HAB

Hello Ian, Almost all of the points had economical FPLs, however, lever 11 is indeed an FPL (on crossover 9) and was probably necessary as 9 has three facing "ends". We discussed if the lever should stand (ie lock) Normal or Reversed - different railways used different practices and some railways changed their standard from time to time. On the Midland, standing Normal seems to have been the general (but perhaps not exclusive) practice. However, in this case - being the only FPL in the frame - and given that we do not know what the reality was, we had to think about it. There is a bit of complication that 13 releases 9 and also locks 10, yet there is a situation where 13,10 and 9 all require to be reversed at the same time (as in the photo) and another parallel route requires 13,12,10 and 9 all to be reversed. It is a close thing, but on balance, it seemed that the layout is slightly easier to work if 11 locks Normal. It has the advantage that the single blue lever in Wellington box, and the solitary blue lever in junction box (working a fouling bar) both work in the same sense. Which the Relief men will like... But I would not like to be dogmatic about wheather it is "right"!!! [now is the moment when someone posts the missing documentary evidence..] Edit:- actually, the photo shows 13,12 and 33 reversed (South Sidings to South Departure) and 9,10,6,8, R (N Arrival to Plat.6). Under this situation, the first points needing to be replaced are 10 or 12, and if 11 stood reversed, then this would necessitate unlocking 11 first to avoid "Push betweens" ie having to replace one lever between 2 which are reversed - a good route to a hernia... Thanks to everyone for the kind words BTW. Best Wishes,

The lever frame for Wellington box is now complete (mechanically) and has passed all the testing I have so far thrown at it. There were a couple of quite important locks missed, but as it happens, they could be provided very easily without dismantling the whole thing. When I first looked at this job, I said I thought it would be fairly straightforward... well, it much of it was, but there are some quite difficult locks as I mentioned in a previous post. In truth, the finished job has quite a lot of metalwork in it:- Part of the complexity comes from the number of possible routes - for example, in this shot, there are 22 out of the total of 53 levers reversed - these represent 4 separate routes, and in the middle, is a continuous run of 8 levers reversed, and they are involved in 3 of the 4 routes. Some of the metal work needs to be a bit ingenious to acheive all of this and here are close-ups of just three of these - in total, there are 15 "loose pieces" (the swinging bits) to provide all the conditional locks. So just the electrical bits to do, then the Laird has a few jobs to do before we can get the thing in service - experience with the City Junction frame has shown just how important some proper locking is to the running of the job! Best wishes,

You are welcome Chris - yes they do it differently elsewhere - the Southern system was unique as it was all based around the Routing Headcodes. I remember it being in use on the Portsmouth Direct in 1969 when as a 14 year old, I used to "help out" at some of the boxes. On Summer weekends, trains not stopping at Havant were 3-1, whilst those which did stop were 1-3. It was down to Idsworth (or Buriton when Rowlands Castle was switched out) to "spot" the headcode and bell the TES accordingly. I remember one occasion when I was on my own in Idsworth, correctly offering Havant a 3-1, but then following up with "2". The bell rang back a very-sternly-chastening "4".- you would never think that a single-stroke bell could speak so eloquently... There was a lot of resentment a couple of years later when the "BR" (ie LMS) bell codes were imposed - at least officially... But by then, traditional signalling between Petersfield and Havant had gone. I do know that at some non-Southern locations, it was the practice to follow-up the Entering Section with a routing description, but there must be other people round here who know a lot more about such things than me... Best Wishes,

Hello there Chris, I am not sure what your understanding was of how the Branch codes were supposed to work but (assuming I am reading it correctly), what you describe here is exactly the "Standard" way of doing it. To me, the Southern had a brilliant way of working in this regard - bearing in mind that it used "routing" and not "Class" headcode discs / lamps on its trains. Sorry if I am telling you what you already know here,and sorry further if it is not relevant to your example, but let me try to describe the logic of how it was supposed to work. Suppose I am signalman in Uddens, and you are Signalman in Wimbourne station. I accept a 3-1 from West Moors followed in due course by a "2" entering section (so main + main). I offer the train to you 3-1 and you accept. As the Train approaches me, I see that it is carrying "Branch" route discs so I send the TES to you as a 4 (Branch). That tells you that the train you have accepted is routing to the Branch at the Junction. So, based on my "4", you offer it forward to Junction as a 1-3 (branch). Junction now knows to set the facing points to the Branch - for a train which he has not seen yet of course. As it passes you, you send the TES as a four (so Branch - Branch). Junction will offer it on down the branch as a 3-1 as it has passed the junction. The beauty of the system of course is that it does not matter how "out of course" the trains become, they always end up correctly routed according to their Headcode. But the system fell down with short sections for which special working was needed! I think that is the sequence you are describing, and I hope that explains how and why it was done. Again sorry if that is all a bit patronising!! But if you had a different understanding, I would be interested to know. Hope that helps! Best Wishes, Howard (Edited for typos!)

Hmm ... can't even write it correctly - should have been 22 Locks 23 Either way, Released by 41 When 23 Normal, (Released by 24 Locks 25, 26 Either way) When 23 Reversed, (Released by 27 Locks 31) When (23,26 Reversed), (Released by 30 Locks 32) When (23,26,29) Reversed. Better check the mechanics are not wrong as well! Cheers,

Correct! Edit:- well done also to Clive Mortimore and 5BarVT for correct entries! The locking on 22 (for the opposing move(s)) is a bit tricky - I "think" it goes something like 22 Locks 23 Either way, Released by 41 When 23 Normal, (Released by 24 Locks 25, 26 Either way) When 23 Reversed, Released by 27 When (23,26 Reversed), (Released by 30 Locks 31,32) When (23,26,29) Reversed. I think fixed Distants approaching termini are something of a "modern" idea (after all, the drivers should know where the buffer stops are to be found!) But there are rather a lot on the approach to Wellington (have a look at the City Junction frame some posts back). But it is a bit of a puzzle why there should be two on each arrival road. My first thought was that the outer distant was to give an indication that any one of the Homes was Off whilst the inner Distant would indicate that it was the "Main" road Home which was off. (and that is how the locking is) But it was also suggested to us that the only reason that there were two levers for each road was simply that four arms were too much for one pull! But that begs the question - why an inner and outer set of arms? On Some Railways, the inner Distant served the function of "Hurry Up" ie - if the driver was checked at the outer distant, but saw the inner distant Off (because of a late line clear for example), he could put steam on knowing that he was clear rather than expecting to be checked at each signal. But at a Terminus? With a 15mph speed limit? So any input based on inside knowledge would be appreciated! Best Wishes,

Meanwhile, the S&T New Works Dept. has got the Wellington Frame assembled. Just the locking bridles to make and fit now then ... Of all the locked frames I have built, this is the first one where I have built the frame, then fitted the locks - previously it has been necessary to push both jobs along at once - I must say it is very nice to be able to try-out various options on a physical frame, a luxury the boys who did this for a living never had. The frame is certainly very well laid-out (even though it does not look like it from a first look at the diagram) From this, the enthusiasts will be able to spot the route "pulled off" above. Ah well. back to the locking design... Best Wishes,

More work in the background... Certain members of the Nottingham Area Group of the Scalefour Society (AKA the Sweatshop), having been busy at the Thursday night meeting for some weeks now; here is the state of play with the Lever Frame for Wellington - just a bit of paint needed... Oh, and the locking to build... For which, here is the preliminary design work... More work for the Sweatshop...

Meanwhile, development of the electric locks themselves is also progressing - here is a quick shot of the first production prototypes fitted to a "spare" frame for testing. The two cocktail sticks are temporary substitutes for the 8BA studding which should be doing the job, but is a bit of a fiddle to do-up and undo! So far, so good - only a further 28 to do... Best Wishes, Howard

Those bushes in the background look almost real Very well done.

I don't think anyone has been blamesless yet! No doubt, when we get all the proper equipment we will find it easier to do the job - that plus a decade or two of experience!

Great running day yesterday - many thanks to John and the whole team. The new signals make a huge difference albeit that they make working City Junction even more stressful! What we need is a fully interlocked lever frame - well, at least it did put in an appearance even it it was not working... Here are a few snaps of it going together the day before. I mentioned that one of the objectives when I worked out the design for these etches was to make the building - and particularly the assembly - of longer frames much easier than with the original Scalefour Society design. Those who came to look at the components at Scalefour North in Wakefield [many thanks for some very interesting discussions ladies and gents] will have seen that a 70 lever frame involves a lot of metal, so I approached this stage with some trepidation - "theory" is fine, but the practice might be different. Well, I am pleased to say that it all went pretty well - here are a few photos showing what it is all about. The first step is to break all the frame units down to their component parts for painting Next,starting at the high-number end, each of the five-lever frame units is added to the locking table, its levers inserted and the pivot rod slid into place. Then it is just a case of working down towards the low end Getting the whole job done only took about 3/4 of an hour in the end, after which the frame can be fitted to a base. This is a temporary job as the final one will incorporate the electrical switches, the elcric locks and all the wiring. Now the testing can begin - so far not too bad: just a couple of "stiff" locks to "ease". Oh, and one missing lock - but then I fitted the "last" bit of locking last Sunday - since when I have had to fit four more... Good job the design makes partial disassembly and modification fairly easy! Now I have had a chance to have a play with it, I have learned quite a lot more about how it must have worked in the real box and very interesting it is as well. hope that is of interest. Best wishes,

Ah! We might might both have known the same chap! But such people are a breed apart from the rest of us!

Correct except the (possibly) the last bit. The "text only" plate is not a "lead", it is just a "description". So it just says this is the point from the G loop towards the main without necessarily implying which way the lever works - you would have to at the diagram to understand exactly what what that meant. Since there are no numbers, there are no "Leads", which means it can be pulled provided the other levers which lock it are all normal - nothing else needs to be reversed first. It is pretty difficult to reverse engineer a diagram or the locking just from the descriptions because they are so general or abbreviated. They are intended just as an aide memoire to a busy signalman who actually already knew the layout pretty well. Cheers,

Here is a nice one from Exeter West This is taken from my signalbox simulation programme - the real one has fewer abbreviations!

.. perhaps I understand your misunderstanding now since you talk about Normal or Reversed... The "Lead" plates denote which levers LEAD in other words they read "Before you can pull this lever, you must pull these... OR these... OR these. etc no levers being "normal" are ever mentioned nor is there any reference to the lever in the R position. Hence why you will often see NIL. To take your plate for 16 FPL. This reads that before you can pull 16, you must pull either NIL OR 17. Why say that? Because 16 locks 17 either way (N or R). Hope that is clear.

24 Disc at 23 23 OR 21,23 OR 19,21,23 Not sure I understand what you are finding difficult here? Cheers,

Excellent work John! Just to mention that if any RMWebbers are near Wakefield this weekend (14/15th) Scalefour North is being held at the Queen Elizabeth Grammar School in Northgate. Details here:- https://www.scalefour.org/scalefournorth/2018/ I will be demonstrating all this interlocking nonesense, and the frame and locking for Leeds City Junction will be with me for all to look at. How to meet a few new faces! Best wishes,

Thanks for the likes and comments chaps. Just to mention that there is a topic on the Scalefour society forum to which I have added a few detail photos:- https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5813&p=60239#p60239 You do not have to be a member to view. Cheers,

I can hardly claim to be an expert in the design process but there are quite a few on-line resources to help and the Signalling Record Society has plenty of real examples to study. Regarding detection, it does not really apply in this case as the ground equipment is all worked electrically (via servos), I have have often thought about the detection of point blades but - at least in 4mm - I have not get any practical answer so fer. Best wishes,

