LNER Signals controlling movement from sidings to running lines

[The Stationmaster]

Resurrecting this interesting and informative topic with (if I may) a supplementary question about which I have been wondering for some time...

 

My understanding of shunting signals is that they indicate that they indicate that points are set for a given route and that a train may move along that route as long as it is clear, but thay they do not necessarily indicate that the track is clear. ie driver is to proceed with caution, be ready to stop etc. All well and good when setting back into a siding or puffing too and fro in a shunting yard. How does this work, though, where a disc indicates a route onto a main line; does the driver set off at a slow speed, half expecting to come across another train, or is there some special arrangement whereby a shunting signal onto a main line indicates that the line is clear?

 

Or have I got it totally wrong?

 

Thanks all,

 

G

The meaning of the signal, when off, is consistent and therefore the Driver should behave in exactly the same way whether it reads out onto a mainline in the right direction or through a  crossover for a setting back move or whatever,

 

It is one reason why running signals were often preferred (and are nowadays the norm in new work ) in locations where trains start away from a yard or siding etc onto a running line.

[kenw]

My understanding of shunting signals is that they indicate that they indicate that points are set for a given route and that a train may move along that route as long as it is clear, but thay they do not necessarily indicate that the track is clear. ie driver is to proceed with caution, be ready to stop etc. All well and good when setting back into a siding or puffing too and fro in a shunting yard. How does this work, though, where a disc indicates a route onto a main line; does the driver set off at a slow speed, half expecting to come across another train, or is there some special arrangement whereby a shunting signal onto a main line indicates that the line is clear?

 

You do understand correctly, a shunt signal only gives authority to move as far as the line is clear towards the next signal or buffer stops, and does not indicate if the line ahead's clear.

I'm not aware of any case where a special arrangement applies where one controls moves onto a running line. In any case, the driver would have to proceed at caution expecting the next signal may be at danger. It'd be rare, in modern signalling, for a shunt signal to control the exit onto running lines, a main running signal now normally being provided on the exit from sidings, and in traditional signalling, I'd expect there to be a main signal a short distance ahead on the running line to control onward movement.

[Grovenor]

Modern in this respect is relative of course, there were still plenty of shunt signals installed to control exit from sidings in the "modernisation plan" resignalling, not LNER of course but there are plenty on this example http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Keith

[Dave Scott]

I am happy to be corected by an expert that normally an exit from a siding would precede the section signal so the dummy would only give authority to move out of the siding and procede to the section signal or another stop signal if one was fitted.

[The Bigbee Line]

Modern in this respect is relative of course, there were still plenty of shunt signals installed to control exit from sidings in the "modernisation plan" resignalling, not LNER of course but there are plenty on this example http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Keith

Willsden, wow. Having spent time there in the 1990s it's a bit of a blast from the past. I have some paperwork from WEFOC and will scan and post. Entry from the south could be on a single yellow if the road was clear. You ran up to a fixed red with a two white light GPLS.

[The Stationmaster]

Modern in this respect is relative of course, there were still plenty of shunt signals installed to control exit from sidings in the "modernisation plan" resignalling, not LNER of course but there are plenty on this example http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Willesden-b.gif

Keith

It remained common in new work for much later than that - e.g. Westbury South Down Yard exit was done with a position light in 1978 although there might have been regional variations in practice.

Willsden, wow. Having spent time there in the 1990s it's a bit of a blast from the past. I have some paperwork from WEFOC and will scan nod post. Entry from the south could be on a single yellow if the road was clear. You ran up to a fixed red with a two white light GPLS.

That's rather good - regrettably a lot (I think most) of the WR 1960s schemes and some into the 1970s used position lights to read from running lines into reception lines as they read to a STOP board.

 

When I spec'd the layout and signalling for Hanwell Bridge loops and the revised Southall Yard arrangements in the late 1980s/early '90s I specified all routes in from the running lines were to run to fixed reds so that the signal for the entry move could show a running aspect instead of a position light bearing in mind the need to get trains clear of the Mains & Reliefs as quickly as possible due to the coming of the Heathrow electrics and increased line occupation.

[Loxborough]

Great information as always, thanks very much guys.

 

And now, if I may (and I hope this is not tunring into a hijack) I have just one more (I hope simple) supplementary, after which I will go away and build these signals... what colour lights did these things show? Green off/yellow on would seem logical, but one thing I have certainly learnt about signals since I started modelling them is not to make assumptions!

 

Many thanks (and apologies if this is considered a hijack)

 

George

[The Stationmaster]

Great information as always, thanks very much guys.

 

And now, if I may (and I hope this is not tunring into a hijack) I have just one more (I hope simple) supplementary, after which I will go away and build these signals... what colour lights did these things show? Green off/yellow on would seem logical, but one thing I have certainly learnt about signals since I started modelling them is not to make assumptions!

 

Many thanks (and apologies if this is considered a hijack)

 

George

Which sort of signals do you mean George - the ones like traffic lights (sorry if that comparison insults you) or the ones called 'position light signals' which show two lights horizontally at danger and two at 45 degrees when 'off'?

 

 

If it is the former type (a running signal, sometimes called 'main aspect signal') it will show red when on and either yellow or green, depending on the state of the next signal in advance when it is 'off'.  The indication given by position lights has changed slightly in fairly recent times so the period you are modelling might matter.

[Loxborough]

Sorry, lack of clarity. i was actually talking about the ground signals (either the version shown in Mick's excellent images above, or the GNR rotating head type). LNER practice late 1930s southern section of the ECML.I ask the question because I think I have worked out how to fit a loco lamp in the MSE rotating head type ground discs...

 

And I don't think it is possible to insult me when explaingin signalling stuff; keep it good and simple, please!!

 

Best,

 

G

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry, lack of clarity. i was actually talking about the ground signals (either the version shown in Mick's excellent images above, or the GNR rotating head type). LNER practice late 1930s southern section of the ECML.I ask the question because I think I have worked out how to fit a loco lamp in the MSE rotating head type ground discs...

 

And I don't think it is possible to insult me when explaingin signalling stuff; keep it good and simple, please!!

 

Best,

 

G

Ah, right - I'm not sure about the colouring on GNR rotating head type signals but by the 1930s yellow arm disc signals were appearing on the LNER so could potentially have been used.

[kenw]

?... what colour lights did these things show? Green off/yellow on would seem logical,

Can't be sure about the 1930's, but if it's the yellow shunt signals which have been discussed here you mean then yes these do show a yellow light when 'on',and the normal green for off, at least since the 70s anyway. The normal red ones of coarse show red for 'on'.

[Loxborough]

Can't be sure about the 1930's, but if it's the yellow shunt signals which have been discussed here you mean then yes these do show a yellow light when 'on',and the normal green for off, at least since the 70s anyway. The normal red ones of coarse show red for 'on'.

OK, thought that was probably it, but I have made the mistake before of going on assumptions, so thanks very much for confirming.

 

And thanks to everyone who has chipped in with answers... much appreciated.

 

Best,

 

George

[bécasse]

Yellow shunt signals (with yellow and green spectacle glass) began to be introduced by all four of the main line companies c1925/26. It is probable that none of the big four (nor BR) ever totally finished the task although photographic evidence suggests that important locations were changed quite quickly.

[micknich2003]

Can anyone please quote the date a "Yellow Disc" was first installed?

[bécasse]

Mick Nicholson wrote: "Can anyone please quote the date a "Yellow Disc" was first installed?"

 

I doubt whether an actual date has ever been recorded, even in the contemporary railway press, but, as I said in the previous post, it was c1925/26. Certainly photographic evidence proves that yellow shunt signals were in use by early 1926, whether disc or small arm, and their spread would have initially been quite rapid, especially as there was no change to the interlocking and it was merely a case of changing or repainting the signal itself and replacing the spectacle glass - enamelled discs would have been replaced rather than being repainted whereas arms are more likely to have been repainted.

 

There was a joint railways committee during the latter part of the Great War and subsequently which looked at the standardisation of signalling, and yellow shunt signals were just one of the changes that emerged as a result of the committee's deliberations.

 

When red shunt signals were first introduced in the 1870s they could be passed in the "on" position for all movements other than out on to a running road, and it was the proliferation of their use for purposes other than guarding access to a running line that caused the anomalous situation where they could sometimes be passed "on" and sometimes not.

[micknich2003]

The date etc, would have been in the "Weekly Signalling Notice", or what ever you wish to call it. Signals were not altered or renewed at will, the information was pre published.

