Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Seaton Junction

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

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby Chris Osment » Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:33 pm

I overlooked 4's existence...


Good job you weren't driving the slow train then :-)

Still intrigued to know what the OP's questions were about the FPLs.......
Chris Osment
West Country Railway Archives
http://www.railwest.org.uk
User avatar
Chris Osment
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Somewhere in the West Country

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby Andrew G » Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:30 am

I was the guilty party who lit the torch paper and sparked off a debate on the PC Rail forum about this particular simulation.

The first part has been answered and in the absence of any motor points at Seaton Junction there are a number of levers in the simulation shown as Blue/Black rather than Black.

Second part was the locking in the simulation requires Facing Point Lock Levers to be reverse for both facing and trailing moves. I suspect this is an error and they should only be mandatory for facing moves, although there is normally nothing in the locking to prevent them being locked for trailing moves. Hence the question at the start of this chain as to whether anybody has access to a locking chart or knowledge of Southern locking design.
User avatar
Andrew G
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby StevieG » Wed Aug 27, 2014 12:45 pm

Andrew G wrote: " .... Second part was the locking in the simulation requires Facing Point Lock Levers to be reverse for both facing and trailing moves. I suspect this is an error and they should only be mandatory for facing moves, although there is normally nothing in the locking to prevent them being locked for trailing moves. Hence the question at the start of this chain as to whether anybody has access to a locking chart or knowledge of Southern locking design. "
Can any locking history experts confirm or dispel a thought in my head that at one time, of pre-track circuiting era origin no doubt, that it was usual (perhaps only by some companies) for the locking to definitely require FPLs to be unlocked for trailing points?

Such unlocking of the FPL would naturally happen where the position of the points concerned needed to be changed for the trailing movement of course, but I've an idea that enforced FPL-unlocking might have been done so that, even for points which did not require to be moved for such a movement, in unlocking the FPL and thus moving the associated fouling bar, at least proved that that part of the intended move's route was clear.
Of course, even if the LSWR ever employed that locking feature, Seaton Jn. box may have been too 'young' to have ever seen such locking.
BZOH

/
\ \ \ //\ \
/// \ \ \ \
StevieG
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am
Location: ex-GNR territory in N. Herts.

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby John Hinson » Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:45 pm

StevieG wrote:Can any locking history experts confirm or dispel a thought in my head that at one time, of pre-track circuiting era origin no doubt, that it was usual (perhaps only by some companies) for the locking to definitely require FPLs to be unlocked for trailing points?

I have only come across this consistently on the WR. It certainly wasn't the case on the LM.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby S&TEngineer » Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:01 pm

Of course you can economise on the extent of opposing direct locking over facing points if facing movements require the FPL in and trailing movements require the FPL out. I think thats why the WR went for it (but as this is railway signalling we are talking about I'm sure there will be exceptions to that rule :shock: ).
Regards,
S&TEngineer
-----------------------------------------------------
Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3
User avatar
S&TEngineer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: Somewhere in the far South West

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby Danny252 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:23 pm

S&TEngineer wrote:I think thats why the WR went for it (but as this is railway signalling we are talking about I'm sure there will be exceptions to that rule :shock: ).


Quite so - I can think of at least one example that didn't have this feature! Perhaps practise varied by date and location.
Danny252
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: As close to the levers as they'll let me be

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby GCRuss » Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:20 pm

Could anyone advise what type of Single Line instruments where used on the Seaton Branch around 1959/60? Thanks.

Russ
User avatar
GCRuss
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:32 pm

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby Chris Osment » Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:06 pm

Tyers No 6 ETT
Chris Osment
West Country Railway Archives
http://www.railwest.org.uk
User avatar
Chris Osment
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Somewhere in the West Country

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby RichardH » Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:09 pm

StevieG wrote:
Andrew G wrote: " .... Second part was the locking in the simulation requires Facing Point Lock Levers to be reverse for both facing and trailing moves. I suspect this is an error and they should only be mandatory for facing moves, although there is normally nothing in the locking to prevent them being locked for trailing moves. Hence the question at the start of this chain as to whether anybody has access to a locking chart or knowledge of Southern locking design. "
Can any locking history experts confirm or dispel a thought in my head that at one time, of pre-track circuiting era origin no doubt, that it was usual (perhaps only by some companies) for the locking to definitely require FPLs to be unlocked for trailing points?

Such unlocking of the FPL would naturally happen where the position of the points concerned needed to be changed for the trailing movement of course, but I've an idea that enforced FPL-unlocking might have been done so that, even for points which did not require to be moved for such a movement, in unlocking the FPL and thus moving the associated fouling bar, at least proved that that part of the intended move's route was clear.
Of course, even if the LSWR ever employed that locking feature, Seaton Jn. box may have been too 'young' to have ever seen such locking.

On the LBSCR/SR, the locking at Rotherfield, presumably installed by the SR when this station was resignalled with one box, held the FPLs both ways for trailing moves, although I think the LBSCR tappet locking on this line only held the FPLs out. I had assumed this was to prevent damage to the lock bars by being struck in the raised position, but from another thread it seems damage to the signalman was more likely if this happened!
RichardH
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:43 pm
Location: SR - Central Section

Re: Seaton Junction

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Mon Sep 1, 2014 1:49 pm

The use of the FPL effectively as a direction lever occured in a number of boxes as it simplified the locking Stewarts Lane being a complex example but I off hand cannot say I have ever been in a box where the FPL is held both ways even where there were locking bars as those that I have seen normally lie lowered with the lever both normal and reverse and only came up as part of an up and over movement when the lever was moved.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Previous

Return to Signalling - model railways/simulators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest