and departures and with sub arms to allow entry to the occupied platform.  I know the Highland Railway signalled a lot of its loops with a box at both end, but I wanted everything to be controlled from one frame on the layout.  Perhaps this could be some sort of LMS resignalling?  There will be a 'new' fuel depot at the west end of the station which will be accessed by a ground frame released from the signal box.  I wasn't sure if this should be inside an outer home with a limit of shunt board or if it should be accessed when the token is withdrawn for the section ahead for the duration of the shunt.

 

 

Apologies for the poor quality photo, It's a camera phone shot of the pencil drawing I did.  I must try to get it scanned properly.  The track layout is pretty much finalised, but the signals I've drawn are just my first attempt and I suspect there will be many errors.  Any feedback would be appreciated.  Nothing is set in stone and as I said I'd like to develop the plan.

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

Edited January 12, 2021 by Rick_Skateboard

[HAB]

Rick,

 

Looking good! - always glad to to see people wanting to signal properly (whatever that might be:-))

 

Just a couple of quick thoughts:-

 

 

Can you just go through the need for 19 not sure why it is needed  - c/os were pretty rare on similar prototypes - and with loco hauled train splitting and joining needs some interesting shunting - presumably 8 allows the tailing end of a branch train to be shunted on the back of an arrival from Kyle?

 

- Interesting idea to split / join trains but it does imply some long loops - as you say, this would imply two boxes - the LMS did not do too much investing anywhere!

- I think that shunt signal 11 is "wrong" - you can't have a shunt signal giving permission to enter a single line (passing the section signal).  You could use a Shunt Ahead (which I presume 12 to be).  But a simpler arrangement would be to have an Advance Starter in place of the Limit of Shunt and then just use the Starters for shunt movements.

 

Small trivia - I see you have TCB to Ullapool yet you have a mechanical distant under 4 and a mechanical section signal over 24 - for TCB  automatic signals would be more typical - it would be a bit pointless to T/C a whole single line block section yet to have mechanical signals at both ends.  Not sure that TCB was ever that common on single lines unless there were some kind of CTC.  Would RETB (boring!) not be more usual?

 

Hope that helps as a starter(!) and looking forward to all the expert replys!

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Howard

Edited August 4, 2013 by HAB

[Rick_Skateboard]

Howard,

 

Thanks for the reply,

 

Signal 19 was to allow a loco to enter platform 1 when it is occupied, to couple onto a train that has been split.  The idea being that a train from Inverness arrives into platform 1 and the loco that has brought it that far continues to Kyle of Lochalsh with half of the train, while another loco that has been stabled waits in platform 2 then moves onto the remaining half of the train in platform 1, before departing for Ullapool.  You are right about 8.  I just guessed a signal would be needed at both ends of the platform 1 loop to allow entry to that occupied line.

 

I’m hoping to have a loop that will take a 7 coach train and a loco inside the signals, or in the case of a train that will be split, two 3 coach trains and 2 locos.  In reality the loop would probably be much longer.  I see what you mean about the Advance Starter, I guessed the west end of the diagram would need changing.  I wasn’t quite sure of the function of the Limit of Shunt board in these situations and whether 11 could allow you past the section signal up to the Limit of Shunt or not.  If there was an Advance Starter, would 11 and 12 both be redundant and shunt moves be made from the main arms?  I guess the section signal would be interlocked to the token machine?  Does that arrangement mean there needs to be an Outer Home and Advance Starter at both ends of the diagram?

 

The TCB was meant to be just as far as the next box (not far away), which is the junction for Ullapool.  That would do away with the need for another, very short, token section. Perhaps it would be easier/more realistic to just have that as another token section.  The example I was thinking of was Bewdley, where the section to Kidderminster is TCB and the section to Arley is tokens.  As for RETB, I could save myself a lot of work but just putting a couple of stop boards in, but that would be a bit boring!  The period I’m planning to model is just before RETB was implemented, with a bit of date stretching…

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

[HAB]

Hi Rick,

 

Signal 19 makes sense in that context. but it does imply the need for an advanced starter at that end  at that end as you suggest.  I concur about 11 and 12 and the Advanced would indeed be the section signal - locked with the token.

 

I am not sure about the outer homes - if they were 440 yards beyond the Advanced starter would that allow the acceptance of a train even if a shunt move were in progress?  I think not - but those more familiar with single lines will express a view!  On another forum there was lengthy discussion about the simultaneous acceptance of trains on single lines where traps were not provided at the ends of loops.