Well, given such a build up, I ought to say a few words! I suppose the first thing to say is that many people would think that building a mechanically interlocked lever frame is a long way "off topic" in a model railway forum. And I might well agree! But equally, anyone who has tried to operate a large and complex layout knows that some form of interlocking between points and signals is essential, and since John and many of his crew have an interest in full-size signalling, they expect it done properly! Other large layouts we are involved in have used electrical or computerised locking systems and for very large installations this might be the only practical way. However, on my own layout, "Minories", which some RMwebers may have seen at Warley 2 years ago, I used a fully mechanically locked frame of 25 levers. After discussion with John, it seemed only a small step from there to the 125 required for his two signal boxes... My own lever frame was based around the 5-lever "kit" sold by the Scalefour Society - it is by far the best available at reasonable cost, and has been available to anyone via their on-line sales for several years now. I married this to an etched locking solution of my own design. This is what the result looked like:- This arrangement worked well enough but it has to be said that the original design of the frame was not intended to suit interlocking and so a bit of knife and fork work was needed to make it function - fine for 25 levers, not so for 125! After some discussion with the Officials in the Scalefour society, it was agreed that I would re-design the lever frame and that the Society would make the frame and the locking available for sale to the public - so the good news is, if anyone fancies having a go at this nonsense they can get hold of all the bits needed - in fact, they will be on sale at Scalefour North in Wakefield in 2 weeks time. So, with all the logistics sorted out, it remained only to do the design work, gets some bits etched, and put it all together... Well, it was not quite that simple and a couple of design iterations were needed to get the thing spot on, but at least that was the "mechanics out of the way... Then there was the matter of working out the locking - given that we have not (so far!) come across any details of the locking on the "real" Leeds City Junction, though John does have an "official" box diagram which has plenty of clues about how the layout was worked. In fact the Midland Railway had slightly eased the job for us as all the Facing Point Locks are "economical" - that is they are worked off the point levers - but despite that, a degree of reverse-engineering was need to "guess" how the Midland might have done the job. I have a personal view that if you are going to lock a frame, then it should be done properly so the design includes all the features that the real locking would have included such as the conditional locking, sequential locking and the electrical locks - though the last bit is still something of a work in progress. After few weeks of battle, the frame for LCJ has made some progress - here are some shots of progress so far:- firstly, this is what 55 levers look like (only 15 to go for LCJ ...) amongst the clutter of my work bench... Secondly, here is the locking table just about half finished - behind you can see the working drawing which I am working to - it is already at version 6 ... If people are interested to know more, I will post further details of how it is all done - though in a separate thread to avoid distracting from John's words on the rest of the layout - which is much more interesting! The good news about all this is that it has encourage John to make progress with his excellent signals ... the bad news is that he needs to extend his shed to fit is all in! Best wishes,

Yes they are - have you been somewhere else for the past 23 years? Why else would it be that a "King" could spend 50 years happily running all over the system, then suddenly get its safety valve knocked off running into Paddington. Same with a Duchess at York. And also why owners of main line steam locos are having to spend a fortune on lowering them by 4" and narrowing them by 2. By the way, there is a massive difference between "over 13 ft" and 13'6". Just also to mention that Satan's Goldfish has posted STRUCTURE Guages - that is not same as the kenematic envelope for any given vehicle. As for a one inch thick roof skin.... All of which says to me that there are very good reasons whey there are no DD vehicles in the UK - and no one who ever stepped into one of Bullied's efforts would ever doubt it - modern technology has not prevented up all from getting taller (on average!!). Best wishes,

Gotme! I thought you might be saying "Thus within Industry" ie "The way they do it on the real thing" Not sure what Rotherham Corproation were saying - but then I know even less about Latin than I do about railways! Best wishes, Howard

I would not want to be called a rivet counter Andy, but should your signature not read "Sic Viscerit Industria"? Best wishes, Howard

Hmm - I got the same thing - it rather looks like some forgot to renew a subscription! When it does come back up, I will see if I can find the reference. Alternatively, if you are not in a rush, they attend most shows and have all the sprues with them to look through.