Ground signals

[David Siddall]

This has probably been asked before, albeit in a different way, but is there a simple answer to the question: '...would a modest BR(W) branch-line terminus (...of say a Hemyock, or Fairford size and rural location) be equipped with ground signals and if so how would they be deployed?

 

I'm sitting looking at a quite exquisite set of Scale Signal Supply 7mm scale castings and not only hoping I can incorporate them into my layout plan but have them operational too. Simple explanations (for the hard-of-understanding) would be appreciated.

[Guest dilbert]

The simple answer (and probably the one you are looking for) is a resounding 'Yes'.

 

There's a photo of the Fairford branch in Stephen William's Great Western Branch Line Modelling (Part I) - the photo depicting the siding between the platform and the goods shed (looking at the down line). Several station layouts (also in the same tome) depict similar usage of ground signals - linking the mainline to sidings (& siding fans)... dilbert

[David C]

I'm very ignorant on signalling, but Stephen Williams' "Great Western Branch Line Modelling vol. 1" gives a lot of info - including track diagrams with locations of signals. Of those illustrated, Aberayron has 2 ground signals, one to signal a loco from the end of the platform onto the run round loop and another to control exit from the run round loop. Newcastle Emlyn has 4, 2 as above, the 3rd to signal locos into the run round loop at the other end, whilst the 4th allows engines to exit the cattle dock and goods sidings at the rear of the platform. Staines had 3: two to control entry and exit from the run round loop and the 3rd to signal locos into the goods yard. No ground signal to signal locos running round at the bufferstop end of the platform.

 

All of this seems very excessive given that at the 2 Welsh stations, the number of occasions when more than one engine was present was pretty rare.

 

From what I understand, one engine in steam lines usually had their signalling removed in the 1920s/30s e.g. Watlington.

 

Hope this helps - I'm sure there are far more knowledgeable members of RM Web out there who will provide more expert info!

 

Best wishes

 

David C

[The Stationmaster]

Varied very much from place to place depending - as you've already hinted - on the method of signalling. Someplaces, especially those with developing traffic in the 1930s were fairly comprehensively signalled, as were places where the signalling was renewed, while some others which were 'reduced' (usually to One Engine In Steam) never had their signalling updated or sometimes had most of it removed.

 

What you really need to decide is what category/level of traffic the line you want to create will fall into and what period/era you will be modelling - possibly even conjuring up a potted history so there is an 'historical background'. Then it's a relatively easy task to signal it by simply popping a layout sketch on here and giving all the background etc.

[David Siddall]

Thanks guys, this is all much appreciated...

 

The 'potted history' is already drafted Mike (the highly enjoyable armchair modelling/daydreaming bit). I'm talking about a slightly 'past its best' BR (W) branch which retained a reasonable amount of freight traffic and a minimal passenger service, and is capable of depicting the late 50s through to the early days of the 'blue hydraulics' era. All a bit Culm Valley (ish) but I'm planning to justify a little more activity than a Hemyock-clone by suggesting that the line wasn't closed in any of the various rationalisations but cut back to an intermediate station due to the presence of a spur to an active rail-connected industry (possibly a military stores depot) which will involve reversals and shunt-releases.

 

So I'm guessing from everyone else's advice - particularly David C's, who suggests that such a branch might well have lost its signals by this period - the key to the survival of signalling (ground or otherwise) is whether operation is going to be 'one engine in steam' or not?

 

The light is starting to dawn...

[The Stationmaster]

There are in fact a number of 'keys' David and I think the best answer - in view particularly of the timespan you have in mind - is for me to try and set things out on a sort of timeline.

1. The early - mid 1960s, and very much so as dieselisation of passenger train services was completed, saw the first real getting to grips with track and signalling on WR branchlines with considerable rationalisation as soon as each opportunity presented itself. This meant wholesale simplification of track layouts and abolition of signalboxes and signals as lines were reduced to either One Engine In Steam, or No Signalman Key Token systems of operation with ground frames provided to operate any remaining siding etc connections. Until then signalling had been basically what had existed since the most recent re-signalling of the line together with the effect of any renewals of signals etc.

On freight only lines there was a spread of what we knew as 'C2 operation' a WR speciality so titled because lines worked on that basis were listed in TableC2 of the Sectional Appendix - what it meant was that the line was under the control of a nominated post (e.g a Signalman) and no train could enter the C2 section without his permission. Visible lineside equipment would - at most - consist of a ground frame (but usually only where there had been one before conversion to C2) and somewhere for a telephone at the end remote from the controlling person, possibly a STOP board (GW/WR pattern of course) at the 'remote' end and apart from those features nothing else -all points would be ordinary handpoints.j C2 working could apply on double or single lines and there could be intermediate junctions although they tended to be worked by ground frames instead of handpoints.