 

I was thinking about why the TCB sounded "wrong" yet I also understand what you say about a short token section - then it struck me - surely if the junction were "close" then that section twixt station and junction would be double track? Single line junctions without loops were pretty rare after all. you would then just need a crossover and two dummies at that end.   That would certainly solve a lot of issues!

 

hope that helps,

 

Cheers.

[Rick_Skateboard]

Howard,

 

I see what you mean about double track up to the junction, but for my model I do want it to be single track at both ends of the loop.  I had Machynlleth in mind as a station on a single track line, where trains split and combine to go to a junction not far away (Dovey Junction).  

 

 

I have re drawn the signalling diagram for Braeintra to have added Advance Starters at both ends, that has also involved a bit of renumbering.  I was also thinking of having a road over bridge at one end to provide the scenic break to go into the fiddle yard and I wondered if there would have been a Banner Repeater provided if the bridge obscured the view of the signals?  Thanks for your input so far, please give me your opinion of this draft!

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

[HAB]

 I wondered if there would have been a Banner Repeater provided if the bridge obscured the view of the signals?  Thanks for your input so far, please give me your opinion of this draft!

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

 

Hi Rick - getting there - will look in a bit more detail when I have a mo.

 

I would have thought banners very unlikely in such a rural environment - the usual solution would have been to provide tall posts to allow sighting over the bridge, possibly with co-acting arms lower down the post for short range sighting.

 

Cheers,

[RailWest]

"if the [Outer Homes] were 440 yards beyond the Advanced Starter would that allow the acceptance of a train even if a shunt move were in progress?"

 

Yes, but...they must be 440 yards beyond the AS, not just from the Outer Home. However, I would suggest IMHO this type of arrangement has more in common with today's heritage railways than pre-BR.

 

 

"On another forum there was lengthy discussion about the simultaneous acceptance of trains on single lines where traps were not provided at the ends of loops."

 

A different issue - simultaneous acceptance is OK, the traps are needed to allow simultaneous entry into the loops.

Edited August 9, 2013 by RailWest

[The Stationmaster]

"if the [Outer Homes] were 440 yards beyond the Advanced Starter would that allow the acceptance of a train even if a shunt move were in progress?"

 

Yes, but...they must be 440 yards beyond the AS, not just from the Outer Home. However, I would suggest IMHO this type of arrangement has more in common with today's heritage railways than pre-BR.

 

 

"On another forum there was lengthy discussion about the simultaneous acceptance of trains on single lines where traps were not provided at the ends of loops."

 

A different issue - simultaneous acceptance is OK, the traps are needed to allow simultaneous entry into the loops.

Yes, I'm afraid it is all now beginning to look somewhat oversignalled for the era being portrayed and certainly so for the north of Scotland where very little happened to the signalling, renewals apart, for many years.

 

You don't need Advanced Starting Signals to allow shunting into the single line section (although some folk maintain that they are necessary if you are shunting into a section from both ends at the same time) and Outer Home Signals on single lines tend as Chris has said to be very much the thing on 'heritage' lines although there was a bit of it about on new works in the 1960s.  Don't forget that the Far North lines were fairly sparsely trafficked and hence didn't need all sorts of additional signals for shunting or acceptance purposes.

 

In the meanwhile I will refrain from drawing up a list of the places where ground shunting discs were used to signal shunting movements into single line sections as it would probably be quicker to list places where they weren't used for that purpose  Not really on for signalling train movements - although it sometimes happened - but definitely perfectly ok for shunting moves (and even being installed for such well into the 1960s and probably later).

Edited August 9, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[HAB]

Hello again Rick,

 

Told you the experts would be here soon    

 

Hello Chris, Mike - fully agree with and support everything you say here - but just to remember that Rick's original brief was that it SHOULD be quite densely trafficked, with quite a specific - if un-protoypical-for-the-North-of-Scotland - list of movements!

 

Chris - would simultaneous acceptance without outer homes still be acceptable even if - as in Rick's case - the two home signals are less than 440 yards apart - ie, one home is within the clearing point of the other? That was my only reason for suggesting what I did.

 

 

Cheers,

[The Stationmaster]

Hello again Rick,

 

Told you the experts would be here soon    

 

Hello Chris, Mike - fully agree with and support everything you say here - but just to remember that Rick's original brief was that it SHOULD be quite densely trafficked, with quite a specific - if un-protoypical-for-the-North-of-Scotland - list of movements!

 

Chris - would simultaneous acceptance without outer homes still be acceptable even if - as in Rick's case - the two home signals are less than 440 yards apart - ie, one home is within the clearing point of the other? That was my only reason for suggesting what I did.

 

 

Cheers,

Howard ,

 

You only create a revised Clearing Point on a single line if the Outer Home Signal (as some Railways/Regions called it) is 440 yards in rear of the Home Signal.  There might occasionally be a special exemption given for a signal which is closer in although I would consider that unlikely as the whole point is to achieve the quarter mile and if you are going to provide the signal you might just as well put it in the right place.

 

However we do need to consider what you would actually achieve by providing an Outer Home Signal and the answer in most cases is likely to be 'not much' because it doesn't actually give you any advantages.  It's no use for allowing acceptances while shunting is taking place because it is necessary to put on a 3-3 Block Back if a shunt is made outside the Home Signal (which means you've lost the Clearing Point so therefore can't accept a train) but such a signal is useful for acceptance at junctions where trains are likely to be accepted from conflicting routes at the same time.

 

Normal single line crossing place acceptances (where there is no Outermost Home Signal) do not require a 440 yard Clearing Point and - as far as I can trace back - never have.  they simply require the line to be clear, and all points set (in older versions of the Regulations), to the Starting Signal on the appropriate loop.  Thus on the OP's original sketch trains may be accepted from both directions at the same time but unless there is a trap point in advance of the starting signal protecting the connection to the single line the trains have to be brough to a stand at the Home Signal and the second is not allowed into its loop until the first has come to a stand in its own loop.  Hence the reason why nobody ever spent vast sums of money providing Outer Home Signals at single line crossing loops - they would have been a waste of that money.

[Rick_Skateboard]

Thanks guys, all interesting stuff. 

 

In terms of the station being oversignalled, it may well be.  I don’t want it to look like a massive mainline with a forest of signals, but I want it to be interesting to operate.  I also want it to be realistic, but I’m prepared to do some stretching of reality.  Obviously the lines North of Inverness were quite quiet in reality, but that would make for a pretty boring model railway.  I’m thinking a few passenger trains in each direction, some of which will split/combine, a fuel train and maybe an engineers or general freight train.

 

My understanding of the acceptance of trains into passing loops with no trap points was as Mike says.  Trains both brought to a stand at the Homes and then accepted into the loop one at a time.  If the Outer Homes and the Advance Starters are not needed, does my original drawing work for the most part?  Ignoring the TCB and signals controlled from another box going East. 

 

If the section signals are at the end of the plaforms and the shunt signals can allow movements past them, into the section, is that where the Limit of Shunt boards come in?  If the ground frame is released by the signalman from the box, does that mean the token would have to be withdrawn, or can that move still be done inside the Limit of Shunt?

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks guys, all interesting stuff. 

 

In terms of the station being oversignalled, it may well be.  I don’t want it to look like a massive mainline with a forest of signals, but I want it to be interesting to operate.  I also want it to be realistic, but I’m prepared to do some stretching of reality.  Obviously the lines North of Inverness were quite quiet in reality, but that would make for a pretty boring model railway.  I’m thinking a few passenger trains in each direction, some of which will split/combine, a fuel train and maybe an engineers or general freight train.

 

My understanding of the acceptance of trains into passing loops with no trap points was as Mike says.  Trains both brought to a stand at the Homes and then accepted into the loop one at a time.  If the Outer Homes and the Advance Starters are not needed, does my original drawing work for the most part?  Ignoring the TCB and signals controlled from another box going East. 

 

If the section signals are at the end of the plaforms and the shunt signals can allow movements past them, into the section, is that where the Limit of Shunt boards come in?  If the ground frame is released by the signalman from the box, does that mean the token would have to be withdrawn, or can that move still be done inside the Limit of Shunt?

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

Rick I would go with your original plan with one or two minor amendments as it seems to cater for what you want.  The changes need are as follows _

1. Remove the Limit of Shunt sign - you cannot have LoS boards facing trains running in the right direction - their purpose is to act as a limiting point market for movements back into a block/signal section in the wrong direction.  A shunt on a single line simply goes as far as is necessary in order to clear the connections the shunt is being made over although some Companies/BR Regions liked to have Advanced Starting Signals to provide a positive stopping point.

 

2.  You could getaway with a single ground disc at Signal No.3 although, again, practice varied - find some pics of the line/area you intend to model for guidance on that. 

 

3. I can't see much point in having shunt/subsidiary signals at signals 20 & 21 however if there were regular shunting moves made at that end they would have been provided - if you are looking at ScR practice I would suggest miniature subsidiary arms in both cases on these signals.

 

4. The fuel siding and yard require trap points.

 

And that's it

[HAB]

.....  It's no use for allowing acceptances while shunting is taking place because it is necessary to put on a 3-3 Block Back if a shunt is made outside the Home Signal (which means you've lost the Clearing Point so therefore can't accept a train) but such a signal is useful for acceptance at junctions where trains are likely to be accepted from conflicting routes at the same time.

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

Many thanks for the clarification.  Just one further clarification for my benefit please - is a 3-3 necessary for blocking back outside a home signal even where an outer home is provided (not in regard to this discussion but speaking generally).

 

Cheers,

[RailWest]

Mike no doubt will correct me if I'm wrong <g>, but normally 3-3 is for blocking back outside the *outermost* Home signal, ie the first 'Home' that an approaching train reaches.

 

Interesting thought though - if you occupy the space between the Outer and Inner Homes with a shunt move, then on a double-track line you have to send 2-4 (Blocking Back Inside Home signal). But on single lines this does not seem to apply. Also, the preamble to Regulation 7 for EKT working says that, for the purpose of the Reg, "where an additional home signal is provided, the second home signal is to be regarded as the home signal". Now, in LMS parlance, is not the "second home" the second one that you come to, ie the INNER one????

[Rick_Skateboard]

Rick I would go with your original plan with one or two minor amendments as it seems to cater for what you want.  The changes need are as follows _

1. Remove the Limit of Shunt sign - you cannot have LoS boards facing trains running in the right direction - their purpose is to act as a limiting point market for movements back into a block/signal section in the wrong direction.  A shunt on a single line simply goes as far as is necessary in order to clear the connections the shunt is being made over although some Companies/BR Regions liked to have Advanced Starting Signals to provide a positive stopping point.

 

2.  You could getaway with a single ground disc at Signal No.3 although, again, practice varied - find some pics of the line/area you intend to model for guidance on that. 

 

3. I can't see much point in having shunt/subsidiary signals at signals 20 & 21 however if there were regular shunting moves made at that end they would have been provided - if you are looking at ScR practice I would suggest miniature subsidiary arms in both cases on these signals.

 

4. The fuel siding and yard require trap points.

 

And that's it

 

Thanks Mike.  There are fairly regular moves past No.20 and 21, locos running round trains in the loop and moving forward to the fuel sidings.  I'm sure you're right about the discs at No.3, but I quite like the idea of having stacked discs.  I was thinking the yard exit shunt signal at No.14 could be a McKenzie & Holland revolving disc like the one pictured here, but not on a post http://www.signalbox.org/gallery/sc/rosestreet.php. 

Here's the latest draft!

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

[The Stationmaster]

Mike no doubt will correct me if I'm wrong <g>, but normally 3-3 is for blocking back outside the *outermost* Home signal, ie the first 'Home' that an approaching train reaches.

 

Interesting thought though - if you occupy the space between the Outer and Inner Homes with a shunt move, then on a double-track line you have to send 2-4 (Blocking Back Inside Home signal). But on single lines this does not seem to apply. Also, the preamble to Regulation 7 for EKT working says that, for the purpose of the Reg, "where an additional home signal is provided, the second home signal is to be regarded as the home signal". Now, in LMS parlance, is not the "second home" the second one that you come to, ie the INNER one????

You need to think of it not so much in terms of signals but in terms of the single line.  It is the single line which is being fouled for shunting - not what you would necessarily think of in terms of block working as a Clearing Point created by the addition of an additional Home Signal.  So almost invariably if there is an additional Home Signal for acceptance purposes the single line usually ends at the second stop signal, at the toe of the loop points or the fouling point of a junction etc.

 

Note the (1960) Regulation refers to 'the second home signal' and not 'the outermost home signal' and the latter is the normal term used for a signal which has been provided for acceptance purposes. Interestingly the GWR Regulations refer solely to 'the Home Signal' which would, of cpurse, be the name of a signal provided for acceptance purposes under GWR signal convention.

 

As far as the GWR is concerned the 2-4 block back on single lines was dispensed with a very long time ago (without checking date in the the Minute Books I think it was pre WWI) and when you think about it does make a degree of sense as the shunting move is onto the single line and in the vast majority of cases the Home Signal was at the toe of the crossing loop points so invariably a shunt would be an 'outside' block back.  What other Companies did that far back I'm afraid I don't know - some might well have used a 2-4 (inside block back).