[The Stationmaster]

Yellow shunt signals (with yellow and green spectacle glass) began to be introduced by all four of the main line companies c1925/26. It is probable that none of the big four (nor BR) ever totally finished the task although photographic evidence suggests that important locations were changed quite quickly.

Not correct alas - the GWR never used yellow arm shunting (disc) signals.  

 

They were introduced for installation 'in new work' on the Western Region from January 1950 but when the first were actually installed I don't know.  Some red disc shunting signals were converted to yellow in later years on the Region and this might possibly have been a campaign change although if it was it took a long time as both colours of yellow arm disc were around in later years.

[bécasse]

The Stationmaster is quite correct in saying that the GWR failed to implement the committee recommendation to introduce yellow shunt signals in situations where the signal could legitimately be passed in the "on" position. I was mislead by the memory of (BR-era installed) yellow shunt signals on the Western Region which I suspect were too numerous to have just been introduced for new works, and I failed to check my 1936 GWR GA. Another important committee recommendation that was almost totally ignored by the GWR was the switch from LQ to UQ running signals.

 

I am not sure that I agree with Mick Nicholson about Weekly Signalling Notices recording every change to signals, especially where changes were like-for-like and away from running lines (as yellow shunts substituted for red shunts were - there was NO change to either the meaning or position of the signal or the interlocking). Obviously there would have been an initial notice that the substitution was commencing (and would take "for ever") and the yellow shunts would, of course, have been shown as such on any new works notice. It may have been a case that some railways/districts were very rigorous about recording changes and others less so. I am not even convinced that signal box diagrams were always updated to show yellow rather than red shunts.

[The Stationmaster]

The Stationmaster is quite correct in saying that the GWR failed to implement the committee recommendation to introduce yellow shunt signals in situations where the signal could legitimately be passed in the "on" position. I was mislead by the memory of (BR-era installed) yellow shunt signals on the Western Region which I suspect were too numerous to have just been introduced for new works, and I failed to check my 1936 GWR GA. Another important committee recommendation that was almost totally ignored by the GWR was the switch from LQ to UQ running signals.

 

I am not sure that I agree with Mick Nicholson about Weekly Signalling Notices recording every change to signals, especially where changes were like-for-like and away from running lines (as yellow shunts substituted for red shunts were - there was NO change to either the meaning or position of the signal or the interlocking). Obviously there would have been an initial notice that the substitution was commencing (and would take "for ever") and the yellow shunts would, of course, have been shown as such on any new works notice. It may have been a case that some railways/districts were very rigorous about recording changes and others less so. I am not even convinced that signal box diagrams were always updated to show yellow rather than red shunts.

Which Committee are you referring to?  If it was the 1922 IRSE Committee (which did deal with and make recommendations regarding use of the upper quadrant) its report says nothing about the use of yellow in the 'on' position of shunting etc signals although it does mention yellow as proceed aspect in subsidiaries below 3 aspect colour light signals.  Was there some sort of subsidiary report or recommendations relating to shunting signals which wasn't included in the main report I wonder?

 

Although rather OT the matter of the GWR not adopting the upper quadrant for its semaphores was quite straightforward  - it continued to use the upper quadrant for its 3 position  signals thus continuing to make them readily distinguishable from its 2 position lower quadrant signals, simples.  Interestingly the Southern would appear to have retained lower quadrant 2 position signals on lines immediately adjacent to its 3 position upper quadrant signals until such time as it introduced colour light signalling to replace the 3 position semaphores.

 

While it might have been different elsewhere the GWR and Western Region seem to have been consistent in publishing in Notices any matters relating to signalling changes including renewals and - at least in GWR times - details of any changes to the colours shown by signals at night.

 

Incidentally the introduction of yellow arm discs on the WR  (which also included renewals and alterations - they were treated as 'new work by the CS&TE) was in accordance with Railway Executive Standard L5267/89.  While I can't find a copy of that standard it clearly doesn't appear to have applied to all shunting signals which could be passed in the 'on' position as 'white light discs' remained in use on the WR for many years subsequently and when replaced were superseded by red light discs.

[ColHut]

At the risk of another diversion, considering the use of shunting signals to control movements from running lines to sidings, It seems that very generally, where provided in the direction of normal running, miniature arms predominated. If I am right About this, was there a reason?

 

Also it seems that there were cases where even facing points into sidings were unprotected by a fixed signal, especially where there was only one stop signal present after the points, and many cases where singles lines have siding cross overs and siding entrances, especially within sight of the signal box, are not protected by shunting signals. Does this simply reflect low volumes of traffic and regular patterns of work under the watchful eye of the signalman?

[The Stationmaster]

At the risk of another diversion, considering the use of shunting signals to control movements from running lines to sidings, It seems that very generally, where provided in the direction of normal running, miniature arms predominated. If I am right About this, was there a reason?

 

Also it seems that there were cases where even facing points into sidings were unprotected by a fixed signal, especially where there was only one stop signal present after the points, and many cases where singles lines have siding cross overs and siding entrances, especially within sight of the signal box, are not protected by shunting signals. Does this simply reflect low volumes of traffic and regular patterns of work under the watchful eye of the signalman?

Cor, loads of things at once again - good stuff.

 

I'm not entirely sure about 'miniature arms predominating' - there were changes in Company practice over the years and some were keener than others to use a semaphore (with miniature arm usually) but I think it's generally fair to say that most wayside goods yards and sidings had ground, or sometimes elevated, shunting signals.  Where miniature or reduced size arms seemed to be the norm was at busy locations where lots of trains or movements were made onto running lines and at things like refuge sidings and goods loops where trains would also be starting away on a running movement.

 

Facing points would normally be protected by a fixed placed fairly close to them in order to afford the protection of the interlocking - in fact such a signal could be no further from the point to than the length of the longest locking although it could be further where track circuits were used.  But don't forget, particularly on single lines, such points were often operated by a local (to the points) ground frame so no fixed signal would be required in the immediate vicinity.

[ColHut]

Hmm thanks for that, enlightening as usual.  It really is time you published that book  

 

I read on one web page - maybe relating to an "O" gauge society - (I cannot find the link now), that suggested miniature arms were prefered for signalling trains from sidings to runnings lines where the track joins in advance of the starter, and ground signals where in rear of the starter.  Is there any truth in this?

 

regards

[The Stationmaster]

Hmm thanks for that, enlightening as usual.  It really is time you published that book

 

I read on one web page - maybe relating to an "O" gauge society - (I cannot find the link now), that suggested miniature arms were prefered for signalling trains from sidings to runnings lines where the track joins in advance of the starter, and ground signals where in rear of the starter.  Is there any truth in this?

 

regards

None whatsoever as far as I know - plenty of examples all over the country where ground discs read out onto running lines, including single lines, where there was no Section Signal in advance of them.  As I said before on some Companies/BR Regions miniature arms were used where train movements from sidings etc were involved and in many cases there was no Section Signal in advance of them so I can understand why such a view would emerge.

[Dave Scott]

Cor, loads of things at once again - good stuff.

 

I'm not entirely sure about 'miniature arms predominating' - there were changes in Company practice over the years and some were keener than others to use a semaphore (with miniature arm usually) but I think it's generally fair to say that most wayside goods yards and sidings had ground, or sometimes elevated, shunting signals.  Where miniature or reduced size arms seemed to be the norm was at busy locations where lots of trains or movements were made onto running lines and at things like refuge sidings and goods loops where trains would also be starting away on a running movement.

 

Facing points would normally be protected by a fixed placed fairly close to them in order to afford the protection of the interlocking - in fact such a signal could be no further from the point to than the length of the longest locking although it could be further where track circuits were used.  But don't forget, particularly on single lines, such points were often operated by a local (to the points) ground frame so no fixed signal would be required in the immediate vicinity.

I have a question re the comment you make re fixed signals. I am referring to SVR because thats where I know best. There are 5 places, Arley, Bewdley and Kidderminster where the fixed signals allow routes to be set over more than one facing point. At the second facing point there is a running dummy with associated local proving slides (the proper name escapes me). Is this common practice, peculiar to GW or just SVR

[ColHut]

None whatsoever as far as I know - plenty of examples all over the country where ground discs read out onto running lines, including single lines, where there was no Section Signal in advance of them.  As I said before on some Companies/BR Regions miniature arms were used where train movements from sidings etc were involved and in many cases there was no Section Signal in advance of them so I can understand why such a view would emerge.

So would such signals be regarded as starting signals then?

 

Regards