-
Posts
2,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
RailWest's Achievements
1.6k
Reputation
-
Signal Spacing clearing point
RailWest replied to DCB's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
-
Signal Spacing clearing point
RailWest replied to DCB's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
The attached photo apparently shows a MR 'improved' underbolt, tho' I've no idea either how it worked or what the 'improvement' was :-( -
Signal Spacing clearing point
RailWest replied to DCB's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
AIUI it was a mechanical bolt on the distant lever in the box on rear, preventing the chap in rear clearing his distant without prior release from the box in advance. I am guessing that the term underbolt arose because it was fixed to the lever tail below (under) the operating floor? -
Signalling question.
RailWest replied to simon b's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
>>>>I'm guessing I'd need a "limit of shunt" board on the platform starter signal post too?... No :-) The signal is your limit of shunt. LoS boards are for wrong-direction movements in locations where otherwise there would be no signal. -
Make a 'comestic' trap point. Model the switch blades as if they were in closed position. IMHO that's better than nothing.
-
Signalling question.
RailWest replied to simon b's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
The trap would be on the same lever as the entry point. The FPL would need a lever. It is arguable whether or not the FPL lever could act as the release, or that would require its own lever. Given that the GF would be worked by a guard or shunter 'on the spot' in a position where he could give hand signals, then I would questions whether any shunt signals would be necessary. Depends in part perhaps on the imagined date of installation. -
Well, the minimum that you would need is a basic trap-point, but nothing more - no spur. Looking at the photo there appears to be a switch blade on the RH side, so as there would needed to have been one on the LH side at least then it would appear to have been a 2-blade trap.
-
RailWest started following GWR ramp , Signalling question. and Bailey Gate
-
Signalling question.
RailWest replied to simon b's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
A quick sketch would help a lot to have a better understanding :-) Why do you think it would be on a GF rather than worked from the SB? -
Trap, not catch, as it was facing for exit traffic :-) The signal-diagram merely shows it as a simple trap-point, tho' such things are not always truely representative of what was actually 'on the ground'. However the attached image - a rather crudely-enlarged snip from what IIRC was a photo from the SWC's Eyres collection - does suggest to me nothing more than a plain trap. You may wish to form your own opinion :-)
-
IMHO this one looks like just a pair of rails sunk into the wall, as opposed to the usual alternative of a sleeper or similar. As regards the Up SIding, do not forget that this appears to have been lengthened at the south end when the signal-box by the junction was abolished, so it could have been either the original one relocated or a new one provided at the time.
-
† - well, you learn something every day here - thanks!
-
RCH code P was in fact Passengers and Parcels. P* was Passengers but no parcels. P with a 'dagger' suffix (sorry, don't have that symbol!) was Parcels, but no passengers.
-
Blaenavon signals
RailWest replied to Halton Boy's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
AIUI you are now looking at Blaenavon (Low Level) GWR again then? The locking table tells us that the backing signal 22 required points 9 reverse. Similarly No 23 also required 9 reverse. I don't know what the gradient is there, but if it's downhill going to the left then I would suggest that the 'balanced points' were to protect the single-line from any runaways for the 'mineral line' platform road, as there would be no wrong-road signalled movement - unless, of course, a train coming in on the mineral line platform from the RH end over-ran and SPADed signal 22. I doubt that they would have provided a double-slip unless the traffic really demanded it - complicated to install and maintain and it would need a FPL for LH-bound trains. Maybe a single-slip at best, to allow LEs to run back between the shed and the passenger platform, but the other part of a double-slip - go between the lower line and the upper line - would have no use at all. -
Blaenavon signals
RailWest replied to Halton Boy's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
AIUI 'balanced points' is simply another term for points which are not worked from a signal-box or ground, but essentially are sprung-loaded or otherwise biased to normally lie in one direction, but could be pushed over when trailed. In the location indicated, almost certainly a set of spring-loaded trailing catch points that can be trailed shut by a train running from L to R, but otherwise lie 'open' to prevent wrong-direction movements from the upper platfrom line back onto the LH single line. -
Blaenavon signals
RailWest replied to Halton Boy's topic in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
I wonder if the OP has been influenced by the GWR Blaenavon, where the upper platform line appears to have been goods-only and passenger traffic used the lower platform only?