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Mike.  There are fairly regular moves past No.20 and 21, locos running round trains in the loop and moving forward to the fuel sidings.  I'm sure you're right about the discs at No.3, but I quite like the idea of having stacked discs.  I was thinking the yard exit shunt signal at No.14 could be a McKenzie & Holland revolving disc like the one pictured here, but not on a post http://www.signalbox.org/gallery/sc/rosestreet.php. 

IMAG3098_1.jpg

Here's the latest draft!

 

Cheers,

 

Rick

I like that - much simpler.  and yes -  McH revolving disc would be perfectly ok albeit a late survivor

[HAB]

Useful discussion - thanks to all and especially Rick for originating it.

 

Cheers,

[Rick_Skateboard]

Thanks Howard, and everyone else, it has been a very interesting discussion.  With the signalling layout agreed I have now started an interlocking chart.  I've been going through my green booklet on the principles of interlocking and I understand some of it, but other sections will take a few more re-reads!  It is nowhere near finished yet, only just started, but if anyone wants to give an opinion on it I would be grateful as I'm not sure if I've grasped the theory or not.  I've also done a list of lever identification plates.  Eventually I'd like to have a properly locked miniature lever frame to operate the layout with.

 

 

1.         Up Distant

2.         Up Home

3.         Up Starter

4.         Ground Frame Release

5.         Spare

6.         Up Line to Down Loop

7.         Up Loop Calling On

8.         FPL on Down End Loop Points

9.         Down End Loop Points

10.       Down Loop to Down Line Shunt Ahead

11.       Up Loop to Down Line Shunt Ahead

12.       Up Line to Yard

13.       Yard Points

14.       Yard Exit

15.       Down Loop to Up Line

16.       FPL on Up End Loop Points

17.       Up End Loop Points

18.       Down Line to Up Loop Calling On

19.       Spare

20.       Down Starter

21.       Up Loop Down Starter

22.       Down Home

23.       Down Home for Up Loop

24.       Down Distant

 

All comments welcome, as usual.

 

Rick

 

Edited August 11, 2013 by Rick_Skateboard

[RailWest]

With the Advanced Starting signals abolished, and the GF in rear of the Home, should it not now be released by the token for the section rather than from the SB?

[bécasse]

I am not sure that the procedure for crossing trains has been spelt out correctly. My experience was with Southern Region situations and Scottish practice may have been different, but the normal arrangements that I observed were:

 

Both home signals maintained "on".

 

First train to arrive comes to stand at its home signal and whistles 1-short to confirm to signalman that it is safely at a stand.

 

Second train to arrive is checked by its home signal but, if the signalman can see that it is well under control (and provided that the first train is already at a stand), not necessarily actually stopped, the home being cleared as the train approaches to allow admission to the loop. If the second train is brought to a stand, it too whistles to confirm that fact (and to remind signalman of its presence).

 

Once the second train is at a stand in the loop, the other home signal is cleared and the first train enters its side of the loop.

 

The advantage of this sequence is that it is marginally quicker but no less safe than admitting the trains to the loops in the order of their initial arrival. I can think of locations where the working was so slick that the signalman, having collected and returned the staff/tablet from the first train, had it reissued it sufficiently quickly as to be able to exchange with the second train as the loco passed the box.

 

There may well have been stations where local circumstances, the prevailing gradient, access to the platforms being by foot crossing, or restricted visibility, for example, resulted in local instructions being issued that trains from one direction should always be admitted first. The sequence may also have been varied if one of the crossing trains wasn't a passenger train.

 

Of course, if one train was running sufficiently late as to not yet be in section, the other train would just be checked and then allowed into the loop and the late-running train would then be able to run straight in without being checked.

Edited January 12, 2014 by bécasse

[RailWest]

Assuming a 'basic' passing-loop (ie no trap points at the loop eixts or similar) so that the opposing Homes locked each other to prevent simultaneous admission, beyond that which train was admitted first would - I suggest - be down to local preferences and operating considerations (eg gradients, location of signal-box etc etc). So I see no reason *in principle* why, if the first train to arrive is 'checked' at the Home, it could not be admitted without having to come to a stand.

[The Stationmaster]

Assuming a 'basic' passing-loop (ie no trap points at the loop eixts or similar) so that the opposing Homes locked each other to prevent simultaneous admission, beyond that which train was admitted first would - I suggest - be down to local preferences and operating considerations (eg gradients, location of signal-box etc etc). So I see no reason *in principle* why, if the first train to arrive is 'checked' at the Home, it could not be admitted without having to come to a stand.

 

The Block Regulations (including the Southern Railway's version and that Region's 1960 and 1972 versions) have long been quite specific that when trains have to cross each other on a line worked by Electric Token etc the first train to be admitted to its loop must be brought to a stand at the Home Signal before that signal is cleared to allow the train into its loop.  In respect of admitting the train forward into its loop it doesn't matter whether it is the first or second train to arrive at its respective Home Signal - it has to be brought to a stand at that signal (unless the signalbox Special Instructions modify the standard Regulation).  And of course the Home Signal for the other train must not be cleared until the first has come to a stand in its loop.

 

The reason for doing it this way is quite simple - having brought the train to a stand it is considered to be less likely to overrun the loop Starting Signal and collide with the train waiting at the other Home Signal.  But as you say the matter of which train would be the first to be admitted to the loop would be decided by all sorts of factors - from the timetable itself onwards - the key element is to maintain some sort of safety in the absence of a standard Clearing Point, hence halting that train at the Home Signal.

[bécasse]

The Block Regulations (including the Southern Railway's version and that Region's 1960 and 1972 versions) have long been quite specific that when trains have to cross each other on a line worked by Electric Token etc the first train to be admitted to its loop must be brought to a stand at the Home Signal before that signal is cleared to allow the train into its loop.  

 

I quite agree that that is what the Block Regulations stated but it wasn't what I regularly observed where the second train to arrive (and the first to be admitted to the loop) was checked almost to a stand but not quite before the home was cleared. I observed it on single track lines on the South Eastern and Central Divisions and on the Isle of Wight, which leads me to believe that it was normal Southern practice - it was so widespread that it must have been known to DIs and Station Masters and would have been stopped if it didn't have the sanction of "Nelson", at least.

 

It was a typical example, then common*, of applying the spirit of the regulation rather than the absolute letter providing that safety wasn't compromised in any way. It is noteworthy that Rule 39 in the Rule Book, which could be considered as the double track equivalent, specifically mentioned "brought quite or nearly to a stand" and I don't doubt that this was the origin of the similar practice at loops on single track lines, the words "quite or nearly" being considered as implied.

 

I can only remember this happening with steam trains, but I think that my trips with more modern traction over single track lines would have been limited to one trip on a 2H "over the Alps" and one trip on a 3D over the Cuckoo line, and I probably just didn't notice what happened.

 

* And if anyone familiar with today's "tick box" approach to "safe working" doesn't believe me, just remember that the railway unions regularly used "working to rule" as a form of industrial action which crippled railway operation but didn't hit their members' pay packets in any significant way.

[The Stationmaster]

I quite agree that that is what the Block Regulations stated but it wasn't what I regularly observed where the second train to arrive (and the first to be admitted to the loop) was checked almost to a stand but not quite before the home was cleared. I observed it on single track lines on the South Eastern and Central Divisions and on the Isle of Wight, which leads me to believe that it was normal Southern practice - it was so widespread that it must have been known to DIs and Station Masters and would have been stopped if it didn't have the sanction of "Nelson", at least.

 

It was a typical example, then common*, of applying the spirit of the regulation rather than the absolute letter providing that safety wasn't compromised in any way. It is noteworthy that Rule 39 in the Rule Book, which could be considered as the double track equivalent, specifically mentioned "brought quite or nearly to a stand" and I don't doubt that this was the origin of the similar practice at loops on single track lines, the words "quite or nearly" being considered as implied.

 

I can only remember this happening with steam trains, but I think that my trips with more modern traction over single track lines would have been limited to one trip on a 2H "over the Alps" and one trip on a 3D over the Cuckoo line, and I probably just didn't notice what happened.

 

* And if anyone familiar with today's "tick box" approach to "safe working" doesn't believe me, just remember that the railway unions regularly used "working to rule" as a form of industrial action which crippled railway operation but didn't hit their members' pay packets in any significant way.

 

Although we might be veering away from the point the whole point of the method at single line crossing stations is to avoid the possible risk which applying Rule 39 (pulling off when the train can be seen to be preparing to stop at the signal) because there is not a full 440 yd Clearing point.

 

Some parts of the Southern might well have done it but others didn't and I never saw it done on the Western from either outside the fence or inside it.  If I'd seen any of my Signalmen doing it there would have been trouble for them and generally our Inspectorate on the Western was equally hot on it for very sound reasons as our Chief at Cardiff regularly used to point out.