Signalling Littlemore

[richbrummitt]

I've just painted and will tonight be assembling two of the lovely S4 lever frames for my layout Littlemore. What I need to decide now is what the levers need to be attached to. The signals change a little over the years judging from photographs but what I think existed at the point in time the model is set compared to what I know existed in photographs is below:

 

 

Off to the left is Princes Risborough and to the left is Oxford via Kennington Jcn. North is towards the bottom because the box faced South.

 

The box was opened with 13 levers and not too long after just 7 were in use. It was never a block post. Obviously I need some extras because I want to control all the yard levers from the main frame.

 

Number 1 is the connection to the main line from the loop once the siding was connected at both ends (originally this was only connected at the platform end.

Number 2 is the FPL for 1.

Number 3 is the trap point.

Number 4 is the connection for the second siding.

Number 5 is spare or it could be used for an independent ground signal to control either movements from the yard towards Risborough or a home/distant at the Risborough end. I don't know that such existed but I have no photographs to show either way. It could lock the wagon turntable in the loop (not drawn)?

 

Number 6 is the connection to the 'sand siding'. This extended some 500 yards and branched into three. 

Number 7 is the connection to the loop and will be operated as a crossover with the connection to the end loading dock. There is a ground signal at this end of the loop but it is connected to the tie bar and not of the independent type.

Number 8 is the FPL for the connection to the main line at 7.

Number 9 is the trap point in the 'sand siding'.

Number 10 is for a signal. The down signal on the platform side was a fixed distant in later years (The early photographs are a bit fuzzy to tell) and applied to the speed limit down hill and through the junction. The signal on the up side could be a home to control movements from further down the long siding?

 

I'd appreciate any input from signal people on what else might/should have existed to improve the realism.

 

TIA.

[The Stationmaster]

Going off the information you have included above the first stage is some simplification from a prototype viewpoint, thus -

 

1 & 3 would be worked by the same lever, and 

6 & 9 would be worked by the same lever.

6 would have had an FPL

 

I would think there would have been a stop signal in each direction at one time - possibly one at the toe of points No.1 and another somewhere between where you have put No.10 and the toe of points No.7.  I suspect also there might have been a starting signal towards the Risborough direction in view of the yard trailing in in that direction.

 

Depending on date of commissioning I have a feeling there might not have been any discs at all except for those controlling the exit from sidings and they would probably not have been independent.  All other movements would be dealt with by hand signals.  I expect the 'box originally had working distants but these were altered to Fixed At Caution  at some time.

[richbrummitt]

Going off the information you have included above the first stage is some simplification from a prototype viewpoint, thus -

 

1 & 3 would be worked by the same lever, and 

6 & 9 would be worked by the same lever.

6 would have had an FPL

 

The FPL for 6 is something I shouldn't have missed!

 

I've updated the plan.

 

 

10 would almost certainly apply to the main, right? It is waaaay up the banking for sighting purposes but the starter (9) is on the platform at normal height.

 

I would think there would have been a stop signal in each direction at one time - possibly one at the toe of points No.1 and another somewhere between where you have put No.10 and the toe of points No.7.  I suspect also there might have been a starting signal towards the Risborough direction in view of the yard trailing in in that direction.

 

I'm not sure because the timetabling suggests that the yard was worked by a trip to/from Oxford. I could use the lever currently assigned to the home (1) for a ground signal instead? I can't see anything in photographs to show a signal up this end but it would be obscured by trees/signal box/sky in all the photos I have seen that would be early enough for it to still be in position. 

 

Depending on date of commissioning I have a feeling there might not have been any discs at all except for those controlling the exit from sidings and they would probably not have been independent.  All other movements would be dealt with by hand signals.  I expect the 'box originally had working distants but these were altered to Fixed At Caution  at some time.

 

The box dated from 1891-2 according to secondary sources I am using. Originally 15 levers (not 13 as I wrote in post 1), later 7. Obviously I will need the extras for any that had hand levers out on the ground. There is definitely one ground signal between the points 7. This was originally on the outside of the line but the dock was added and it swapped to the inside. 

