Signalling for Begbrooke - any comments please?

[Miss Prism]

Did you miss out a word there Miss P - in my experience - albeit far from exhaustive - I can thing of very, very few mechanically worked double slips on the Western where both sets of switches at any end were worked by the same lever although I know there were some examples? (Have a look at the ladder in the middle siding at Didcot East End)

 

I certainly can't match your experience, Mike, so I'll need to delve into the books. Here's four double slips in Hockley goods yard, each end of which is on a single lever:

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrhd683.htm

 

And what about 20 and 22 of Begbrooke? Those blades are ganged on a single stretcher and rod.

 

Double slips on GWR running lines weren't common, so some dabbling among the picture books is required. I'm not a member of the SRS, so I can't see enough detail in their signalling thumbnails. Maybe I assumed (incorrectly) the way single-slip crossovers were arranged applied also to double slips.

 

As far as Begbrooke at the branch junction is concerned what they would have been seeking to avoid was setting a conflicting route through the Mains trailing crossover (No.17) at the same time as a route was set through the Down Main to Up & Down Branch crossover (No.s 20 & 21) but also having to cater for a route from the Branch to the Up Main which would therefore require 17 reverse at the same time as the other crossover.

 

I really don't understand the rationale here, Mike. If shunting from/to the branch between the up main and down main, 17 and 22 would be involved anyway, so what's the potential problem? I can't see splitting the two ends 20 and 21 could 'lock out the conflict'. (And even then, I still don't understand why 22 can't be the other end of 17, and 20 the other end of 21, unless Kidlington was built that way and remained that way owing to limitations or inflexibility of its stud and twist locking.)

 

Edit: am beginning to get my head around GWR 3- or 4-lever double-slip crossovers. I may be gone for some time...

 

Thanks for your notes on GWR 1890s 'white light' ground discs, a notion new to me (and not mentioned in Adrian Vaughan's main tome I think), but I suppose it does have a resonance with the absence of glass in the upper spectacles of distant signal arms (all red then, of course), which didn't begin to change until c 1908???

Edited August 24, 2013 by Miss Prism

[buffalo]

...Thanks for your notes on GWR 1890s 'white light' ground discs, a notion new to me (and not mentioned in Adrian Vaughan's main tome I think), but I suppose it does have a resonance with the absence of glass in the upper spectacles of distant signal arms (all red then, of course), which didn't begin to change until c 1908???

Not sure about distants, but Vaughan (p20) mentions green replacing 'white' from 1892. From the context, he may just be referring to stop signals. He also mentions 1895 as the date when the GWR complied with standard specs for the different coloured glasses. GWW says 1895 for the decision to use green and says "...all had been modified by 1902." The source quoted in the latter is Macdermott vol 2 p261.

 

Nick

Edited August 23, 2013 by buffalo

[Miss Prism]

Thanks Nick. I think the pic I had in mind of the glassless distant spectacle danger aspect was probably 1900, so that ties in with those dates.

[The Great Bear]

Thanks for all the replies, suggestions and comments to date. It's nice to know I've picked an interesting prototype to work from and spark some discussion and education - not just for me either. That's one of the great things about this "place". White lamp signals, all understood. Discussion on the slips and crossovers slowly starting to make sense...

 

Thanks

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

I certainly can't match your experience, Mike, so I'll need to delve into the books. Here's four double slips in Hockley goods yard, each end of which is on a single lever:

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrhd683.htm

 

And what about 20 and 22 of Begbrooke? Those blades are ganged on a single stretcher and rod.

 

Double slips on GWR running lines weren't common, so some dabbling among the picture books is required. I'm not a member of the SRS, so I can't see enough detail in their signalling thumbnails. Maybe I assumed (incorrectly) the way single-slip crossovers were arranged applied also to double slips.

 

 

I really don't understand the rationale here, Mike. If shunting from/to the branch between the up main and down main, 17 and 22 would be involved anyway, so what's the potential problem? I can't see splitting the two ends 20 and 21 could 'lock out the conflict'. (And even then, I still don't understand why 22 can't be the other end of 17, and 20 the other end of 21, unless Kidlington was built that way and remained that way owing to limitations or inflexibility of its stud and twist locking.)

 

Edit: am beginning to get my head around GWR 4-lever double-slip crossovers. I may be gone for some time...

begbrooke-crossovers-2.png

 

Thanks for your notes on GWR 1890s 'white light' ground discs, a notion new to me (and not mentioned in Adrian Vaughan's main tome I think), but I suppose it does have a resonance with the absence of glass in the upper spectacles of distant signal arms (all red then, of course), which didn't begin to change until c 1908???

I think we're at cross purposes on double slips - I was referring to those worked by signalboxes while you were thinking of handpoints (where I would tend to agree with you).

 

 

I'll try to do a clearer explanation on the Begbrooke double slip by the station - starting with the routes that can be set through it, which are (using original lever numbers) -

1. Up Main to Down Main trailing crossover (and vice versa) - lever 17 only

2. Down Main to Branch/Goods Loop - levers 20 & 21

3. Branch to Up Main - levers 17, 21, & 22

 

What must not happen is the ability to set routes 1 and 2 at the same time but to set route 3 requires both the crossover made by levers 20 & 21 to be stood reverse and that made by lever 17 to also be stood reverse.  This means that both levers 21 and 17 need to be reverse at the same time which means they cannot lock each other - which in turns means that if lever 21 also worked the facing points in the Down Main it would be possible to set Routes 1 & 2 simultaneously, although they directly conflict with each other.

 

By providing a separate lever for the Down Main facing point (20) that potential conflict is removed as lever 20 cannot be reversed when 17 is standing reverse.

 

 In your latest sketch 21 has to stand the opposite way - i.e. set normally towards the bay to provide trap protection for the through lines and similarly your revised No. 20 would also have to stand normal set for a through Down Main line movement.  However what now happens is that in order to lock out the conflictions in route settings 22 would finish up locking 20, and vice versa, because they can set conflicting routes and it would no longer be possible to make 21 release 22, nor can 22 release 21.  The latter creates additional locking problems by adding to the amount of signal locking on all the point levers and that is where the problems would probably increase.  Ideally 21 should lock 22 in either position but that takes us back to one of the inherent problems of the older types of GWR locking.  It is far simpler, and safer, from a locking viewpoint (and when locking is disarranged or points are damaged) to do it the way Jon has shown it for Begbrooke (where he has copied the arrangement at Kidlington).

[The Great Bear]

Right, the "easy" bits of advice to double check first.

 

The signals there are not too bad but following on from Miss P's point about the provision of an Outer Home (which would then become the Home Signal in GWR terminology) you have put yourself in a position where a train cannot leave Marlingford if the section of line which serves as a Down Loop is occupied or a train is signalled into it. Therefore you need an additional Home Signal =440yards in rear of No. 42 to give you the flexibility I'm sure you need. Consider also the sighting of No.42 as I reckon it would most likely be in rear of the overbridge and not in advance of it as you have it at present.[/i]

Don't understand this I'm afraid, Mike. Doesn't 42 do this, train can leave Marlingford and be stopped at this signal whilst loop is occupied? I can see I'd need another stop signal in the rear of 42 (if I turn a blind eye to its sighting(!)) if I wanted to be able to shunt the down siding using the branch as the headshunt but if I don't then doesn't 42 and fixed distant in lieu of 43 (as noted later) suffice.

 

I would also tend in the real world to consider a semaphore instead of a ground disc at No.29 but I think it would make the model scene look too crowded and would instead assume - for the period you are modelling - Advanced Starting Signal on both the Main and Branch in advance of the overbridge.

I'm struggling to understand this too, what to move/where. 29 is for the down exit from the down siding, 8 for the branch, 10 for connection to the mainline. Adapted from the SRS plan, putting 8 and 6 next to 36. Maybe my diagram's unclear?

 

 

As far as Begbrooke at the branch junction is  concerned what they would have been seeking to avoid was setting a conflicting route through the Mains trailing crossover (No.17) at the same time as a route was set through the Down Main to Up & Down Branch crossover (No.s 20 & 21) but also having to cater for a route from the Branch to the Up Main which would therefore require 17 reverse at the same time as the other crossover.  By splitting the two ends 20 & 21 it was possible to lock out such a conflict within the point levers and without any conditional locking because the Mains crossover lever 17 would lock 20 & vice versa) but would not lock 21.  And most likely 22 would be released by 17 AND 21 (and would probably also lock 20, & vice versa).  By this means virtually all potential conflicts would be locked solely by the point levers which would have the overall effect of potentially reducing some other locking.  This in turn suggests to me that Kidlington had an early design of frame with either Stud or Twist locking and it certainly has some features of relatively dated GWR signalling practice - probably no later than the early 1920s I would think.

So if for certain moves all the interlocking is done by the points to avoid conflicts then the signal for that route need only be linked to the first point lever and any other relevant signals not to the whole chain of points?

 

 

Thanks

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

Right, the "easy" bits of advice to double check first.

 

Don't understand this I'm afraid, Mike. Doesn't 42 do this, train can leave Marlingford and be stopped at this signal whilst loop is occupied? I can see I'd need another stop signal in the rear of 42 (if I turn a blind eye to its sighting(!)) if I wanted to be able to shunt the down siding using the branch as the headshunt but if I don't then doesn't 42 and fixed distant in lieu of 43 (as noted later) suffice.

 

I'm struggling to understand this too, what to move/where. 29 is for the down exit from the down siding, 8 for the branch, 10 for connection to the mainline. Adapted from the SRS plan, putting 8 and 6 next to 36. Maybe my diagram's unclear?

 

 

So if for certain moves all the interlocking is done by the points to avoid conflicts then the signal for that route need only be linked to the first point lever and any other relevant signals not to the whole chain of points?

 

 

Thanks

 

Jon

1.  Signal 42 only has a Clearing Point when the loop is unoccupied and no movement signalled towards it will stop on it.  So if a train, or shunt move, is present on the loop - or indeed anywhere between 42 and the bay platform - a train cannot be accepted on the branch line from Marlingford.  At Kidlington signal 48 was there to get round that problem as there was a quarter mile Clearing Point between it and signal 47 (which protected the connection from the loop into the Down Main.  

Your signal 42 is effectively the exact equivalent of the real No.47 (not No.46) - hence your need, in order to accept branch trains with the loop occupied, of an equivalent to the real No.48.  Now you can obviously 'selectively compress' a Clearing Point on a model railway - indeed it is unavoidable unless you layout is in a large barn - but compressing to to little more than nothing is going a bit too far for believability in my view.

 

2. Disc 29 is for the exit from the Branch Siding and it would read to both the Branch and the Down Main (although that would have been rather difficult with the locking type in use at Kidlington I suspect - in reality it would be either a double disc or a semaphore with two arms if the prototype layout were the same as yours).  Signals 8 & 6 apply to the Branch/Loop and not to the siding and they are basically protecting the double slip plus signalling the connection to the Down Main.

 

3.  In model terms the answer is 'yes' as it makes the interlocking much simpler although in the real world things are very different because the principles require that every point is interlocked with signals which read through it and vice versa.  The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking and thus it would have simple locks between points and signals which appears to have resulted in the 20/21 split.  In theory the result should be similar for you but the use of a single 'tiebar' on double slips could introduce some complication (but it might not - needs a bit of thought).  My inclination for a model is to keep the interlocking simple!

[Miss Prism]

Thanks, Mike, for your patient explanation of the thinking behind the locking for the 4-lever arrangement. For the later 'standard GWR' 3-lever arrangement, presumbably the principle of the locking, at least in terms of the turnouts themselves (i.e. ignoring signals for the moment), is merely c being released only when a and b are reversed?

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

 

Thanks, Mike, for your patient explanation of the thinking behind the locking for the 4-lever arrangement. For the later 'standard GWR' 3-lever arrangement, presumbably the principle of the locking, at least in terms of the turnouts themselves (i.e. ignoring signals for the moment), is merely c being released only when a and b are reversed?

 

3-lever-double-slip-crossover.png

 

Exactly so.   Although it could also be done another way using conditional locking in order to prevent A and B be being reversed at the same time - i.e. A locks B with C normal, B locks A with C normal in which case the pulling order would be A C B (or possibly BCA - depending on which of A or B released C) instead of ABC.   THus the availability of conditional locking would have allowed an economy in the size of lever frames for the more complex layouts involving double slips.  Regrettably the SRS discs tend to be very 'light' on locking tables for the more complex places but the dog chart for Didcot East End shows a large amount of conditional locking on the various levers working the ladder between the Reliefs and the Up Main via the Middle Siding.

 

Incidentally you will no doubt be interested to learn that at Reading West Junction all the double slips had both switches at the same end worked off a single lever - it was probably done that way to keep down the length of the 'frame?   I recall a visit to the 'box not long before its closure (1965) when a friend accompanying me was asked if he wanted to pull a lever and much to my amusement was given one which worked one end of a double slip plus another point end and which caused him considerable (unsuccessful) difficulty; having done such things (very unofficially) previously I managed it but it was very heavy - far worse than even a 'bad' crossover.  Fortunately my friend's experience did not put him off railways but why the heck he later chose the name of an A4 for his publishing concern has long had me wondering!

[RailWest]

"The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking ...."

 

The SRS Register has no 'type' info for the original frame, but records that it was replaced by a 5.1/4" HT 3-bar in 1918.  Replacement frame was the same size (51 levers) as its predecssor, so maybe they just did a like-for-like swop?

[The Stationmaster]

"The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking ...."

 

The SRS Register has no 'type' info for the original frame, but records that it was replaced by a 5.1/4" HT 3-bar in 1918.  Replacement frame was the same size (51 levers) as its predecssor, so maybe they just did a like-for-like swop?

Could well be Chris although the signalling would have been about right for that period so it might have been done as a job that placed minimum demands on the Drawing Office (and in any case I wonder if a 3 bar would have had sufficient bars for the conditional?).

[Miss Prism]

Had a glance through the WSP Woodstock branch book, and it is devoid of any track and signalling information!

Also had a chance to see a couple of early '60s high-level shots of Paddington approach, and the double slips there (all power operated) all seem to have only a single motor at each end of each slip, indicating the blades at each end worked off a single stretcher bar. It would have been nice to see some overhead shots of the Westbourne Bridge trackwork, which I think carries the ladder of slips leading into Ranelagh Bridge yard.

Together with your information about the rod-worked Reading West double slips, Mike, was there a change of outlook between the 'classical GWR' segregated bladeset 3-lever arrangement and a later-favoured ganged bladeset 2-lever arrangement?

Edited August 24, 2013 by Miss Prism

[The Great Bear]

Miss Prism, on 25 Aug 2013 - 00:41, said:

Had a glance through the WSP Woodstock branch book, and it is devoid of any track and signalling information!

Agree, it does lack information on Kidlington. Adrian Vaughan's GWR Junction Stations provides more information, that's been my reference.

[The Great Bear]

Thanks again, Mike

 

1.  Signal 42 only has a Clearing Point when the loop is unoccupied and no movement signalled towards it will stop on it.  So if a train, or shunt move, is present on the loop - or indeed anywhere between 42 and the bay platform - a train cannot be accepted on the branch line from Marlingford.  At Kidlington signal 48 was there to get round that problem as there was a quarter mile Clearing Point between it and signal 47 (which protected the connection from the loop into the Down Main.  

 

Your signal 42 is effectively the exact equivalent of the real No.47 (not No.46) - hence your need, in order to accept branch trains with the loop occupied, of an equivalent to the real No.48.  Now you can obviously 'selectively compress' a Clearing Point on a model railway - indeed it is unavoidable unless you layout is in a large barn - but compressing to to little more than nothing is going a bit too far for believability in my view.

Oops, silly of me - having done some revision on The Signal Box (no doubt covered numerous time in this place too) meaning of "Clearing Point" sinks in. Duh. Am I right in then thinking, this then also explains doesn't it location of signal no.2: it's location being at least 440 yards in rear of no.3, nothing to do with platform or train length? (There's another question coming in relation to No.2 later)

 

2. Disc 29 is for the exit from the Branch Siding and it would read to both the Branch and the Down Main (although that would have been rather difficult with the locking type in use at Kidlington I suspect - in reality it would be either a double disc or a semaphore with two arms if the prototype layout were the same as yours).  Signals 8 & 6 apply to the Branch/Loop and not to the siding and they are basically protecting the double slip plus signalling the connection to the Down Main.

Ok, I had thought a double disc might be needed here, may keep to single one for ease of working signal construction/procurement. If 29 were a semaphore giving information separately for the two routes both would have goods rings wouldn't they, don't recall seeing photo of such a signal anywhere. For model, as your original post, semaphore is going to make it look too crowded.

 

At the up end of the branch siding should the same principle apply too? The down end I can see I've complicated things by introducing the double slip, not having two separate junctions between the siding and the branch then branch and down main but other end is as per Kidlington. So there doesn't appear to be any difference between a move from the siding to the bay line or to the crossover to the up main. Signals 41, 27, 37 cover the branch only and protect(?) the junction between siding and branch.

 

3.  In model terms the answer is 'yes' as it makes the interlocking much simpler although in the real world things are very different because the principles require that every point is interlocked with signals which read through it and vice versa.  The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking and thus it would have simple locks between points and signals which appears to have resulted in the 20/21 split.  In theory the result should be similar for you but the use of a single 'tiebar' on double slips could introduce some complication (but it might not - needs a bit of thought).  My inclination for a model is to keep the interlocking simple!

Yes! Even though I think I can do it writing programs in the NCE Mini Panel, there are limits on number of inputs and steps so want to keep it simple, but have something.

[TheSignalEngineer]

"The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking ...."

 

The SRS Register has no 'type' info for the original frame, but records that it was replaced by a 5.1/4" HT 3-bar in 1918.  Replacement frame was the same size (51 levers) as its predecssor, so maybe they just did a like-for-like swop?

Given the situation in 1918 a like-for-like swap would have been most probable. This would have meant no alterations to the rodding

outside.

 

Regarding Mike's comment, if the previous frame was a Twist, I have seen conditions added to these but as a separate tappet tray. Levers had to be arranged to take account of what the locking could be made to do on old non-tappet frames.

[LNERGE]

Of little help but here's a double slip on the main Eastern Region style..

 

http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/holton_le_moor.jpg

[micknich2003]

 Here's an ex NERly variaton of the same theme. ;

[Miss Prism]

The double-ended lock 40 on Withernsea is crafty. The essence of the double slip configuration though is 2-lever (34 and 39). Very 'modern'!

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks again, Mike

 

Oops, silly of me - having done some revision on The Signal Box (no doubt covered numerous time in this place too) meaning of "Clearing Point" sinks in. Duh. Am I right in then thinking, this then also explains doesn't it location of signal no.2: it's location being at least 440 yards in rear of no.3, nothing to do with platform or train length? (There's another question coming in relation to No.2 later)

 

Ok, I had thought a double disc might be needed here, may keep to single one for ease of working signal construction/procurement. If 29 were a semaphore giving information separately for the two routes both would have goods rings wouldn't they, don't recall seeing photo of such a signal anywhere. For model, as your original post, semaphore is going to make it look too crowded.

 

At the up end of the branch siding should the same principle apply too? The down end I can see I've complicated things by introducing the double slip, not having two separate junctions between the siding and the branch then branch and down main but other end is as per Kidlington. So there doesn't appear to be any difference between a move from the siding to the bay line or to the crossover to the up main. Signals 41, 27, 37 cover the branch only and protect(?) the junction between siding and branch.

 

Yes! Even though I think I can do it writing programs in the NCE Mini Panel, there are limits on number of inputs and steps so want to keep it simple, but have something.

1.  Although the SRS drawing for Kidlington doesn't give a distance for No.2 I would think that it is almost certainly at least 440yds in rear of the Inner Homes at the end of the Down Platform - in fact it would be daft if it wasn't that far in rear of them!

 

2.  If it was a semaphore yes - both arms would have goods rings and they would almost certainly be mounted one above the other on the same post (just like one at, I think, Wantage Road which had two arms; the most of I know of arranged in that way was at Abergavenny Junction which had, I think, 4 arms).

 

3. Referring to the Begbrooke plan 41, 27, and 37 apply to only the branch.  The disc, 25, applies to the branch siding but the interesting question would be where it read to in the real world as there are two potential routes from the signal (to the Up Main and disc No12) and I'm inclined to suspect that it probably only read to the latter as there would seem the most likely move.  A shunt move to the Up Main being from the Branch potentially using either 41 or 37 according to what they were shunting towards.  (see notes below re train working)

 

Discs with single routes were still being installed by the GWR post WWII in some places and at one place where I worked we had to make up to 30 movements a day past a disc which couldn't be cleared for the route which was being used, and it didn't have a white light! (I know that because we did a census of the number of unsignalled moves in 1975.)

 

Train Working - This is a 'might have' scenario but it makes sense (to me). I reckon Kidlington would probably have been shunted by a Down direction freight trip and this would probably have been put into the Branch Siding to keep it out of the way and thus it would shunt from there to the goods yard adjacent to the bay although quite how it got from the Down Main to your disc 24 is an interesting problem (flagged past 9 I would hazard as a guess).

 

 

 

Had a glance through the WSP Woodstock branch book, and it is devoid of any track and signalling information!

 

Also had a chance to see a couple of early '60s high-level shots of Paddington approach, and the double slips there (all power operated) all seem to have only a single motor at each end of each slip, indicating the blades at each end worked off a single stretcher bar. It would have been nice to see some overhead shots of the Westbourne Bridge trackwork, which I think carries the ladder of slips leading into Ranelagh Bridge yard.

 

Together with your information about the rod-worked Reading West double slips, Mike, was there a change of outlook between the 'classical GWR' segregated bladeset 3-lever arrangement and a later-favoured ganged bladeset 2-lever arrangement?

As far as I know single point machine for both sets of switches at one end of a double slip was (and is) the usual way of doing the job although I have seen two separate motors in some cases (but rare) but a thing to keep in mind is that with electric operation the locking can be far more sophisticated.  Incidentally I have just checked Bristol Temple Meads 1930spower signalling and there is one exception there where a slip had a single point machine at one end and two at the other.

 

There almost certainly would have been a change I think Miss P.  Partly things changed because of the availability of conditional locking and - as SE has noted above - there were instances where some tappet locking was added to older frames (e.g Twyford West) seemingly in order to provide conditional locking.  I've just checked The Henley branch book - it being a long time since I did the original drafts of the signalbox diagrams - and the double slip switches were on separate levers so we have one time marker pre 1914.  I know from past conversations with Western locking engineers that some changes in standards took place in the 1920s when there was a move away from driving lots of interlocking via Facing Point Lock levers.  Similarly contemporaneous schemes indicate there was a change in ground disc standards post 1945 when there was a move away from multiple discs back to using single discs in new work and of course there were the various 'de-Great Westernisation' changes made in 1950.  So GWR signalling standards and detail practice never really stood still although basic principles were fairly constant - the problem is exactly dating changes as even my attempts to get hold of latterday Reading Drawing Office standards and Office Instructions have proved unsuccessful apart from establishing (from very reliable sources) that some seem to have been purely verbal on the basis of 'that's the way we do it'.

[micknich2003]

Here's a better example of former N E Rly practice. On reflection, my sketch of Withernsea, will most likerly be after the LNER carried out Locking alterations.  

The double-ended lock 40 on Withernsea is crafty. The essence of the double slip configuration though is 2-lever (34 and 39). Very 'modern'!

[The Great Bear]

3. Referring to the Begbrooke plan 41, 27, and 37 apply to only the branch.  The disc, 25, applies to the branch siding but the interesting question would be where it read to in the real world as there are two potential routes from the signal (to the Up Main and disc No12) and I'm inclined to suspect that it probably only read to the latter as there would seem the most likely move.  A shunt move to the Up Main being from the Branch potentially using either 41 or 37 according to what they were shunting towards.  (see notes below re train working)

Train Working - This is a 'might have' scenario but it makes sense (to me). I reckon Kidlington would probably have been shunted by a Down direction freight trip and this would probably have been put into the Branch Siding to keep it out of the way and thus it would shunt from there to the goods yard adjacent to the bay although quite how it got from the Down Main to your disc 24 is an interesting problem (flagged past 9 I would hazard as a guess).

Great, thanks.

 

Your supposition matches what I can glean from the WTT I have (1948 BR from http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk/default.aspx?atk=597,). Kidlington yard shunted between 11.30am and 11.50am by Class K Banbury bound freight. In that time it is passed by a Birmingham bound Class A passenger train so the freight is off the down main, either on the branch or down siding. The branch auto is out of the way in this time, having departed for Woodstock at 11.15am so it could occupy the branch section in the control of the Kidlington box.

 

The compression in my model and desire to get the end of the down siding and connection back to down main on-scene has meant the down siding is too short, just long enough to serve as a run around loop, and too short for a goods train serving the yard to drive in via the facing double slip as it would not be off the down main before loco reached signal no.8, so either it doesn't do this and sets-back via 36, or could it run in and continue up branch to the outer home (this now being at no.43 as per your previous comment)(if that would be permissible)

 

In the up direction  the WTT shows a class J train stopping a Kiddlington between 4.13pm and 4.53pm but doesn't say it is does any "work" in this time. It is passed in the up direction at 4.40pm, so whether it was just sitting in the up-siding or was doing something else in this time like collecting wagons Oxford bound from the down siding or the spurs at the end of it, say, isn't clear to me, whether that counts as "work"?

 

Thanks

 

Jon

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

The Great Bear, on 25 Aug 2013 - 18:13, said:

 

Great, thanks.

 

Your supposition matches what I can glean from the WTT I have (1948 BR from http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk/default.aspx?atk=597,). Kidlington yard shunted between 11.30am and 11.50am by Class K Banbury bound freight. In that time it is passed by a Birmingham bound Class A passenger train so the freight is off the down main, either on the branch or down siding. The branch auto is out of the way in this time, having departed for Woodstock at 11.15am so it could occupy the branch section in the control of the Kidlington box.

 

The compression in my model and desire to get the end of the down siding and connection back to down main on-scene has meant the down siding is too short, just long enough to serve as a run around loop, and too short for a goods train serving the yard to drive in via the facing double slip as it would not be off the down main before loco reached signal no.8, so either it doesn't do this and sets-back via 36, or could it run in and continue up branch to the outer home (this now being at no.43 as per your previous comment)(if that would be permissible)

 

In the up direction the WTT shows a class J train stopping a Kiddlington between 4.13pm and 4.53pm but doesn't say it is does any "work" in this time. It is passed in the up direction at 4.40pm, so whether it was just sitting in the up-siding or was doing something else in this time like collecting wagons Oxford bound from the down siding or the spurs at the end of it, say, isn't clear to me, whether that counts as "work"?

 

Thanks

 

Jon

I think you could quite reasonably do either of the moves you suggest with the Down freight Jon - both are legitimate moves although using the Branch could prove a bit more awkward depending on what was going on at Marlingford.

 

The Up train might well have picked up at Kidlington although it is fairly clearly pathed (using my 1947 timetable - same times) to run block & block behind a passenger train from Bletchington but it is not tightly timed behind the train which passes at 4.40 pm which suggests to me that allowance was made for it to pick up any urgent traffic but perhaps not do any other shunting.  The answer might lie in what the branch train is doing at those times but I haven't checked that.

Edited August 25, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[The Great Bear]

Discs with single routes were still being installed by the GWR post WWII in some places and at one place where I worked we had to make up to 30 movements a day past a disc which couldn't be cleared for the route which was being used, and it didn't have a white light! (I know that because we did a census of the number of unsignalled moves in 1975.)

Interesting - so as long as move is authorised by the signalman in whatever way (conversation, flag, hand signals?) it can be made whether signalled or not.

 

(Thinking how the up freight would get across to pick up something from the down siding as just discussed. Guessing train is stopped by the box, signalman has the conversation with the crew and they agree what is going to be done, train then draws ahead to clear the crossover and they get on with it. Sorry if a silly question - understanding of railway operations especially the mundane is the hardest bit to glean knowledge on in my view, not covered by books I've read.)

[Miss Prism]

The prototypical replication of the freights is thwarted by your lack of working model length, but I suspect the up freight was probably parked in the up siding, with the loco taking the dropoffs to the yard and returning with the pickups. For the down freight, there seems to be no reason why it shouldn't have run straight onto the branch via 20, although that begs the question as to whether 35 was actually used much if at all.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting - so as long as move is authorised by the signalman in whatever way (conversation, flag, hand signals?) it can be made whether signalled or not.

 

(Thinking how the up freight would get across to pick up something from the down siding as just discussed. Guessing train is stopped by the box, signalman has the conversation with the crew and they agree what is going to be done, train then draws ahead to clear the crossover and they get on with it. Sorry if a silly question - understanding of railway operations especially the mundane is the hardest bit to glean knowledge on in my view, not covered by books I've read.)

Signalmen could authorise a movement past a signal at danger subject to certain checks (e.g points correctly set!) and this became quite a common occurrence at places where disc signals (in particular) could only be cleared for one route and the route set was not the 'white light' route.  Latterly of course conditional locking allowed shunting disc signals to be cleared for whatever route it was considered was needed when the locking was designed and approved by the operating folk.  However the ideal situation was that a signal such be provided for or cover all routes likely to be used,especially those used frequently - but reference my earlier comment about a 1975 survey of regularly used unsignalled shunting movement routes.

 

There are, I think, two ways in which traffic for the Up freight could have been dealt with although I suspect it would only have been for more urgent traffics and that it would hardly have been in the business of collecting empty coal wagons.  In the first method the train would arrive, shunt back into the Up Siding, cut-off the engine and it would proceed to the Downside to collect any outwards wagons - probably from the Branch Siding but it might have to shunt them out.  

 

In the second method - for which there appears to be time - the outward wagons would have been placed in the Up Siding; the arriving train would arrive on the Up Main, cut-off the engine and it would go into the siding to pick-up the wagons before attaching them to its train and then shunting the whole lot into the siding to allow the passenger train to go past.  On balance, notwithstanding what we know/surmise of the signalling I think the first method is most likely.

 

I doubt the Up freight would have any traffic to put off because although my archive doesn't give complete coverage of the Region the 1948 Marshalling Instructions show traffic for Blenheim and Woodstock, and Kidlington to Banbury (exclusive) to be routed via Oxford (Hinksey).  Alas what I haven't got is the Instructions for the 'northern' traffic Divisions so I can't be absolutely positive that traffic from the north etc wasn't routed via Banbury.