On passenger or 'mixed traffic' lines reduction would be to either 'No Signalman Key Token' which meant there was no need for a Signalman to be present to handle the tokens - that was done by other ground staff or traincrew - and on such lines all running line connections would be ground frame worked, released by the token. Or alternatively the line would be 'One Train Working' (the modern name for One Engine In Steam) with a train staff but again running line connections would be ground frame worked.

Usually the only remaining signal on these rationalised lines would be a retained Fixed Distant Signal approaching the terminus although STOP boards could sometimes be found.

2. This process of rationalisation continued into the 1970s and was also often then extended to include lines which had been singled and probably resignalled in the initial rationalisation of the '60s. By the mid 1970s a signalbox at a WR 'branch terminus' was a very rare sight indeed, as - of course - were signals.

3. Beyond then and up to now little has changed except as explained at Item 4, below. Our main emphasis on the region was getting rid of facilities which weren't used or which nobody was prepared to retain against future traffic changes and to continue to rationalise signaling equipment wherever we could as traffic levels and the number of movements declined.

4. The biggest change to occur from, rough;y the mid/late '80s onwards was the replacement of any retained Fixed Distant Signals by the newly introduced retro-reflective 'Distant Board' and I would think (but can't be certain) that these are probably now universal on ex WR branches.

5. The other big change - but hardly apparent to the casual observer came after Sectorisation in 1992 when freight branches which passed under Trainload Freight control were altered from C2 to Train Staff & Ticket because the Rules & Regs folk from York were very wary of the C2 system. I can remember debating this change with them on an Inspection Special and they were impossible to shift from their conviction that C2 was not safe - despite the fact that we had never hurt anyone or anything in all the time the Western had been operating the system - including over busy branches with intermediate junctions, heavy trains, and in some cases steep gradients.

 

So there you are - the choice is yours

[David Siddall]

Now 'that' Mike is much, much appreciated! Thank you!

 

I'm guessing therefore that whilst the signal box is still clearly visible in the photo of D6333 shunting milk tanks at Hemyock in April 1966 (published on page 60 of the October issue of Railways Illustrated), the box would have been long out of use by then and replaced by ground-frame equipment?

 

The solution for my modelling proposal is, I suspect, to make any signalling (apart from perhaps a 'fixed distant') removable for running in the latter part of the period (I'm sure the odd bit of 'overgrowth' wouldn't be out of place to disguise the mounting locations? Having discovered the joys of servo-controlled operation (with prototypical bounce) courtesy of www.gfcontrols.co.uk/ and the wonderful people behind it I cannot resist at least one operational signal in the earlier part of the period...

 

Thanks again...

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

Now 'that' Mike is much, much appreciated! Thank you!

 

I'm guessing therefore that whilst the signal box is still clearly visible in the photo of D6333 shunting milk tanks at Hemyock in April 1966 (published on page 60 of the October issue of Railways Illustrated), the box would have been long out of use by then and replaced by ground-frame equipment?

 

The solution for my modelling proposal is, I suspect, to make any signalling (apart from perhaps a 'fixed distant') removable for running in the latter part of the period (I'm sure the odd bit of 'overgrowth' wouldn't be out of place to disguise the mounting locations? Having discovered the joys of servo-controlled operation (with prototypical bounce) courtesy of www.gfcontrols.co.uk/ and the wonderful people behind it I cannot resist at least one operational signal in the earlier part of the period...

 

Thanks again...

 

David

Hemyock was rather in advance of future developments as the signalbox there was reduced to a ground frame in the 1920s and the signals were removed. A similar thing happened in the early 1960s at Tavistock although there I think it was probably a recognition that it wouldn't be long before the line closed completely 'so we'll take a cheap way out for a few months' and I doubt if it was the only place to go through that sort of 'quickie' transformation at that time. You could of course retain the signalbox structure - less nameplate and interior fittings - as a Shunter's cabin or rented out as a greenhouse (that happened on my local branch but the 'box in question was not at a station).

 

And 'yes' if you can do removable signals it would be a great way of scene shifting to mark the passage of time.

[David Siddall]

That explains a lot in a few lines Mike! My long-awaited copy of Paul Karau's 'Great Western Branchline Termini Vol 2' finally arrived yesterday in which it states that Hemyock lost its 'home' and 'starter' signals as early as 1912! And now I know why!

 

The one possible anomaly which I'm hoping it might be safe to cite as justification for leaving fully operational signalling in place into the 1960s appears to be the Fairford branch? Martin Loader's on-line history features supporting evidence at Carterton in a (quote) 'early 60s view'' (www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/Carterton.htm) - including what even appears to be a fully operational signal box! In fact, though I can't be sure, I think I can see what look like ground signals in the goods loop in his photo of Alvecote (www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/Alvescot.htm) in what is likewise captioned an 'early 60s' photo? You don't happen to know why this branch kept its signalling infrastructure for so long after others lost theirs do you?