 

Many of the diagrams for the other boxes on the line exist in the books I have but, unfortunately, not Littlemore. 

[The Stationmaster]

I would be surprised if there wasn't a stop signal (which would have been the Home Signal I would presume) more or less as per No.1 on your plan.  If I wanted to fill up a 15 lever frame -well not quite full as it would have had at least one spare, possibly two - I would add a second stop signal at the toe of 7/8 with a second arm reading into the goods siding plus adding an arm on No.1 reading into the goods siding = 13 levers used in a 15 lever frame.  And the 14th would be a lever worked disc coming out of the goods yard at the Risborough end.

 

It really all centres around how the connections to the sidings were, or weren't, equipped with signals but as there is no prototype information beyond what you have already found  if you do it in 'typical' fashion you can't really be criticised for doing it wrong.

[RailWest]

What about the trap points at the siding exits, which seem to be missing from your plan?

[richbrummitt]

What about the trap points at the siding exits, which seem to be missing from your plan?

 

They are operated from the lever that changes the switch connecting to the main line as per Mike's first reply. The trap points don't seem to be shown on signal box diagrams so I removed them on the revised plan. I also added the little dashes for the facing point locks. I intend to have these levers for my own amusement (and so there is some variety to the lever colours). The track is electrically interlocked already with my creative wiring meaning some of the levers will need to have several microswitches attached!

[richbrummitt]

I would be surprised if there wasn't a stop signal (which would have been the Home Signal I would presume) more or less as per No.1 on your plan.  If I wanted to fill up a 15 lever frame -well not quite full as it would have had at least one spare, possibly two - I would add a second stop signal at the toe of 7/8 with a second arm reading into the goods siding plus adding an arm on No.1 reading into the goods siding = 13 levers used in a 15 lever frame.  And the 14th would be a lever worked disc coming out of the goods yard at the Risborough end.

 

It really all centres around how the connections to the sidings were, or weren't, equipped with signals but as there is no prototype information beyond what you have already found  if you do it in 'typical' fashion you can't really be criticised for doing it wrong.

 

I don't think the signal at the Risborough end of the platform ever existed. I can only have 10 levers because that takes up all the levers from the 2 frames that I have made so I can have either the home signal at 1, or the ground signal reading into the yard at the Risborough end. That is unless the home signal is off stage to the left (the toe of switch 2 is not far from the end of the scenic section) or I make another indicator type ground signal such that it does not steal a lever. 

 

What about the ordering of the different items: is there anything you would switch around in the frame?

[RailWest]

"The trap points don't seem to be shown on signal box diagrams...."

 

I don't know of any instance where they would NOT be shown

 

Nice to see someone including FPL levers - I did that on an layout years ago, even though the actual FPLs were not modelled, and it used to get 'visiting' operators very confused at first because they were included in the (electrical) interlocking for the relevant signals.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think the signal at the Risborough end of the platform ever existed. I can only have 10 levers because that takes up all the levers from the 2 frames that I have made so I can have either the home signal at 1, or the ground signal reading into the yard at the Risborough end. That is unless the home signal is off stage to the left (the toe of switch 2 is not far from the end of the scenic section) or I make another indicator type ground signal such that it does not steal a lever. 

 

What about the ordering of the different items: is there anything you would switch around in the frame?

I think as far as signals are concerned you'd best do what suits your operational needs.  There were clearly some oddities which suggest to me that the 'signalbox' was probably of ground frame status - or certainly had been for a long time with some signals long since removed.

 

If the signalling was new in 189/2 it is very debatable whether or not any ground signals in the running line were independently operated as that was the decade when the GW first seemed to have moved to white lights in ground signals - so it could go either way (to suit what you want in other words.

 

Chris is of course right about traps being shown on 'box diagrams because they were 'box worked.  However if you look at the earlier style of GW diagram, especially on a poor picture of one, they can be quite easy to miss!

[RailWest]

Allowing for any disclaimers about 100% accuracy or not, the SRS GWR Box Register quotes Littlemore as being a Type 5 box ordered in Nov 1891 with a 15-lever double-twist frame, and reduced to GF status "by 1913".

 

It would seem that all the stations on the line had new Type 5 boxes with DT frames ordered at the same time, so maybe one could use the other installations for a reference for the contemporary practice?

[The Stationmaster]

Allowing for any disclaimers about 100% accuracy or not, the SRS GWR Box Register quotes Littlemore as being a Type 5 box ordered in Nov 1891 with a 15-lever double-twist frame, and reduced to GF status "by 1913".

 

It would seem that all the stations on the line had new Type 5 boxes with DT frames ordered at the same time, so maybe one could use the other installations for a reference for the contemporary practice?

Wheatley is probably the only one in the SRS list which is vaguely suitable as all the other diagrams for the branch are much later.  But Wheatley gets us no further forward than I was at posts 2 & 4 with the added disadvantage that all the pointwork (except for the crossing loop) was trailing and thus signalled accordingly.

[richbrummitt]

I think as far as signals are concerned you'd best do what suits your operational needs.  There were clearly some oddities which suggest to me that the 'signalbox' was probably of ground frame status - or certainly had been for a long time with some signals long since removed.

 

Since I don't know what my operational requirements are I'll continue guessing if that's okay? I intend to work it how I imagine the real thing would have been, but with a more intensive timetable.

 

Originally I had been planning to represent the post war pre grouping period (1919-1923) but extending this to the end of the 20's to include the rise of the Cowley works would provide modeller's license for a lot more goods working over the line even if most of them probably came and went via the other end of the line. There was a time when the station here handled 600,000 wagons a year.

 

 

If the signalling was new in 189/2 it is very debatable whether or not any ground signals in the running line were independently operated as that was the decade when the GW first seemed to have moved to white lights in ground signals - so it could go either way (to suit what you want in other words.

Hmm. I already built one ground signal but it could be adapted to have an arm. The problem then is I'm short of levers. I reckon having a 'home' signal at the East end on a lattice post because they appear frequently on the rest of the line and they weren't so common on the GWR. I see looking at the 40'-1" there is a dot marked 'ID' at the toe of switch 4. I'm now torn. Maybe I could make a working hand lever in the yard for this switch so I can have both signals. Something to think more about...

 

Chris is of course right about traps being shown on 'box diagrams because they were 'box worked.  However if you look at the earlier style of GW diagram, especially on a poor picture of one, they can be quite easy to miss!

Yes. I looked for them previously on the Thame diagram in the Lingard book on this line but I see now that they are actually there if you look really hard. The picture is not the best reproduction but I am glad it is there.

 

Allowing for any disclaimers about 100% accuracy or not, the SRS GWR Box Register quotes Littlemore as being a Type 5 box ordered in Nov 1891 with a 15-lever double-twist frame, and reduced to GF status "by 1913".

This is the same information in the Oakwood book, probably from the same primary source.

 

It would seem that all the stations on the line had new Type 5 boxes with DT frames ordered at the same time, so maybe one could use the other installations for a reference for the contemporary practice?

Tiddington would be the other station that has more than one connection to the main from a siding that is contemporary. No signals are evident in the two photos dated 'around 1920'. It had some before then according to the early maps. Bledlow has just one single ended siding. There is a 'disc' marked on the 40'-1" reproduced in the Lingard book.

 

Wheatley is probably the only one in the SRS list which is vaguely suitable as all the other diagrams for the branch are much later.  But Wheatley gets us no further forward than I was at posts 2 & 4 with the added disadvantage that all the pointwork (except for the crossing loop) was trailing and thus signalled accordingly.

 

On the SRS diagram for Wheatley I see lever 16 operates a connection and two trap points. I guess the switch in between would have been thrown by an adjacent lever. I also noticed the two different types of 'disc' drawn. One is the usual type with a circle and double cross bar. The other is two concentric circles. Does this latter represent the type linked to the switch? I'm curious more than anything.

