Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

For railway modellers to discuss and share ideas on realistic signalling arrangements.

Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby tynewydd » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:10 am

Last in my series starting with Port Dinllaen and encompassing Pont Llynfi and Tan-Y-Graig is Nantlle - a single-line branch terminus.

Unlike the others there was a real station at Nantlle, but my version differs from the original in at least these respects -

1. There is signaling and token working rather than one-engine-in-steam
2. The track plan is not based on the original - especially in that the Nantlle tramway comes in from the direction of the standard-gauge line rather than the opposite direction.

Track plan is here and the blurb is here

Please let me know what you see as odd.

Thanks,
Adam
Last edited by tynewydd on Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
tynewydd
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Les Etats-Unis, Cote Ouest

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby davidwoodcock » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:30 am

To me, this seems to be the point where your "history" moves from the unlikely but not impossible of the rest of your scheme to unbelievable. [edit to change the word "improvable" - I am not quite sure what I intended to write previously but it wasn't that!]

It wasn't just the real Nantlle branch that was owned by the LNWR, so was the Nantlle Tramway (and subsequently by the LMSR and BR). The LNWR had a monopoly of the slate traffic from this area, either via the Nantlle Tramway or via the NWNGR, and would have been in an excellent position vis à vis the horse-worked Tramway to ensure that it kept it. What might, though, have been possible is an extension of the ~2ft gauge lines of the quarry owners to an MR terminus at Nantlle. (In reality, their slate output was trans-shipped twice 2ft to 3ft 6in and 3ft 6in to 4ft 8½in.)
Last edited by davidwoodcock on Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidwoodcock
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Champlon, Belgique

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby kbarber » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:35 am

I notice you call it Nantlle (MR) but your blurb refers to it as 'Caernarvonshire Railway... assumed by the LNWR...' so I wonder if you're actually intending a LNWR influence here (with, presumably, running powers from Bangor to PLJ)?

The LNWR was rather a parsimonious outfit when it came to signalling branch lines. I wonder if (to add yet another variation of signalling practice) Nantlle might have been signalled with ground frames with Annetts key releases between them. There would have been an Annetts key on the end of the staff that released the GF controlling the entrance to the station (probably the only release needed for running round the local passenger trains).

I don't know what the rationale is for two crossovers (7 and 9), unless there was a very good reason involving lots of extra revenue I'd expect even the most lavish company to try and provide only one of the two. To my mind, 9 would be the better candidate; that would allow the one GF to control 10 as well and the whole layout could be signalled with just five levers (one lever to work both FPLs, locked by Annetts key, two crossovers and one signal in each direction). The GF would most likely be open to the elements and the levers would have the LNWR's very distinctive stirrup catch handles - a nice touch on a model.

I can't see, on the layout as you've drawn it, a reason for a second GF released from the first. I believe (from Richard Foster's book on LNWR signalling) the LNWR did use cascaded Annetts keys. So the first GF would be released by an Annetts key on the staff; once the points leading to the second GF were reversed a second Annetts key would be released to be taken to the second GF and release that. There would be no long runs of point rodding and a minimum of locking between GF levers, hence promoting economy of provision. On the layout you have here I'd expect GFs at both 7 and 9 with both being released by the same key, the one that was used depending completely on the needs of the train that was present.

The staff instrument for electric staff working would almost certainly be in the station building (protected from the weather without needing to build any kind of GF hut), allowing shunting across the main line to be carried out with no train present. In those more leisurely days, the need to stop those shunting moves before a train left PLJ and to wait until it arrived back there before restarting wouldn't be regarded as quite the terrible thing it is today. (Shunting within the slate side, or within the dairy side, could of course continue regardless.)

In any of these scenarios I'd expect no shunting signals of any kind and, as I say, the fewest possible running signals (preferably just one home and one starter) with all other moves being controlled by the GF operator (who would also be the guard or shunter).

If it is MR, although there probably would have been a signalbox of sorts I'd still expect as few signals as possible (certainly no shunt signals) and, likewise, unless there's an exceptional justification for the expenditure, only one of 7 or 9 crossovers. Again it's a moot point, regardless of the kind of building provided, whether the apparatus would be considered a signalbox or a ground frame - in the latter case the operator would, again, be the shunter or guard and would be assumed to be in direct control of all movements in any case. Even if there was a signalman properly so called, the MR wasn't one to provide shunt signals - the signalman was expected to control movements by handsignal.
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:50 am

I agree it looks heavily over-signalled, though I don't necessarily agree that you should simplify quite as much as suggested. It all depends on your traffic pattern.

Does the engine shed only house "the branch engine" or do you envisage a second engine being steamed to shunt these various wagons about all day? If so, you can't do it with Annetts keys on the train staff under TS&T - the staff would be away whilst you want to shunt. However I think you would need a quite remarkable volume of traffic to justify that economically. Are you expecting to have a freight come in and spend a couple of hours shunting using the train engine, whilst passenger services come and go? This is much more plausible economically (although it still assumes a more intensive passenger service than seems likely in rural Wales), but locking using only Annetts keys on the train staff would again be very limiting. Many branches were worked like that without needing full signalling, but it was typically a freight train using a two or three hour window in a sparse passenger timetable, and that meant it could carry the train staff.

If you are working Electric Train Staff rather than Train Staff & Ticket, you could at least extract a staff for shunting whilst the passenger train remained clear of the section at the far end. This would not be unreasonable for the LNWR.

Much as I like co-actors, I don't see the case for one here (15) although the LNWR were unduly fond of tall posts. Since any departing train is starting from rest, you don't need to see it from afar, so surely all you need is a short post to provide visibility under the bridge.

I don't know what LNW practice was with running shunts, but 3/4/5 signals seem a long way past the Home signal. I'd be happier with a running signal there, but if you follow KBarber's advice and dispense with 7 crossover, I think you should be moving 1 signal to that spot anyway.

My problem is more to do with the general geography of the station than its signalling, and of course any changes you may make to the station layout will impact the signalling. The goods shed location looks fairly improbable. I'm not clear as to where the other station buildings are, and how the public gain access, both for ordinary passengers arriving on foot to the booking office and more particularly for collections and deliveries by cart at the goods shed.

Is it (as I would expect given this layout) from a road leading to or past the platform end at the extreme right, or is it off the road overbridge in the middle? You do appear to have road access off the left hand bridge, which can no doubt serve the coal merchants (and possibly continuing under the other road bridge?) But I hope you don't expect your distinguished first class passengers to come through the coal yard and over the sidings in their fine horse-drawn carriages! I think I would be tempted to swap the goods shed location with the coal merchants or the engine shed to get suitable road access.

Maybe it's just the way you have drawn the diagram, but 12 crossover seems a long way down the platform, making the main part of the platform difficult to use. And if the main station building is indeed at the right hand end, you don't really want all the passengers to have to walk all the way to the far end of the platform to board their train. So will the train be pushed back towards the stops after running around? Or will they have to walk to the narrow part of the platform clear of 12 crossover? I think I would probably want a bolt lock on this crossover, which I would expect to be controlled from the ground, using only hand signals.

You don't show the cattle or end-loading facilities which would be usual, though I suppose you might be able to cater for end-loading by going though the goods shed.

Do you really need those gates on the exchange siding? That implies some sort of fence - so where exactly does that run? Does it not impede cart access to your goods shed (over the tramway track)?
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:39 am

davidwoodcock wrote:To me, this seems to be the point where your "history" moves from the unlikely but not impossible of the rest of your scheme to unbelievable.


Ok, I guess as Capt Mainwaring would say, "we appear to have entered the realm of fantasy now, Jones". Let's see what we can adjust to make it more believable. By the way, I had meant Midland Region rather than Midland Railway, but that is not an issue as if we are constructing a rival system out of whole cloth - we can go with that.

davidwoodcock wrote:What might, though, have been possible is an extension of the ~2ft gauge lines of the quarry owners to an MR terminus at Nantlle. (In reality, their slate output was trans-shipped twice 2ft to 3ft 6in and 3ft 6in to 4ft 8½in.)


So you are suggesting alternative to the tramway - servicing a subset of the quarries that wanted to AVOID the double shipment, and probably further up the valley as well? That would also make the "reverse engineering" of the narrow gauge line more probable and competition is good for the provision of services...

Adam
tynewydd
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Les Etats-Unis, Cote Ouest

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:56 am

kbarber wrote:I notice you call it Nantlle (MR) but your blurb refers to it as 'Caernarvonshire Railway... assumed by the LNWR...' so I wonder if you're actually intending a LNWR influence here (with, presumably, running powers from Bangor to PLJ)?


Yes - as I said to David MR was Midland region - but it proves I should be more careful with late night posting... :oops:

I guess we can go two ways - we can assume LNWR in which case we are just replacing one real station with a fictitious one or MR in which case we are constructing a rival.


kbarber wrote:The LNWR was rather a parsimonious outfit when it came to signalling branch lines. I wonder if (to add yet another variation of signalling practice) Nantlle might have been signalled with ground frames with Annetts key releases between them.


I'll read through and see if I can make sense of the idea and pluses and minuses - intriguing, I agree.

kbarber wrote:I don't know what the rationale is for two crossovers (7 and 9), unless there was a very good reason involving lots of extra revenue I'd expect even the most lavish company to try and provide only one of the two.


Well, I suppose I should reveal the basic inspiration for the track plan was Leighton Buzzard (GCR) - another exercise in fiction - and I think (re-reading the books) the second crossover arrived there because that layout was once shorter and got extended - not an especially good reason. So point(s) un-taken!

kbarber wrote:If it is MR, although there probably would have been a signalbox of sorts I'd still expect as few signals as possible (certainly no shunt signals) and, likewise, unless there's an exceptional justification for the expenditure, only one of 7 or 9 crossovers. Again it's a moot point, regardless of the kind of building provided, whether the apparatus would be considered a signalbox or a ground frame - in the latter case the operator would, again, be the shunter or guard and would be assumed to be in direct control of all movements in any case. Even if there was a signalman properly so called, the MR wasn't one to provide shunt signals - the signalman was expected to control movements by handsignal.


Question - once we arrive at the BR days of the early 60s via the LMS - would that still have been considered OK in either and ex-LNWR or ex-MR scenario? Or would there have been an insistence on greater provision of signaling to keep goods away from passengers?
tynewydd
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Les Etats-Unis, Cote Ouest

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:52 am

Mike Hodgson wrote:Are you expecting to have a freight come in and spend a couple of hours shunting using the train engine, whilst passenger services come and go? This is much more plausible economically (although it still assumes a more intensive passenger service than seems likely in rural Wales), but locking using only Annetts keys on the train staff would again be very limiting. Many branches were worked like that without needing full signalling, but it was typically a freight train using a two or three hour window in a sparse passenger timetable, and that meant it could carry the train staff.

Yes - freight messing about while passengers come and go - needs to be able to happen even if a train is on the way from PLJ or on the way back which will take something like 12/15 minutes each way at 20MPH. As late as 1923 before passenger trains were withdrawn, the real Nantlle had 12 scheduled passenger departures a day M-F and 16 on Saturdays. Thursday evening (choir practice, perhaps?) had an extra one. That's quite busy in my estimation once you add in maybe a pickup freight or two, two cattle/sheep trains a week for market days and slate trains.

Mike Hodgson wrote:Much as I like co-actors, I don't see the case for one here (15) although the LNWR were unduly fond of tall posts. Since any departing train is starting from rest, you don't need to see it from afar, so surely all you need is a short post to provide visibility under the bridge.

Gone.

Mike Hodgson wrote:I don't know what LNW practice was with running shunts, but 3/4/5 signals seem a long way past the Home signal. I'd be happier with a running signal there, but if you follow KBarber's advice and dispense with 7 crossover, I think you should be moving 1 signal to that spot anyway.


I did eliminate one crossover but made it No 9 that met with the acetylene torch - it was a facing three-way point - which I suspect would be unusual for a passenger line? So that led me to adding a real signal 3/4/5, but alternatively I could have just added a second minature arm to the #1 bracket for the #10 entrance to goods yard and a calling-on arm for movements into the occupied platform? I guess the difference is in having to shunt out goods from the lower yard beyond the #1 bracket versus just clearing the #10 crossover, reversing them into the platform road and then running around them there. But maybe its swings and roundabouts and such a move would be made controlled with flags anyway so simplicity and less levers would rule.

Mike Hodgson wrote:My problem is more to do with the general geography of the station than its signalling, and of course any changes you may make to the station layout will impact the signalling. The goods shed location looks fairly improbable.

Is it (as I would expect given this layout) from a road leading to or past the platform end at the extreme right, or is it off the road overbridge in the middle?

Right-hand end - I amended the plan to show this. I also moved the NG platform and provided a way through for vans and carts to access the goods shed and associated road with a passenger footbridge between the platforms. The goods shed on the (narrow) platform back-edge is something I remember from Valley station (C&HR->LNWR->LMS) where the platform was narrow and the name of the station was actually rendered on the goods shed wall. Valley had a particularly active cattle trade as the "valley smithfield" was there together with a bi-weekly cattle market.

Mike Hodgson wrote:12 crossover seems a long way down the platform, making the main part of the platform difficult to use. And if the main station building is indeed at the right hand end, you don't really want all the passengers to have to walk all the way to the far end of the platform to board their train. So will the train be pushed back towards the stops after running around? Or will they have to walk to the narrow part of the platform clear of 12 crossover? I think I would probably want a bolt lock on this crossover, which I would expect to be controlled from the ground, using only hand signals.

In model compression, this has to be so - and the length taken of the platform has to accommodate the largest engine we may expect to arrive unless we want there to be an engine RR spur that goes over the station road... For loco-hauled departures, they will have to be reset after the run-around. For auto-coach they could run coach first into Nantlle. I assume you are saying that the signals 19 and 6 are not needed? But that the box would have a bolt on the 12 crossover to ensure it is open before the signals into the platform can be cleared (and presumably that would double as the GF release)?

Mike Hodgson wrote:You don't show the cattle or end-loading facilities which would be usual, though I suppose you might be able to cater for end-loading by going though the goods shed.

Added

Mike Hodgson wrote:Do you really need those gates on the exchange siding? That implies some sort of fence - so where exactly does that run? Does it not impede cart access to your goods shed (over the tramway track)?

No I don't - removed.

Thanks for all the tips, Mike.

Adam
tynewydd
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Les Etats-Unis, Cote Ouest

Re: Nantlle (MR)

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:33 am

Yes, I would say a 3-way point would be fairly unusual for a passenger road into a small rural station but not impossible. I think your rearrangement should handle road access, but I don't see a footbridge as required over the cart access to the yard - only if you were also crossing the railway

Mike Hodgson wrote: For loco-hauled departures, they will have to be reset after the run-around. For auto-coach they could run coach first into Nantlle. I assume you are saying that the signals 19 and 6 are not needed? But that the box would have a bolt on the 12 crossover to ensure it is open before the signals into the platform can be cleared (and presumably that would double as the GF release)?

Yes, I would dispense with 19 & 6 and convert 12 to a GF or hand point. The reason I want to add a bolt or lock on this crossover is not for arrivals (you can trail through it and would not derail, although it would cause damage) but if trains are departing over it, when it becomes facing. Where terminal stations have room for it, the headshunt for the run-round road would usually continue beyond the end of the platform. Your geography doesn't allow that, so you reduce usable platform unless you propel stock towards stops after running round. Don't see that it matters which end of auto train is leading, although convenience of access to water & coal may have a bearing, as ideally you don't want to have to uncouple to refuel.
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby kbarber » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:24 pm

It has occurred to me that, at many locations where freight was (un)loaded, there was not a vast amount of shunting. So far as possible wagons would be positioned and the handling staff left to get on undisturbed for as long as possible. Only where there was a large depot with many handling roads would there be a call for shunting on anything like a continuous basis. That is why most stations were shunted by the local tripper once, or at most twice a day (perhaps with a horse to carry out positioning moves in between times if the site was so cramped that a whole shift's work couldn't be set up in one go). Continuous shunting at freight terminals (as opposed to marshalling yards) was probably restricted to major industrial sites or the goods stations in larger towns.

Adam, I wonder if you're assuming the goods would precede the passenger up the valley and need to shunt while it was running up from PLJ and back again, then depart for PLJ as soon as the section clears? That would need the kind of signalling and facilities you're talking about. But what seems more likely to me is that the goods would follow the passenger up, get inside to allow the passenger to depart and make whatever shunts were necessary that side while the passenger was still in section. After that it could be got across the road to shunt the other side (and probably assemble the outgoing train) before the next passenger needed the staff again. (In fact, given the sort of service density I'd expect in this area, it could probably take the train back to PLJ as well before the next passenger working.)

I think the governing principle for track and signalling is that the company would be looking to spend as little as they could get away with. If they could safely save three or four signals, a couple of sets of points and a signalbox building by careful timetabling that is what they would have done (or face the shareholders' wrath at the AGM)! That would be even more apparent at the end of a small local branch than on a busy main line (though even there you shouldn't expect the sort of gratuitous provision a modeller would love to be able to get his teeth in to - everything would have a purpose and its benefit carefully costed).
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby tynewydd » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:44 pm

kbarber wrote:Adam, I wonder if you're assuming the goods would precede the passenger up the valley and need to shunt while it was running up from PLJ and back again, then depart for PLJ as soon as the section clears? That would need the kind of signalling and facilities you're talking about. But what seems more likely to me is that the goods would follow the passenger up, get inside to allow the passenger to depart and make whatever shunts were necessary that side while the passenger was still in section.


I take your point, Keith, and yes that's one scenario I had thought about. And what you say is of course true. If we take Nantlle (LNWR) as the prototype, economy ruled to the extent of having no signal box at all! A key difference is that the time-to-junction of the model is twice the time for real Nantlle (LNWR) because PLJ is much nearer the sea than Pen-Y-Groes, leading to a section blocked % of only 25%, compared to 50% for the model if we assume a roughy hourly service.

From a modeling perspective, with time compression aka scale time (which we have to use to get through a timetable in a decent time period of time) shunting tends to be elongated relative to wall clock time since it involves manual tasks.

kbarber wrote:That would be even more apparent at the end of a small local branch than on a busy main line (though even there you shouldn't expect the sort of gratuitous provision a modeller would love to be able to get his teeth in to - everything would have a purpose and its benefit carefully costed).


Agreed, but we have to look at the factors that allow economy and what resulted, and actually, I have another prototype branch terminus to look at that fits the model slightly better is several respects - Bethesda. Bethesda was on a steep line rising 300 ft (forgot to mention that for modeling purpose we have a steep gradient up). It was a slate transfer point in competition with a narrow gauge railway for slate traffic to the sea (Penhryn Quarry Railway). The trip time to Bangor was 18 minutes and, one imagines maybe longer uphill. In 1932 it had 16 arrivals and departures daily and 19 on Saturdays. Admittedly after the war the service level was so kept low at 8 per day that it lost out to bus traffic and had no passengers beyond 1951. But it did have a run-around loop within the platform length (but was mainly push-pull) and crucially a signalbox which didn't close until 1954. It had a layout with a constrained footprint, with a station building accessed from a station road orthogonally across the end. Didn't have NG interchange sidings, but had extra length of goods sidings that were used to load slate from carts and a goods shed for freight from a local lorry service, cattle dock, etc. I don't see a box diagram around for Bethesda, perhaps someone has one so we can see what it controlled?

I hope we can agree to some modeling license in that the combination of less parsimonious service with the difference between a stopping bus time to Caernavon and Bangor and high-speed train time via PLJ - especially in tourist season - would have resulted in continued passenger service for at least another decade.

I am not wedded to all of the signals - bracket 3,4,5 looks like overkill to me, now, for example. I am wondering about that middle bridge, it does tend to break up the scene which is good, but it reduces the operability of the layout and introduces some possibly un-needed partitioning in the yard(s).

I am wedded to the signalbox - removing that means depriving someone small but feisty of "her" box and "her" bells. Just as in the real railway there are sometimes factors beyond pure economy that drive decisions!

But I do appreciate the input as always. It certainly drives my thinking in the right direction.

Adam
tynewydd
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Les Etats-Unis, Cote Ouest

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby kbarber » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:37 pm

tynewydd wrote:Agreed, but we have to look at the factors that allow economy and what resulted, and actually, I have another prototype branch terminus to look at that fits the model slightly better is several respects - Bethesda. Bethesda was on a steep line rising 300 ft (forgot to mention that for modeling purpose we have a steep gradient up). It was a slate transfer point in competition with a narrow gauge railway for slate traffic to the sea (Penhryn Quarry Railway). The trip time to Bangor was 18 minutes and, one imagines maybe longer uphill. In 1932 it had 16 arrivals and departures daily and 19 on Saturdays. Admittedly after the war the service level was so kept low at 8 per day that it lost out to bus traffic and had no passengers beyond 1951. But it did have a run-around loop within the platform length (but was mainly push-pull) and crucially a signalbox which didn't close until 1954. It had a layout with a constrained footprint, with a station building accessed from a station road orthogonally across the end. Didn't have NG interchange sidings, but had extra length of goods sidings that were used to load slate from carts and a goods shed for freight from a local lorry service, cattle dock, etc. I don't see a box diagram around for Bethesda, perhaps someone has one so we can see what it controlled?

I hope we can agree to some modeling license in that the combination of less parsimonious service with the difference between a stopping bus time to Caernavon and Bangor and high-speed train time via PLJ - especially in tourist season - would have resulted in continued passenger service for at least another decade.

I am not wedded to all of the signals - bracket 3,4,5 looks like overkill to me, now, for example. I am wondering about that middle bridge, it does tend to break up the scene which is good, but it reduces the operability of the layout and introduces some possibly un-needed partitioning in the yard(s).

I am wedded to the signalbox - removing that means depriving someone small but feisty of "her" box and "her" bells. Just as in the real railway there are sometimes factors beyond pure economy that drive decisions!

But I do appreciate the input as always. It certainly drives my thinking in the right direction.

Adam

I really should have remembered Bethesda :oops: it was one of the boxes my instructor at signalling school had covered during his time on the North Wales Coast. In fact I recall him telling the story of how he was unable to close the box at end of traffic because the locking disintegrated (he ended up booking a 35 hour shift, he said - or maybe 35 years has gilded my memory of the tale).
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby davidwoodcock » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:44 pm

Did Bethesda have a box? It certainly had signals, two in each direction because of the distance between the loop and goods yard points, but I have it noted as yet another example of a North Wales branch terminal with an open frame. In this case a 10-lever frame mounted on the platform which worked the signals and both sets of loop points (with one fpl) while the goods yard points were (typically for the LNWR in this area) released by an Annett's Key. I believe the distant was fixed (typical LNWR practice?).
davidwoodcock
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Champlon, Belgique

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby MRFS » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:31 pm

Can't find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda - far end at the station throat.
ND: Why is there a door handle on the inside of my airing cupboard?
MF: Because it's the fire exit from Narnia.

I like David Lynch films. I don't consider incomprehension to be a barrier to enjoyment.
User avatar
MRFS
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: ex cathedra cantuar

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby davidwoodcock » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:51 pm

MRFS wrote:Can't find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda - far end at the station throat.


I think that is probably the GF for working the goods yard points and released in typical LNWR fashion by Annett's Key. Bethesda was long and thin and a box at the station throat would have been too far out, certainly in 1889 and probably later, to have worked the points for the platform loop.

By having an open GF on the platform the LNWR saved the cost of a dedicated signalman - as they did at almost every branch terminal in North Wales. I may have missed one but I suspect that only Llandudno, Blaenau Festiniog and Afonwen had proper boxes and they were all special cases.
davidwoodcock
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Champlon, Belgique

Re: Nantlle (BR Midland Region)

Unread postby kbarber » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:08 am

davidwoodcock wrote:
MRFS wrote:Can't find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda - far end at the station throat.


I think that is probably the GF for working the goods yard points and released in typical LNWR fashion by Annett's Key. Bethesda was long and thin and a box at the station throat would have been too far out, certainly in 1889 and probably later, to have worked the points for the platform loop.

By having an open GF on the platform the LNWR saved the cost of a dedicated signalman - as they did at almost every branch terminal in North Wales. I may have missed one but I suspect that only Llandudno, Blaenau Festiniog and Afonwen had proper boxes and they were all special cases.

Sadly George Morgan is no longer with us to ask, but he certainly spoke of working Bethesda as a signalman; this would've been (I think) the early '50s when he was on the relief, he was signalmens' instructor at Carlow St in the late '70s (I knew him at the back end of '78).
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Next

Return to Signalling - model railways/simulators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest