Signalling for Addleford Green

[The Stationmaster]

A fairly typical hand point lever arrangement although not all railways used a cranked lever.  Note the boarding over the gap in the extended sleepers between the lever box and the rail edge.   This is what was known as two way lever - by far the most common type in later years and it would always be pulled in the same direction (towards the viewpoint from which I took the photo) in order to change the points to one route to the other, hence 'two way'.

 

[bécasse]

And here is a scale drawing of just such a point lever measured up at Witney Goods (WR).

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

A fairly typical hand point lever arrangement although not all railways used a cranked lever.  Note the boarding over the gap in the extended sleepers between the lever box and the rail edge.   This is what was known as two way lever - by far the most common type in later years and it would always be pulled in the same direction (towards the viewpoint from which I took the photo) in order to change the points to one route to the other, hence 'two way'.

 

This also shows how the lever is positioned so that the person operating it is looking towards a train that will pass over the point in a facing direction.

[Stephen Freeman]

Dart Castings do a white metal non-working one. As for Ground signals, they do non-working ones, if you want a fully functional one you will need to look elsewhere.

[dave55uk]

On 11/05/2022 at 13:31, The Stationmaster said:

No need whatsoever for an Advanced Starter...

So that would mean that any shunting movements beyond the starter on the platform, and beyond the creamery point (such as run-round moves),

onto the single line would occupy the block section (to the next block post) and would be outside of station limits. So a lot more ding-ding-dings by the signalman.

[RailWest]

AIUI the signalman would have to 'Block Black' to the next box up the line whenever he wanted to occupy the single line outside of the Down Home, regardless of whether there was an Up Advanced Starting or not. So really it make no difference.

[The Stationmaster]

27 minutes ago, dave55uk said:

So that would mean that any shunting movements beyond the starter on the platform, and beyond the creamery point (such as run-round moves),

onto the single line would occupy the block section (to the next block post) and would be outside of station limits. So a lot more ding-ding-dings by the signalman.

Yes and no.  And in this case an  Advanced Starter is an irrelevance - what matters is going onto the single line outside (i.e. in rear of) the Home Signal.    Station Limits - as such they exist - are not relevant in this case - the key factor is occupying the single line outside the Home Signal.   There might be a Shunting Staff or Token but that is highly unlikely at a place like this so instead the Signalman simply needs to Block Back to shunt outside the Home Signal.

 

To do this he must not have accepted a train from the signa lbox in rear; he then sends the 3-3 bell signal 'Blocking Back Outside Home Signal' and when this has been acknowledged he can authorise the Driver to enter the single line for shunting purposes.  And in fact after that he could, if needed, accept a similar Block Back from the signal box at the opposite end of the single line section in order to allow shunting into the section at that end while shunting into the section at his end.   And of course technically the 3-3 Block Back is also needed for an engine running round its train.   Simple procedure and all part of the everyday single railway in days gone when freight traffic and sidings needed to be shunted.

Edited May 16, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Michael Hodgson]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

To do this he must not have accepted a train from the signa lbox in rear; he then sends the 3-3 bell signal 'Blocking Back Outside Home Signal' and when this has been acknowledged he can authorise the Driver to enter the single line for shunting purposes.

Sorry to be pedantic, but on a single line, 3-3 is just "Blocking Back", the distinction between Blocking Back Inside and Outside only applying on Double Lines.

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And of course technically the 3-3 Block Back is also needed for an engine running round its train.   Simple procedure and all part of the everyday single railway in days gone when freight traffic and sidings needed to be shunted.

When I used to do that on the Bluebell, nearly 50 years ago (gulp!), you had to withdraw a staff and show (not give) it to the driver to authorise him to enter the single line. When the single line was clear again, the staff was replaced and Train Out Of Section sent.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Sorry to be pedantic, but on a single line, 3-3 is just "Blocking Back", the distinction between Blocking Back Inside and Outside only applying on Double Lines.

As I understood the OP we are talking about Southern, as in Railway rather than Region and its Single Line Block Regulations at one time included 'Blocking Back Inside the Home Signal' bell signal.   I believe, without checking for the exact dates,  that the use of a 2-4 Block Back bell signal on single lines worked by Electric Token etc was probably taken out of those Regulations in the 1920s or 30s - it was not included in the 1936 reissue of the GWR Regulations.  However the 2-4 Block Back bell signal remained in the Train Staff & Ticket Block Regulations until, it would appear,  the 1960 reissue of the Signalling Regulations and it was definitely not taken out of the GWR Regulations prior to then.  

 

Oddly even the 1-2-3 bell signal,  'Blocking Back For A Train Already In Section'.  remained in the  GWR TST Block Regulations for many years after it had been taken out of the Electric Token Regulations.

[St Enodoc]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As I understood the OP we are talking about Southern, as in Railway rather than Region and its Single Line Block Regulations at one time included 'Blocking Back Inside the Home Signal' bell signal.   I believe, without checking for the exact dates,  that the use of a 2-4 Block Back bell signal on single lines worked by Electric Token etc was probably taken out of those Regulations in the 1920s or 30s - it was not included in the 1936 reissue of the GWR Regulations.  However the 2-4 Block Back bell signal remained in the Train Staff & Ticket Block Regulations until, it would appear,  the 1960 reissue of the Signalling Regulations and it was definitely not taken out of the GWR Regulations prior to then.  

 

Oddly even the 1-2-3 bell signal,  'Blocking Back For A Train Already In Section'.  remained in the  GWR TST Block Regulations for many years after it had been taken out of the Electric Token Regulations.

You've just jogged my memory, Mike. On the Bluebell it was 5-2 to take the staff out and 2-5 after you'd put it back (or possibly the other way round...).

 

Edit: Still the same now:

 

https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-bell-codes/

 

although the lovely big ETS machines have been replaced by electric key token machines:

 

https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-electric-train-staff/

Edited May 17, 2022 by St Enodoc
fact checking

[The Stationmaster]

On 17/05/2022 at 12:20, St Enodoc said:

You've just jogged my memory, Mike. On the Bluebell it was 5-2 to take the staff out and 2-5 after you'd put it back (or possibly the other way round...).

 

Edit: Still the same now:

 

https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-bell-codes/

 

although the lovely big ETS machines have been replaced by electric key token machines:

 

https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signalling-electric-train-staff/

So the standard bell signals for that job.  Good to see that the Bluebell have done away with the potential dangers of ETS machines. The GWR long ago found out that it was possible that with worn staff machines and worn staffs to obtain a staff from the machine without the opposite Signalman providing a release.  

 

So the GWR's S&T folk came up with a different design of machine which prevented that - the electric token machine - and gradually began to replace ETS machines (albeit that took a very long time and it took 1960s line closures to finish the job for them).

[bécasse]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The GWR long ago found out that it was possible that with worn staff machines and worn staffs to obtain a staff from the machine without the opposite Signalman providing a release.  

 

I don't know about the full size ETS machines but with METS it is quite easy to extract a staff without the opposite signalman providing a release - and neither machine nor staff needs to be worn, if you know how, you can do it in seconds.

[Michael Hodgson]

 

On 17/05/2022 at 12:06, The Stationmaster said:

As I understood the OP we are talking about Southern, as in Railway rather than Region and its Single Line Block Regulations at one time included 'Blocking Back Inside the Home Signal' bell signal.   I believe, without checking for the exact dates,  that the use of a 2-4 Block Back bell signal on single lines worked by Electric Token etc was probably taken out of those Regulations in the 1920s or 30s - it was not included in the 1936 reissue of the GWR Regulations.  However the 2-4 Block Back bell signal remained in the Train Staff & Ticket Block Regulations until, it would appear,  the 1960 reissue of the Signalling Regulations and it was definitely not taken out of the GWR Regulations prior to then.  

 

The distinction between blocking back inside and out was in fact in the GWR 1936 TS&T regs, but the WR 1960 book omitted TS&T, although TS&T was included in the book for all other regions; I assumed that was because they were so fond of Key Token.    Presumably the Western put any remaining TS&T regulations into an Appendix or local instructions.  And they reappeared in the 1972 book!

On 17/05/2022 at 12:06, The Stationmaster said:

Oddly even the 1-2-3 bell signal,  'Blocking Back For A Train Already In Section'.  remained in the  GWR TST Block Regulations for many years after it had been taken out of the Electric Token Regulations.

 

That's an odd GWR-only code, in the GWR 1936 double line regulations and still in 1960 BR(WR) for double line.  I always found that one strange because in general the rules say you should not occupy the section until blocking back had been accepted.  As you only use that code when you haven't given Train Out of Section for a train, I find it hard to see why need need to ask permission for it shunt outside home signal; you can refuse 3-3 or 2-4 but apparently not 1-2-3.

 

On 17/05/2022 at 12:20, St Enodoc said:

You've just jogged my memory, Mike. On the Bluebell it was 5-2 to take the staff out and 2-5 after you'd put it back (or possibly the other way round...).

Those are interesting codes too, because they're also used with a completely different meaning on double track ... in conjunction 3-3-2 Working in the wrong direction (where authorised), 5-2 being when the train has run right through clear of the sction and 2-5 if it it's removed from the section at the box in advance. 

 

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So the standard bell signals for that job.  Good to see that the Bluebell have done away with the potential dangers of ETS machines. The GWR long ago found out that it was possible that with worn staff machines and worn staffs to obtain a staff from the machine without the opposite Signalman providing a release.  

 

DId that only apply to the big ETS machines, or did it also apply to "Miniature" ETS? 

Perhaps the GWR ony used the big ones?

Ireland continued using ETS until fairly recently, the last instruments going to narrow gauge preservation in the UK.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

10 minutes ago, bécasse said:

I don't know about the full size ETS machines but with METS it is quite easy to extract a staff without the opposite signalman providing a release - and neither machine nor staff needs to be worn, if you know how, you can do it in seconds.

I thought I'd heard of that with Tablet, but it may have been "Miniature" ETS that I had heard of.  Fortunately there have been extremely few cases of accidents caused by signalmen acting maliciously.

.

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The distinction between blocking back inside and out was in fact in the GWR 1936 TS&T regs, but the WR 1960 book omitted TS&T, although TS&T was included in the book for all other regions; I assumed that was because they were so fond of Key Token.    Presumably the Western put any remaining TS&T regulations into an Appendix or local instructions.  And they reappeared in the 1972 book!

 

That's an odd GWR-only code, in the GWR 1936 double line regulations and still in 1960 BR(WR) for double line.  I always found that one strange because in general the rules say you should not occupy the section until blocking back had been accepted.  As you only use that code when you haven't given Train Out of Section for a train, I find it hard to see why need need to ask permission for it shunt outside home signal; you can refuse 3-3 or 2-4 but apparently not 1-2-3.

 

Those are interesting codes too, because they're also used with a completely different meaning on double track ... in conjunction 3-3-2 Working in the wrong direction (where authorised), 5-2 being when the train has run right through clear of the sction and 2-5 if it it's removed from the section at the box in advance. 

 

DId that only apply to the big ETS machines, or did it also apply to "Miniature" ETS? 

Perhaps the GWR ony used the big ones?

Ireland continued using ETS until fairly recently, the last instruments going to narrow gauge preservation in the UK.

 

 

In reverse order so to speak -

 

The GWR did use METS but doesn't seem to have had very much (I've got a list of the totals of what single line systems it had Post-Grouping in one of the Minute Books).

 

 

The difference of course with a 1-2-3 is that the block indicator is already standing at 'Train On Line' therefore there is nothing to refuse because as far as the Signalman in rear is concerned the section is occupied already and he could not in any event offer another train.  With a  3-3, in particular, the acknowledgement of the bell signal is the agreement of the man in rear not to offer a train into a section where the block indicator has been standing at normal prior to the Blocking Back signal being sent.

 

Train Staff and ticket working was probably fairly uncommon on the WR by 1960 - if indeed it was still used at all.   from then onwards the big thing on the WR became what, during the 1960s, was officially titled Table C2 Working (that being the table and description which dealt with the system in the Sectional Appendix.  It had already effectively existed in 1960 but had not by then been separately identified with its own title.  Busier lines and, particularly, through sections which didn't have signalboxes at both ends used No Signalman Key Token (NSKT) working  while some dead end branches were worked under One Train Only (OTW) - the modern mane for oOne Engine In steam and usinga Train Staff (but no tickets of course) 

 

TST Regs appeared in the 1972 book because it was the first wholly nationally applicable issue of the Block Regulations so the WR simply got the same book as everybody else and no longer had its own Block Regulations book.  But TST still remained an oddity on the WR and there was quite a bit of interest when it was introduced on a freight only branch on my then patch when that branch was singled during 1973, it had previously been worked under C2 Regulations.  The decision to use TST being based on the frequency and weight of trains using the branch. The next place I knew of it being introduced on the WR was on the Brentford branch in the 1970s because of dissatisfaction with the discipline of C2 working although there had never been any incidents.

 

The big change came following the change to the business v based organisation in 1992 when Trainload freight took over all teh former WR freight only branches - almost all of which were worked under Table C2 Reulations.  This system horrified the York based TLF Rules & Regs folk - who seem to have carried on some of the old NER tradition for over-signalling as some of their secondary lines had 4 aspect colour lights.   So they went mad on spending money introducing TST to all the C2 lines - in some cases branches which saw no more than a couple of trains a day (although some were a lot busier).   They also had strange ideas about retro-reflective distant boards and were most upset when on an Inspection Special over the Oxford - Bletchley line they saw one of these boards acting as the distant fora colour light stop signal

[RailWest]

The WR introduced two sections of TS&T working Barnstaple Jcn 'B' - Instow - Torrington in 1968 :-)

[Michael Hodgson]

I have an assortment of supplements to the 1960 regulations, but it won't be a complete set.

The Introductory leaflet 361/5 that was issued with the 1960 WR regs summarising changes includes refers to the former GWR TS&T regulations as Deleted, and the OES & No Block Regs as moved to the General Appendix.  So presumably there was either a supplementary booklet in 1968 or an update to the Appendix.

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I have an assortment of supplements to the 1960 regulations, but it won't be a complete set.

The Introductory leaflet 361/5 that was issued with the 1960 WR regs summarising changes includes refers to the former GWR TS&T regulations as Deleted, and the OES & No Block Regs as moved to the General Appendix.  So presumably there was either a supplementary booklet in 1968 or an update to the Appendix.

As it was of very limited application the normal procedure was only to add it to the Signalbox Special Instructions so no real need to amend the Block Regulations booklet.  The TS&T Regulations had definitely not appeared in any amendment to the WR booklet  up to and including Supplement No 8 issued in  May 1971 as I have all the WR Supplements issued up to and including that one.  As there are no gaps in the numbering of the Supplements I have it 's also clear that up until that date there had been no limited issue Supplement which i didn't receive.

 

Putting limited application but generally discontinued Regulations into Signal Box Special Instructions was a well established practice.  For example former GWR, then WR, Absolute Block Regulation 4A was not included in the 1972 'standard' Block Regulations so you could perhaps surmise that it ceased to exist from that year.  But it obviously didn't because in 1992 I found it (as revised in August 1965) in the Special Instructions in several 'boxes which had been very firmly under LMR control since January 1963.  In other words just because something was no longer in the book that didn't necessarily mean that it had ceased to be used somewhere.    

 

When, in 1985, i was on the working party revising the Block Regulations we decided - after enquiries around the network  - to remove one part of a Regulation (alas I forget)  which because it was used only in a few places.  Thus when the new book was issued without that Regulation each location where it had been used was re-examined and if traffic couldn't be worked without it that part of the former Regulation became part of the 'Box Special Instructions.

[JRamsden]

On 15/05/2022 at 23:55, The Stationmaster said:

A fairly typical hand point lever arrangement although not all railways used a cranked lever.  Note the boarding over the gap in the extended sleepers between the lever box and the rail edge.   This is what was known as two way lever - by far the most common type in later years and it would always be pulled in the same direction (towards the viewpoint from which I took the photo) in order to change the points to one route to the other, hence 'two way'.

 

This is really useful information, thanks!

 

On 16/05/2022 at 09:46, bécasse said:

And here is a scale drawing of just such a point lever measured up at Witney Goods (WR).

 

...and from a modelling point of view, this is also massively useful. Thanks!

[JRamsden]

OK, so an update... sorry for the slow reply, I haven't had as much time to return to the layout as I would have liked recently.

 

I had a stab at creating the trap points which were so kindly described by contributors to this thread. I used a couple of old points and stole the fine switch blades as they had a nice profile without the need for much modification. The single trap used a more standard piece of track, filed to an angle. The effect isn't as good as the double trap, but looks good enough for my liking. All rails were soldered and cosmetic sleeper extensions were added later, cut from a spare piece of Peco flexitrack.

 

 

 

Now I turn my attention back to the point rodding. I have attempted a plan based on the information I have:

 

 

My understanding is that the amount of push and pull should be equal in a single rodding run. But what about the runs that go to the right of the signal box? They are very short, only around 35 to 40 feet from the 'box. Then again, the RH point switch also has a trap joined to the same rod which, presumably, extends the whole run? I put a compensator in the longest run but not sure if it's in the right place?

 

Any advice on improving this setup would be greatly appreciated!

 

All the best,

Jonathan 

 

[RailWest]

Compensation is a tricky subject best left to those who understand it more than I do :-)

 

To some extent compensators can be eliminated by the careful use and positioning of any cranks, but that may not happen here.

 

However I would suggest that:-

1. In the long run to the pointwork at the LH end you will need one compensator roughly midway between the signal-box and the trap, and another somewhere between the crank which feeds the rod across to the trap and the point at the LH end
2.  At the RH end, one comp in the run from the box to the facing point and another in the run from the box to the trap
3. One in the run from the box to the FPL.

Although practice did differ, in principle the rod from the box to the FPL should feed the end of the lock bar further from the toe of the point, the FPL plunger itself being driven off the end of the lock bar nearer to the toe. This ensures that the plunger can't be moved if the lock bar is broken!

 

As drawn, at the LH end both the trap and point will move in the same direction, but if you study what will then happen at their switch blades you will realise that actually they need to move in opposite directions, so one of the cranks will have to be reversed.

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, JRamsden said:

OK, so an update... sorry for the slow reply, I haven't had as much time to return to the layout as I would have liked recently.

 

I had a stab at creating the trap points which were so kindly described by contributors to this thread. I used a couple of old points and stole the fine switch blades as they had a nice profile without the need for much modification. The single trap used a more standard piece of track, filed to an angle. The effect isn't as good as the double trap, but looks good enough for my liking. All rails were soldered and cosmetic sleeper extensions were added later, cut from a spare piece of Peco flexitrack.

 

 

 

Now I turn my attention back to the point rodding. I have attempted a plan based on the information I have:

 

 

My understanding is that the amount of push and pull should be equal in a single rodding run. But what about the runs that go to the right of the signal box? They are very short, only around 35 to 40 feet from the 'box. Then again, the RH point switch also has a trap joined to the same rod which, presumably, extends the whole run? I put a compensator in the longest run but not sure if it's in the right place?

 

Any advice on improving this setup would be greatly appreciated!

 

All the best,

Jonathan 

 

Traps nicely done - just the job and the doge only shows if someone looks very closely.

 

And yes - in a rodding run the distance pulled and the distance pushed should be equalised as near as possible (some engineers suggest that differences of less than 10 yards should be ignored).  That's the simplebit.  some of the pull and push can be dealt with by the way cranks are arranged, especially for shorter distances.  On your scheme as shown in the drawing above you will need a comp approximately half way between  the leading-off crank from teh signal box and the crank driving the traps from y the sidings.  You then need another comp halfway between that crab nk and the one working the engine release point as that will reduce the effects of expansion affecting both drive cranks.  And don't forget that the drive to the point and the drive to the traps will move in opposite directions so the cranks driving them off the rodding run will be opposite ways round.

 

The point/trap arrangement at the other end is more awkward but what you will need is a comp between the two ends to again minimise the effects of expansion on one end or the other becuse you have the sane rod working both switches.  You can probably more or less equalise/ignore the push/pull situation between the leading off cranks and the running line point and lock(ing) bar/FPL (yes the lock(ing) bar drives the FPL bolt so you put the comp in the section of the run to the crank that drives the trap (although thsi was not always done - practice tended to vary a bit).

 

Hope that helps you on your way.

[Nick C]

On 11/05/2022 at 13:31, The Stationmaster said:

First of all you could not have a running signal reading to a hand point,  even a trailing hand point, as that point could be set for a different route from that to which the signal applies.  If it is going to be a hand point - as per some heritage railways, then it needs to be protected by either a running signal fixed at danger (quite a rarity but such things did exist) or - although not strictly correct for a running route - a STOP board (but practice in respect of signal reading to STOP boards did vary over the years.

There must have been some kind of unmarked limit though, I can think of several examples where the points at the headshunt end of a run-round loop were hand points, without any signals past the home, and I've not noticed any sign of stop boards in photos of said stations - Hayling Island and Ventnor are two that come to mind.

[RailWest]

11 minutes ago, Nick C said:

There must have been some kind of unmarked limit though, I can think of several examples where the points at the headshunt end of a run-round loop were hand points, without any signals past the home, and I've not noticed any sign of stop boards in photos of said stations - Hayling Island and Ventnor are two that come to mind.

Practices varied and changed over the years :-)

 

In cases where the engine release point/crossover was beyond the end of the platform, then the stretch of track from the buffer-stop end of the platform to the actual buffer-stop might be regarded as being beyond the limit of passenger train working and hence not restricted to the rules for signalling passenger lines. This often resulted in a different arrangement of the point-work and ground signals, see examples such as Princetown or Helston for GWR practice.