 

Not that I'm bottling out of removable signals - I've made all standing signals that way since the 'unfortunate track-cleaning incident' with a 4mm scale bracket a couple of layouts ago; however the possibility of high levels of visual accuracy - the ability 'to replicate the dwell, latching and of course the “bounce” of a real semaphore signal' (quote: www.gfcontrols.co.uk/index.php/semaphore-signals/ ....), and the opportunities offered by DCC sound do rather whet the appetite. This might be one of those statements I live to regret (...again), however I have the distinct feeling it might well be possible to recreate the clang of a signal returning to danger as a D6300 hydraulic mutters away into the distance on a short freight (...happy childhood memories from South Brent!).

[The Stationmaster]

The one possible anomaly which I'm hoping it might be safe to cite as justification for leaving fully operational signalling in place into the 1960s appears to be the Fairford branch? Martin Loader's on-line history features supporting evidence at Carterton in a (quote) 'early 60s view'' (www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/Carterton.htm) - including what even appears to be a fully operational signal box! In fact, though I can't be sure, I think I can see what look like ground signals in the goods loop in his photo of Alvecote (www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/Alvescot.htm) in what is likewise captioned an 'early 60s' photo? You don't happen to know why this branch kept its signalling infrastructure for so long after others lost theirs do you?

I reckon the simple answer is 'it's going to close so don't spend any money on it' (yes that did really happen sometimes) but equally at that time S&T resources in the London Division were heavily committed to not only mainline resignalling but extensive work on some of the branches and somewhere where nothing was needing change but was on the slippery slope got away with going that bit longer. Plus of course my 'early - mid '60s is covering a five-ish year timespan and not everywhere could be done at once (how's that for a, hmm, 'reason' on a layout? ).

 

Incidentally talking of 'bounce' it is an area where I am something of a heretic but don't forget that on a Western LQ signal the arm is joined to the balance weight by a relatively substantial down rod which doesn't bend (it flexes a bit but that's it) and when a signal goes back roughly the arm tends not to bounce but the whole signal can sometimes be seen to sway (especially on a straight tubular post).

[David Siddall]

I reckon the simple answer is 'it's going to close so don't spend any money on it' (yes that did really happen sometimes) but equally at that time S&T resources in the London Division were heavily committed to not only mainline resignalling but extensive work on some of the branches and somewhere where nothing was needing change but was on the slippery slope got away with going that bit longer. Plus of course my 'early - mid '60s is covering a five-ish year timespan and not everywhere could be done at once (how's that for a, hmm, 'reason' on a layout? ).

 

Photographic evidence backed up by an explanation from someone with the relevant experience. - that's 'reason' enough for me! Thanks Mike, much appreciated, time to finalise that track and signalling plan!

 

David

[David Siddall]

At last... bored senseless by recreating the same press ad' in a variety of sizes on a gloomy Friday afternoon I went Internet searching and found this respectably sized photo of the prototype on which she Scale Signal Supply 7mm scale GWR Ground Disc appears to be based. Ironically the museum at which the photo was taken (Coleford) is about 20 minutes away so I shall have to visit and inspect the full-size version more closely. A pair of fully operation O gauge examples comes a step closer!

[The Stationmaster]

At last... bored senseless by recreating the same press ad' in a variety of sizes on a gloomy Friday afternoon I went Internet searching and found this respectably sized photo of the prototype on which she Scale Signal Supply 7mm scale GWR Ground Disc appears to be based. Ironically the museum at which the photo was taken (Coleford) is about 20 minutes away so I shall have to visit and inspect the full-size version more closely. A pair of fully operation O gauge examples comes a step closer!

David,

If it is going to be those you need to know that signals of that pattern were originally designed to be mounted on a sleeper end and I don't think they were ever mounted independently (but you never know) because of the position of the pulley wheel. Here are a couple of pics of one with all the original bits (plus a no doubt not so original repeater box) in place

 

 

[David Siddall]

Here are a couple of pics of one with all the original bits (plus a no doubt not so original repeater box) in place

 

Great pic's Mike, thank you... really clear with loads of detail visible. They've saved me a journey which, with the amount I've got on at the moment, is greatly appreciated.

 

David

[Butler Henderson]

Am I right in thinking that if two (or more routes) are possible for a shunting move beyond a ground signal then two (or more) ground signals would be provided. If so just worked out I need over 30 of them for a 15ft long layout!

[TheSignalEngineer]

Am I right in thinking that if two (or more routes) are possible for a shunting move beyond a ground signal then two (or more) ground signals would be provided. If so just worked out I need over 30 of them for a 15ft long layout!

Depends on where and when. Fashion changed from one to multiple many times.

[Butler Henderson]

Thanks. Where and when is the Southern region c 1959-1967.

[beast66606]

Thanks. Where and when is the Southern region c 1959-1967.

 

The Southern were very partial to a single disc reading to multiple routes.

[Butler Henderson]

Phew, thats cuts down the number required then. Thanks