[RailWest]

"On the SRS diagram for Wheatley I see lever 16 operates a connection and two trap points. I guess the switch in between would have been thrown by an adjacent lever...."

 

Yes.

 

"One is the usual type with a circle and double cross bar. The other is two concentric circles. Does this latter represent the type linked to the switch....

 

Yes, that is a common convention.

 

"I see looking at the 40'-1" there is a dot marked 'ID' at the toe of switch 4...."

 

I.D. = Independant Disc, as you've probably guessed already

 

I already built one ground signal but it could be adapted to have an arm..."

 

Not sure I understand your reasoning for that ????

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Oh,   my reply from last night seems to have vanished!

 

Firstly I suspect that the independent disc adjacent to the toe of the points you have numbered 4 in fact applies to the trap point protecting entry out on to the running line (i.e as suggested could be the situation in my post No.4 above - final sentence 1st para).

 

It was earlier GWR practice to show all disc signals as two concentric circles, albeit coloured in the centre, on signalbox diagams and I presume someone has adopted this  using the distinction between two symbols to differentiate independent signals (I've an idea that was at one time an official drawing convention albeit not universally applied).

 

The arrangement at Wheatley of a handpoint between the running line connection and the traps was very common on the GWR although not universally applied.

 

And yes, I would think you could possibly adapt your earlier ground signal methodology to have an arm however in reality the independent signals were quite different from the linked type and it might be far simpler to start from scratch?

[richbrummitt]

Firstly I suspect that the independent disc adjacent to the toe of the points you have numbered 4 in fact applies to the trap point protecting entry out on to the running line (i.e as suggested could be the situation in my post No.4 above - final sentence 1st para).

 

The reality of the layout is the toes are right on top of each other and using No. 4 was a useful reference on the diagram. I didn't intend to be confusing but I didn't make clear what I meant. Sorry. 

 

And yes, I would think you could possibly adapt your earlier ground signal methodology to have an arm however in reality the independent signals were quite different from the linked type and it might be far simpler to start from scratch?

 

I was alluding to the idea I could remove the faces, block up one hole and fit an arm to the one I made but I will keep this for the Oxford end of the loop and make one of the type with a little arm rather than a disc for the other end. This will be easier to produce because it doesn't need to rotate.

 

Now I need to work out how 11 items fit onto 10 levers.   

 

It would seem to be a choice between

1, Having signal 10 non-operational or losing it to the back scene or altogether. (The boards end around here anyway) 

2, Having signal 10 and 9 operate together such that one is on when the other is off.

3, Create a working hand lever in the yard for switch at 4.

4, Lose home signal 1 to the back scene or altogether. (The boards end around here too). 

 

I'm not particularly keen on option 2 and option 3 has possible consequences of operating wires needing to bridge the baseboard joints, although I quite like the idea I'm not sure I can make it work.

[richbrummitt]

I've made the choice that the home signal in the up direction will be lost from the scenic section. I'm reasonably sure that it would have had to have been moved closer to road over bridge at the Oxford end to have it as a model in any case. This saves me from a somewhat unwelcome diversion to make a scale working point lever for the yard. 

 

Going back and looking again at the numbering and position of the levers in the frame it would seem that the main signals from left to right would be first followed by the switches, FPLs and associated discs in some kind of order from left to right and finishing with the main signals from right to left. This brings me to my final plan. It's looking a little sorry now the image has been chopped about to accommodate the changes as we've gone along. I will redraw it in the earlier style for mounting by the levers. The disc at 5 is poorly positioned because of the available space on the re-hashed drawing and will be between the toes of catch 3 and switch 6.

 

 

You will see that I haven't removed the signal that was using lever 10, because it did exist but it no longer operates and will not form a part of the model except as perhaps a 'shadow' on the back scene. I may or may not muster the will to produce another indicator for the exit from the sand siding at the bottom of the plan. It doesn't appear that there was a disc here but there are various trees on the embankment and it could easily be hidden behind the leaves.

 

Maybe I should get a third frame and add the rest of the signals, distants included, even though they are not on the model?

 

If there is anything else that should be changed please would you let me know before I start painting the levers according to their function. Please.

 

Thank you for your help.

[D869]

At the risk of joining the discussion too late... what puzzles me is why Littlemore would have running signals at all after being reduced to a GF.<br /><br />I've seen other examples of ground frames with signals but these have a level crossing involved, in which case the need for signals is obvious.<br /><br />Do your sources have anything to say about how and by whom the GF was worked - for example was it released by the single line token or perhaps by a neighbouring box?<br /><br />If there are stop signals then surely that requires the GF to be manned at all times when trains are running... unless the GF can be 'closed' with the signals clear in both directions.<br /><br />Is it possible that some of the signals seen in photos actually 'belong' to neighbouring boxes or relate to the period prior to reducing the box to a GF?<br /><br />Regards, Andy

[richbrummitt]

The box physically existed for some time after being classified as a ground frame. There isn't a lot of detail on the box or its working, in fact one book gets more content out of saying how little is known about the box. It is stated in another that it was possible to switch the box out.

 

Assuming the dates in captions to the photographs are correct the signals and the box were there during the period modelled. The down starter is replaced by a fixed distant in later pictures when the building had gone but these pictures are definitely a good number of years later.

[D869]

It's probably worth thinking about the closing arrangement. If there were signals in both directions then these would have been cleared, requiring the points to be normal and the FPLs 'in'. This might also mean a change in the locking when closing so that the signals for both directions can be clear at the same time.

 

It would be nice to find a similar (but better recorded) GWR location to borrow details from but I don't know of one.

 

Regards, Andy

[richbrummitt]

I've installed the levers in the baseboard now and working on connecting everything up but I have to consider which way things would be according to the lever position. For example which levers would be pulled for a train running through left to right: I guess just the locks and the signals (1,2,4 &10)?

[Grovenor]

Nearly, 1, 2, 4 and 8 are required for left to right.

That is assuming the locks are in with the levers reverse, if the locks are in with levers normal then you only need pull 1 and 2.

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

I've installed the levers in the baseboard now and working on connecting everything up but I have to consider which way things would be according to the lever position. For example which levers would be pulled for a train running through left to right: I guess just the locks and the signals (1,2,4 &10)?

Yes - 1, 2, 4, & 8 as Grovenor has noted already.  GW/WR FPLs normally stand 'out' (i.e. not bolted) with lever normal.  However I would think that with the frame closed (once it became a ground frame it would invariably allow opposing signals to be off and all the FPL levers would stand reverse of course.

[richbrummitt]

Nice to see someone including FPL levers - I did that on an layout years ago, even though the actual FPLs were not modelled, and it used to get 'visiting' operators very confused at first because they were included in the (electrical) interlocking for the relevant signals.

 

I was very much hoping to achieve this but unless there is something that I have not considered I do not see how this will be achievable on the single line. I'm guessing you had two through lines?

[Grovenor]

For this purpose single or double makes no difference, you just prevent 1 being pulled (or the signal clearing) unless 4 and 8 are both reverse, in the other direction 10 has to be reverse to clear your off scene signal.

Keith

[richbrummitt]

For this purpose single or double makes no difference, you just prevent 1 being pulled (or the signal clearing) unless 4 and 8 are both reverse, in the other direction 10 has to be reverse to clear your off scene signal.

Keith

 

 

It does from the point of view of electrically interlocking the locomotive movement depending on the mechanically worked lever frame position (that is not locked - at the moment). At the moment the wiring does not allow power to the track unless the route is correctly set. This is achieved by double isolating with the switch operating. Unfortunately this method needs a tweak to include the signals and I'm not sure how to do it. 

 

Maybe a second feed to some pieces of rail each with a diode will allow directional running depending on the signal being off? In my head this is already starting to get very complicated the more I think about the practicality of it.