Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

British signalling of the past (UK, excepting Northern Ireland)

Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Dave J » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:32 pm

I have carried out a search but could not find anything on here re Stanmore CTC, hoping someone will have more details or point me in the right direction.

There were two moves which I trying to find out about.

Y10R which had two disc’s although only one route to platform 2 via 9 points but the second disc seems to read to the end of the goods siding.
Y4LC which also had two disc’s again only one route to Up main via 3 points although anything leaving the other sidings would have used this signal as well.

Now looking at the panel there was only a separate lever (that’s what it was called) for 3, 9 points but looking at the panel photo by the other disc there is the number 3 or 9 depending which signal you look at and the points are also numbered.
So what was the other disc numbered, all help greatly appreciated.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Dave J
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Colin Wells » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:08 pm

On "Harsig's signalling pages" http://www.harsig.org/Metropolitan.htm there is a link to a (modern pdf large scale) "Metropolitan Railway 1933" line and signalling diagram which includes Stanmore circa 1933 and appears to show the numbering detail that you are after. You will need to magnify the page once it opens in Acrobat.
Colin Wells
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:52 pm
Location: Burscough, Lancashire

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby MRFS » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:03 am

Both pairs of discs had one usually off for the usual route (you could use Normally/Normal to get the sense); it was still in the era of no theatre indicators or yellow arms. I might have a Met diagram around somewhere with notes. If I can find it I will see what the notes say.
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: 3571
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: ex cathedra cantuar

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby John » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:20 am

My info is as follows from my own research into V style frames. All my LUL stuff is with the LT Musuem at Covent Garden. I seem to recall I had a Westinghouse booklet about the sytem, not Stanmore

Towards the end of the 1920's signal engineers were beginning to consider the prospect of concentrating signalling equipment and to control the equipment from central points. The first example on London Underground was between Wembley Park and Stanmore when Major R. Falshaw-Morkhill, the Metropolitan Railway's Signal Engineer supervised the installation of Westinghouse 3 wire CTC equipment controlling the new Stanmore terminus from the signal box at Wembley Park, commissioned on 10.12.32 with the opening of the line. At the time this was the first CTC installation outside North America and held the record within the British Isles of controlling a site the greatest distance from the signal box - a princely 4.5 miles!

Centralised Traffic Control. Stanmore resignalled with an ‘N’ style frame, 29.5.38.

Did not last long

JHT
John Tilly
www.tillyweb.biz
www.senalizacion.biz

REPORT Railway Crime or suspicious activity to BTP on Freephone 0800.405040
User avatar
John
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:08 pm
Location: Gardley Yobion Nr Lactodurum

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby KEVIN SMITH » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:16 pm

What I found interesting about this was the use of three aspect signals not only on the Stanmore branch itself but nearly all the way to Rickmansworth station and the Watford branch as well .Up to about 25 years ago I often wondered why the signal heads on the Watford line had three aspect heads but only showed two aspects I concluded at the time it was because the line was part owned by the LNER or something at the time of its installation. However since then I have learnt more . But I wonder if they had plans to extend Wembley Parks control even further ? I have not visited the Watford branch in recent years are these old signals still there ? if so they must be amongst some of the oldest signals still in use on the surface lines ? .
KEVIN SMITH
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 9, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Dave J » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:17 pm

Colin Wells wrote:On "Harsig's signalling pages" http://www.harsig.org/Metropolitan.htm there is a link to a (modern pdf large scale) "Metropolitan Railway 1933" line and signalling diagram which includes Stanmore circa 1933 and appears to show the numbering detail that you are after. You will need to magnify the page once it opens in Acrobat.

Thanks for that having looked at it the same as was on the panel. The signals are not numbered though only the same number as the points.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Dave J
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Dave J » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:21 pm

MRFS wrote:Both pairs of discs had one usually off for the usual route (you could use Normally/Normal to get the sense); it was still in the era of no theatre indicators or yellow arms. I might have a Met diagram around somewhere with notes. If I can find it I will see what the notes say.

Now that sounds interesting having looked at Harsig's drawing it shows the disc in the off position just like what was on the panel, but how did these signals work you say one of the disc's was in the off position but there was no way of operating from the panel as there were only switches/levers for the points with the same number or was there some sort of automatic working? Hopefully your notes will provide more information.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Dave J
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Dave J » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:26 pm

John wrote:My info is as follows from my own research into V style frames. All my LUL stuff is with the LT Musuem at Covent Garden. I seem to recall I had a Westinghouse booklet about the sytem, not Stanmore

Towards the end of the 1920's signal engineers were beginning to consider the prospect of concentrating signalling equipment and to control the equipment from central points. The first example on London Underground was between Wembley Park and Stanmore when Major R. Falshaw-Morkhill, the Metropolitan Railway's Signal Engineer supervised the installation of Westinghouse 3 wire CTC equipment controlling the new Stanmore terminus from the signal box at Wembley Park, commissioned on 10.12.32 with the opening of the line. At the time this was the first CTC installation outside North America and held the record within the British Isles of controlling a site the greatest distance from the signal box - a princely 4.5 miles!

Centralised Traffic Control. Stanmore resignalled with an ‘N’ style frame, 29.5.38.

Did not last long

JHT

I have a copy of the Westinghouse booklet and like you say is for the system and not just for Stanmore. Is it the shortest time for an installation on LT?
The truth and nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Dave J
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Colin Wells » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:49 pm

Apologies for the not so wild goose chase to Harsig's pages and back. Another item of interest can be found (takes a little while to load) at a legal patent dispute of some kind which contains a description of the system. Is that any help?

Moderator Note:Link removed as posted in error. The correct link can be found in later posts below
Colin Wells
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:52 pm
Location: Burscough, Lancashire

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Andrew Waugh » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:12 pm

Dave J wrote:I have carried out a search but could not find anything on here re Stanmore CTC, hoping someone will have more details or point me in the right direction.

There were two moves which I trying to find out about.

Y10R which had two disc’s although only one route to platform 2 via 9 points but the second disc seems to read to the end of the goods siding.
Y4LC which also had two disc’s again only one route to Up main via 3 points although anything leaving the other sidings would have used this signal as well.

Now looking at the panel there was only a separate lever (that’s what it was called) for 3, 9 points but looking at the panel photo by the other disc there is the number 3 or 9 depending which signal you look at and the points are also numbered.
So what was the other disc numbered, all help greatly appreciated.


From The Railway Gazette, 17 March 1933 p380:

The upper disc at No 3 points and the lower disc at No 9 points each lead into the shunting neck concerned and stand normally "off." They are work mechanically with the points and go to "danger" simultaneously with the points from normal to reverse, and vice versa.

If you are interested in the installation, this is part of a larger article on the signalling of the Stanmore extension in The Railway Gazette of 17 March 1933 p379-382. The Railway Engineer also had an article (April 1933 p109-113)
Andrew Waugh
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Dave J » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:47 pm

Andrew Waugh wrote:
Dave J wrote:I have carried out a search but could not find anything on here re Stanmore CTC, hoping someone will have more details or point me in the right direction.

There were two moves which I trying to find out about.

Y10R which had two disc’s although only one route to platform 2 via 9 points but the second disc seems to read to the end of the goods siding.
Y4LC which also had two disc’s again only one route to Up main via 3 points although anything leaving the other sidings would have used this signal as well.

Now looking at the panel there was only a separate lever (that’s what it was called) for 3, 9 points but looking at the panel photo by the other disc there is the number 3 or 9 depending which signal you look at and the points are also numbered.
So what was the other disc numbered, all help greatly appreciated.


From The Railway Gazette, 17 March 1933 p380:

The upper disc at No 3 points and the lower disc at No 9 points each lead into the shunting neck concerned and stand normally "off." They are work mechanically with the points and go to "danger" simultaneously with the points from normal to reverse, and vice versa.

If you are interested in the installation, this is part of a larger article on the signalling of the Stanmore extension in The Railway Gazette of 17 March 1933 p379-382. The Railway Engineer also had an article (April 1933 p109-113)

Andrew

Thanks for this I will try to see that issue.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Dave J
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Colin Wells » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:23 pm

Oh dear, sorry again, about the link to the patent litigation. It's probably of limited interest having looked closer at it. The diagram contained in it does not add anything to what's gone before. Try this link if still curious http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/11/295.full.pdf+html.
Colin Wells
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:52 pm
Location: Burscough, Lancashire

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Pete2320 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:43 pm

KEVIN SMITH wrote:What I found interesting about this was the use of three aspect signals not only on the Stanmore branch itself but nearly all the way to Rickmansworth station and the Watford branch as well .Up to about 25 years ago I often wondered why the signal heads on the Watford line had three aspect heads but only showed two aspects I concluded at the time it was because the line was part owned by the LNER or something at the time of its installation. However since then I have learnt more . But I wonder if they had plans to extend Wembley Parks control even further ? I have not visited the Watford branch in recent years are these old signals still there ? if so they must be amongst some of the oldest signals still in use on the surface lines ? .

The lines concerned were solely owned by the Metropolitan Railway but the LNER had running powers as effectively it does today north of Harrow. Unlike the rest of what became the Underground, the MR was signalled to mainline standards and used three aspect signals. These lasted as such until the mid 1950s (except, I suspect, on the Stanford branch) when LT adopted a Standardisation of Aspects policy that resulted in the Met being brought into line with the rest of the system with mainly two aspect stop signals with repeaters only where required. Itcalso spelled the end of semaphores on the Underground.
Pete
Pete2320
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Barton on Humber

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Stuart Johnson » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:36 am

Pete2320 wrote:
KEVIN SMITH wrote:What I found interesting about this was the use of three aspect signals not only on the Stanmore branch itself but nearly all the way to Rickmansworth station and the Watford branch as well .Up to about 25 years ago I often wondered why the signal heads on the Watford line had three aspect heads but only showed two aspects I concluded at the time it was because the line was part owned by the LNER or something at the time of its installation. However since then I have learnt more . But I wonder if they had plans to extend Wembley Parks control even further ? I have not visited the Watford branch in recent years are these old signals still there ? if so they must be amongst some of the oldest signals still in use on the surface lines ? .

The lines concerned were solely owned by the Metropolitan Railway but the LNER had running powers as effectively it does today north of Harrow. Unlike the rest of what became the Underground, the MR was signalled to mainline standards and used three aspect signals. These lasted as such until the mid 1950s (except, I suspect, on the Stanmore branch) when LT adopted a Standardisation of Aspects policy that resulted in the Met being brought into line with the rest of the system with mainly two aspect stop signals with repeaters only where required. It also spelled the end of semaphores on the Underground.

The route from Harrow to Rickmansworth was jointly owned until Nationalisation. Semaphores on the Underground lasted until the 1970s at North Weald.
Stuart J
User avatar
Stuart Johnson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:47 pm
Location: Metroland

Re: Stanmore Centralised Traffic Control

Unread postby Andrew Waugh » Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:14 am

Colin Wells wrote:Oh dear, sorry again, about the link to the patent litigation. It's probably of limited interest having looked closer at it. The diagram contained in it does not add anything to what's gone before. Try this link if still curious http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/11/295.full.pdf+html.


It's good stuff, though.

The patent litigation is a UK patent infringement case between GRS and Westinghouse over the Stanmore installation. GRS essentially claimed a patent right over the concept of CTC by a 1927 US patent. By CTC, I mean the provision of a remote interlocking controlled from a central office, with no interlocking performed in the office. The judge agreed that the inventor in the 1927 had certainly invented something (and that something was the remote control of an interlocking). However, the claim failed because the patent specification wasn't sufficiently precise about the actual invention.

In the judge's summing up he gives a very good discussion over the development of railway signaling.

It is interesting that GRS sued over this in the UK. Reading US histories of signalling suggests that there was some dispute between two inventors (Wright and Wallace) over the invention of CTC, and between their respective companies (GRS and USS (Westinghouse)).
Andrew Waugh
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Melbourne Australia


Return to Signalling - historical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests