Facing point locks on single line

[philsandy]

I did a seach on this but could not find exactly what I was after.

 

Would locks be used on all facing points,

On a single line branch would not every point at some stage be a facing point, so would they all need to be locked,  or would it be required only on points where actual passenger trains ran over?

Would they be needed on points where very slow speeds  would be used, ie. those on a station run round loop, goods/coal sidings etc?

 

My layout is a small single branch terminus BR(M) Manchester area 1959-60.

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.  

 

However a common exception in years gone long past was on the GWR where they were not fitted on the points of many run round release crossovers on branchlines - I suspect the logic of this was that the train would not start from a position which would involve a passenger vehicle running over the points but in practice at some places they did.  Renewals from the mid 1950s - if not earlier - usually saw FPLs provided on such points but examples of such points without FPLs could still be found into the 1960s.

[philsandy]

Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.  

 

However a common exception in years gone long past was on the GWR where they were not fitted on the points of many run round release crossovers on branchlines - I suspect the logic of this was that the train would not start from a position which would involve a passenger vehicle running over the points but in practice at some places they did.  Renewals from the mid 1950s - if not earlier - usually saw FPLs provided on such points but examples of such points without FPLs could still be found into the 1960s.

 

So locking would apply to passenger trains only?  and points in goods sidings would not require locking?

[bécasse]

I think it is true to say that The Stationmaster's comments apply generally and not just to former-GWR lines.

 

Apart from the buffer-stop end release crossovers that he mentioned, there were two other circumstances in which passenger traffic could be worked over points which didn't have FPLs (and which weren't clipped and padlocked):

 

1) on a line worked under Light Railway regulations where the MoT had approved the lack of FPLs (although most Light Railway lines carrying passenger traffic did in fact use FPLs),

 

2) where shunting moves, typically moving a through carriage from a branch train to a main line train), passed at slow speed over a facing point whose correct position was detected by an adjacent shunt signal showing "off".

 

Some railways, notably the Midland and the LB&SCR, made considerable use of so-called economical FPLs where the locking mechanism was incorporated within the point operating mechanism - and thus there was no separate FPL lever. All(?) power (electrical or pneumatic) operated point mechanisms incorporate FPLs, usually even if they are only ever used as trailing points.

 

FPLs cannot be worked if there is a vehicle in the immediate vicinity of the point and this is ensured either by a fouling bar (inside or outside the rail at the approach to or on the point blades) which has to be longer than the longest vehicle wheelbase or by track circuits. Fouling bars were once commonplace but are very rare these days.

[The Bigbee Line]

As Mike says it's normally the points that are facing for passengers.  See the picture below.  It is the facing point lock on what was the connection from the Appledore - New Romney Branck and the line to Dungeness (It now serves the Lydd CEGB railhead.)

 

 

The left route originally curved to the left towards New Romney.  When set for that route the point lock was in the locking slot and locked by a key in the ground frame.  When the points were set towards the right there was no slot to lock that route (not required as passenger movements did not run into the yard).

 

Railways were notoriously economic with such things.

Edited January 22, 2014 by The Bigbee Line

[bécasse]

So locking would apply to passenger trains only?  and points in goods sidings would not require locking?

 

Points on goods lines or in sidings wouldn't require locking. However, a few railways, notably the Great Northern, considered the provision of FPLs on goods running lines to be well worth their extra cost in view of the extra security they provided. I doubt whether anyone ever provided them in sidings.

[Godders]

As Mike says it's normally the points that are facing for passengers.  See the picture below.  It is the facing point lock on what was the connection from the Appledore - New Romney Branck and the line to Dungeness (It now serves the Lydd CEGB railhead.)

 

 

 

The left route originally curved to the left towards New Romney.  When set for that route the point lock was in the locking slot and locked by a key in the ground frame.  When the points were set towards the right there was no slot to lock that route (not required as passenger movements did not run into the yard).

 

Railways were notoriously economic with such things.

 

Hi Bigbee Line,

 

If the Stationmaster's statement is true and you have confirmed, Then that turnout is breaking the rules and your explanation cannot be right.

 

This is because; Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.  It doesn't say over the route the train passes.

 

Cheers Godders

[The Stationmaster]

It should be noted that FPLs were legally required on Light Railways but the use of economic locks (worked by the same lever as the point itself) was recommneded - if not actually followed as a practice.

 

Fouling bars were not used as part of  facing point locking system - that function was carried out by facing point locking bars which in most applications in turn drove the bolt (plunger) of the facing point lock in the stretcher bar.  The purpose of the locking bar was to physically prevent the FPL plunger from being moved when a train was passing over teh points and these bars had to be as long as the greatest distance between any two axles on train using that section of line - hence long (70ft) passenger vehicles) nemeant very long lock bars.  The usual position of the bar was in rear of the point toe but they could also be found through the point itself and in this latter position could also be seen on the outside of the running rail instead of the more usual position against the inside edge.  Lock(ing) bars have now been almost universally replaced by track circuits which achieve the locking function by means of an electric lock on the lever (in the signalbox lever frame) which operates the FPL..

 

Points in most sidings were worked by hand levers adjacent to the point itself and hence involved no sort of FPL - these were used all over the railway including goods & passenger yards, loco depots and so on.  The picture below, taken on an official Inst of railway Signal Engineers' visit - shows a rather unusual temporary arrangement on the South Devon Railway where a handpoint lever (of the one way type - by far the most common in post-war years ) is being used to operate a run-round release point pending completion of signalling work however the FPL casting and some of the final rodding is already in place.

 

The lower picture shows the facing point lock casting itself and in a similar manner to the one described above by Ernie it will, when commissioned. only lock the point in one direction (towards the platform line) and you can see where the port has been cut in the stretcher bar which is where the bolt or plunger of the lock will engage - this is what physically prevents the points from moving.  There is no locking bar  or track circuit in thsi instance as the points will ultimately be operated by a ground frame alongside them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RailWest]

Godders - The Bigbee Line was indeed correct in what he said. The point IS fitted with an FPL - it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route.

 

The "avoiding lines" at Taunton after the 1930s alteration were nominally Goods Lines - and signalled with the usual GWR ringed arms as such - but were fitted with FPLs on the facing points so that the lines could be pressed into service for passenger use for diversions, avoiding the need for clipping and padlocking etc.

 

I have come across instances also of FPLs on some points in sidings - the carriage sidings at Ilfracombe spring to mind. In such cases it tends to be only the points at their entrance or exit, not everywhere, and the rationale for this is unclear - perhaps the cost was deemed to outweigh the operational inconvenience in the event of accidental derailment while shunting?

 

Like most things in signalling, if you look closely enough you will find the odd exception - one well-known GWR location was Ashburton, which survived right until closure of passenger services in BR days without ever having had any FPLs, despite Down trains passing over two facing points.

[philsandy]

Many thanks for all your replies, informative and helpful.

[LNERGE]

Here's one installed by my fair hands.. The facing point lock goes in both ways but the 'staff' can only retrieved with the points normal.

[The Bigbee Line]

Here's one installed by my fair hands.. The facing point lock goes in both ways but the 'staff' can only retrieved with the points normal.

Thanks for a very nice picture.

 

Why is there a base for a hand lever on the opposite side from the rodding.  Do you have pictures of the rest of the arrangement?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Godders]

Hi Railwest,

Godders - The Bigbee Line was indeed correct in what he said. The point IS fitted with an FPL - it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route.

 

 

My argument is not that these situations don't exist, it is that they do not follow the rule as stated by The Stationmaster.

 

You can't have it both ways. If The Bigbee Line is correct then logically Mike's statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification", must be wrong. Unless there are other exceptions in the rules, which no one so far has quoted.

 

You say " it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route".  Is this true or your opinion? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

 

I find it difficult to believe that not providing a second slot in the bar gave any  cost savings as the rest of the mechanism would have to be non standard.

 

I feel uneasy that such a lax application of rules is allowed in an industry I believed had safety as a priority.

 

I look forward to some answers.

 

Cheers Godders

[RailWest]

Without wishing to get into an argument on pedantics (is that a valid verb?), I fail to see how Mike's comment is at all inconsistent.

 

"Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working...." Well, the line IS used by passenger trains and the point IS 'fitted' with a FPL. In the course of "normal working" any passenger train does NOT pass over the diverging route. Mike said nothing to the effect that the FPL had to be effective for BOTH positions of the point.

 

If you look back thru' various other threads on layout signalling,you will find many references to the FACT that - certainly on older installations - FPLs did not always lock a point for a non-passenger route. That is precisely why many locking charts often carried the annotation '1-hole stretcher' or similar. I am sure that Mike can quote some specific examples!

 

As to the reason - well, I would /suggest/ economy in installation and maintenance. Bolting for 1 route only requires less interlocking to be applied to the lever-frame and therefore less to maintain. Likewise, if you only cut 1 slot in the stretcher bar then there is only one to maintain and ensure that it does not get out of tolerance, not two. You may also have a saving on detection.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Railwest,

Godders - The Bigbee Line was indeed correct in what he said. The point IS fitted with an FPL - it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route.

 

 

My argument is not that these situations don't exist, it is that they do not follow the rule as stated by The Stationmaster.

 

You can't have it both ways. If The Bigbee Line is correct then logically Mike's statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification", must be wrong. Unless there are other exceptions in the rules, which no one so far has quoted.

 

You say " it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route".  Is this true or your opinion? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

 

I find it difficult to believe that not providing a second slot in the bar gave any  cost savings as the rest of the mechanism would have to be non standard.

 

I feel uneasy that such a lax application of rules is allowed in an industry I believed had safety as a priority.

 

I look forward to some answers.

 

Cheers Godders

I'm puzzled, very puzzled.  The situation is perfectly simple - if it is used by passenger trains (in the normal course of working etc) it requires an FPL - i.e the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt when a passenger train passes over it.  

 

If one route through the point is not used by a passenger train then there is no requirement to bolt the point when it is set for that route - end of story as far as the requirement goes (or to be precise 'went' as it is nowadays covered by different documentation).  You then arrive at a matter of 'practice' as opposed to one of 'requirement' and that varied from place to place and company to company and Region to Region over the years.  For example the Western Region adopted a principle of using FPLs on some goods lines and branches especially where heavy axleloads or bogie vehicles were used.  At crossing stations on single lines a point is only facing for trains in one direction so is not required to be bolted when set for the other - single port facing point stretcher bars are (were) not anything unusual and in fact can involve far simpler locking - particularly on a ground frame such as the one Ernie illustrated or the one I posted pics of (but not the frame itself).

 

Are we now sorted?

 

Edit to correct typo

Edited January 23, 2014 by The Stationmaster

[Godders]

I'm puzzled, very puzzled.  The situation is perfectly simple - if it is used by passenger trains (in the normal course of working etc) it requires an FPL - i.e the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt when a passenger train passes over it.  

 

If one route through the point is not used by a passenger train then there is no requirement to bolt the point when it is set for that route - end of story as far as the requirement goes (or to be precise 'went' as it is nowadays covered by different documentation).  You then arrive at a matter of 'practice' as opposed to one of 'requirement' and that varied from place to place and company to company and Region to Region over the years.  For example the Western Region adopted a principle of using FPLs on some goods lines and branches especially where heavy axleloads or bogie vehicles were used.  At crossing stations on single lines a point is only facing for trains in one direction so is not required to be bolted when set for the other - single port facing point stretcher bars are (were) not anything unusual and in fact can involve far simpler locking - particularly on a ground frame such as the one Ernie illustrated or the one I posted pics of (but not the frame itself).

 

Are we now sorted?

 

Edit to correct typo

Hi Mike,

I understand what is meant but it is not what you said and it is still not what you are saying.

 

if it is used by passenger trains (in the normal course of working etc) it requires an FPL is not equal to; the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt when a passenger train passes over it.  

 

I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written.

 

However, I am obviously being pedantic and don't wish to cause any ill feeling.

 

 

Cheers Godders

[RailWest]

Well, I like a good argument on semantics as much as the next man, but even I am struggling here to understand exactly where the perceived problem lies.

 

Godders says "I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written" - OK, fair enough.

 

If you look back to Mike's original post, then he wrote - and I quote verbatim:

 

"Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification."

 

The Bigbee Line then posts a picture of a point on a line which (used to) have a passenger service and that has a FPL.

 

I fail to see how that is in any way inconsistent with what Mike wrote originally, nor are any of his subsequent comments IMHO inconsistent either. The fact that FPLs may or may not be used on goods lines does not negate the requirement on passenger lines.

Edited January 23, 2014 by RailWest

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

if it is used by passenger trains (in the normal course of working etc) it requires an FPL is not equal to; the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt when a passenger train passes over it.  

 

I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written.

 

However, I am obviously being pedantic and don't wish to cause any ill feeling.

 

 

Cheers Godders

No ill feeling at all Godders but I'm really struggling to understand why you perceive 'requires an FPL' to not be equal to 'the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt ... etc' when both mean exactly the same thing although the second partially describes the mechanism of achieving it as well as the requirement.   An FPL is, as its name implies a lock and that means it must lock something to stop the point moving; the thing it locks on a mechanically worked point is the [front] stretcher bar, as illustrated in the several pics posted in this thread.

 

'Requires' means the same as 'must' - i.e it is manadatory.

[Godders]

Well, I like a good argument on semantics as much as the next man, but even I am struggling here to understand exactly where the perceived problem lies.

 

Godders says "I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written" - OK, fair enough.

 

If you look back to Mike's original post, then he wrote - and I quote verbatim:

 

"Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification."

 

The Bigbee Line then posts a picture of a point on a line which (used to) have a passenger service and that has a FPL.

 

I fail to see how that is in any way inconsistent with what Mike wrote originally, nor are any of his subsequent comments IMHO inconsistent either. The fact that FPLs may or may not be used on goods lines does not negate the requirement on passenger lines.

Hi Chris,

 

Let battle resume, The statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.", is all t matters.

 

My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory".

Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is  used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock".

 

I accept that this seems to be the premise that many of you are working to but where is it documented.

 

Cheers Godders

[The Bigbee Line]

Hi Chris,

 

Let battle resume, The statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.", is all t matters.

 

My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory".

Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is  used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock".

 

I accept that this seems to be the premise that many of you are working to but where is it documented.

 

Cheers Godders

I normally try and avoid such debates, however the statement "If a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory" prohibits such a movement over the unlocked route.  If such a move were required, the points would have been secured by other means.

 

The fact that the regulation was in existence for many years and such single route locking bars were in existence and these were passed by the regulatory powers that be, confirms that the statement and the fact were permitted.  Signalling arrangements were subject to the closest of scrutiny I can assure you.

[RailWest]

"My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory". Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock"."

 

In its simplest terms, the 'requirement' is that points must be secured for passenger movements in the facing direction. In practice, for ease of operation, this is usually achieved by use of a FPL. If passenger movements do not pass over one of the two routes from the point, then /ipso facto/ the rule only applies to the one route used by passenger movements, NOT both - if there are no passenger moves over the other route, then obviously the rule can not apply there. Consequently there is NO exception, as there no applicability of the rule for which an exception would be required - if you see what I mean :-)

 

[Please excuse the CAPITALS - I'm not shouting, it's just that for some reason I can never get the formatting to work :-( ]

[The Stationmaster]

The document (as it was for many years - it is now presented in a different document) read as follows in the area you are questioning read as follows -

 

'Facing points on passenger lines, and all points regularly used in the facing direction by passenger trains to have : -'

 

(as detailed in clause a,  relevant part only quoted below -)

 

'A bolt lock through a third stretcher bar ... '

 

So there you are - absolutely clear - 'points used in the facing direction by passenger trains'   And clearly in the example quoted by Ernie with the points lying one way they are used in the facing direction by passenger trains but they are not used in the facing direction by passenger trains if they are lying the other way.  

 

Now as Ernie has explained all such installations were subject to the closest of scrutiny and on the Western (where I at one time had the responsibility for such scrutiny) all drawings relating to FPLs or the lever working them were annotated to indicate how many holes/ports there were in the stretcher bar - particularly at ground frames and equally I would, in specifications, state whether or not an FPL was required for whatever movements.  In addition 'in the good old days' schemes were subject to approval by HMRI and as far as I am aware it was always the practice to indicate the number of holes in the stretcher bar and/or in respect of the lever working the FPL.

[Godders]

"My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory". Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock"."

 

In its simplest terms, the 'requirement' is that points must be secured for passenger movements in the facing direction. In practice, for ease of operation, this is usually achieved by use of a FPL. If passenger movements do not pass over one of the two routes from the point, then /ipso facto/ the rule only applies to the one route used by passenger movements, NOT both - if there are no passenger moves over the other route, then obviously the rule can not apply there. Consequently there is NO exception, as there no applicability of the rule for which an exception would be required - if you see what I mean :-)

 

[Please excuse the CAPITALS - I'm not shouting, it's just that for some reason I can never get the formatting to work :-( ]

 

It seems to be contrary to most railway signalling premises.

 

It would seem that normally precautions would be in place in case anything goes wrong.

 

For example "Flank protection" is used to provide secondary safety cover.

 

I would have thought that a FPL would have locked in both positions to provide locking just in case the route had been set wrongly by the signalman.

 

Cheers Godders

[RailWest]

"I would have thought that a FPL would have locked in both positions to provide locking just in case the route had been set wrongly by the signalman"

 

if the 'wrong' route was set, then the locking would prevent the 'right' signal being cleared anyway. If the choice was between a full-size running arm for the main route, and a ground signal for the divergence into the siding, then I would suggest that it is unlikely that any good driver (of a passenger train) would still go ahead regardless :-)

 

Admittedly if the point WAS bolted by the FPL anyway, it would mitigate in the event that the points also were not properly closed to the route, but then one would also expect the detection to have prevented the disc from clearing, so I would suggest that we are rather taking things to extremes.

[LNERGE]

Thanks for a very nice picture.

 

Why is there a base for a hand lever on the opposite side from the rodding.  Do you have pictures of the rest of the arrangement?

 

Thanks in advance.

The hand point lever is there as the customer wanted a different method of operation available in the event of failure. The fact that by the time you have located the correct rod, disconnected the backdrive, attached the replacement lug and adjusted it all to work you could have fixed any other problem seems a bit lost..