Page 1 of 3
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 28/02/2015 at 12:50 #69684 | |
AndyG
![]() 1842 posts |
Came across this on YouTube and think it may be of general interest. BTF film showing work to upgrade the signalling on the WCML from Warrington to Glasgow in the early 1970s, shows signal/cabling works and construction/installation of the panels. Nice shots of Carstairs semaphores too. British Transport Films Collection Volume 8 Points & Aspects (1974) I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Last edited: 28/02/2015 at 12:50 by AndyG Log in to reply The following users said thank you: belly buster, 58050, tjfrancis, ozrail, BarryM, wigley62, Hawk777, Edgemaster |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 07/04/2015 at 18:46 #70848 | |
collexions
![]() 3 posts |
Hi Andy, Paul from TRE here... That was my YouTube upload! Small world ![]() Log in to reply The following users said thank you: DonRiver, Edgemaster, maxand, AndyG, belly buster |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 07/04/2015 at 19:22 #70849 | |
simmybear
![]() 58 posts |
I love the old BTF films - I remember going through Carstairs to an Army cadet camp just before the semaphores dissapeared - some of the 'new' technology shown in the film looks as historic now as the old Carstairs box did then. Simpler days
Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 07/04/2015 at 20:31 #70850 | |
Splodge
![]() 710 posts |
I seem to recall a much edited version of that film being on display at the NRM - even though I wasn't around in '74 I always found it quite emotional in a way.
There's the right way, the wrong way and the railway. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 08/04/2015 at 19:18 #70871 | |
madaboutrains
![]() 313 posts |
4/5 boxes now exist. Warrington, Preston, Carlisle, Motherwell. Next year they will be cut up apparently. It's a shame. I guess a SimSig could be soon. ![]() ![]() Post has attachments. Log in to view them. RIP Feltham Panel 1 Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 09/04/2015 at 13:02 #70923 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
Does anyone know why BR went with more of a telecom model for its signaling in the 1960's than with a lighter weight CTC model or smaller scale panel boxes? It seems awfully ambitious for the time with large panels such as these quickly becoming obsolete.
Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 09/04/2015 at 16:17 #70929 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
" said:Does anyone know why BR went with more of a telecom model for its signaling in the 1960's than with a lighter weight CTC model or smaller scale panel boxes?Define lighter weight. Comms to remote relay rooms were nothing much more than a serial cable, in effect. They also used geographical circuitry which enabled rapid installation and testing at low cost compared to the free wiring that even the US still practices. " said: It seems awfully ambitious for the time with large panels such as these quickly becoming obsolete."Quickly"?! Forty years isn't bad at all. Some are 50+ and aren't going to be abolished any time soon, despite madaboutrain's predictions. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 13:05 #71053 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
" said:Does anyone know why BR went with more of a telecom model for its signaling in the 1960's than with a lighter weight CTC model or smaller scale panel boxes? It seems awfully ambitious for the time with large panels such as these quickly becoming obsolete. If I understand the CTC Mike is talking about correctly, it requires each function to be operated individually. Some sort of multiplex system is then used to call the function at the remote location; detection is returned via the same multiplexer and has to be received before the next function in the sequence can be called. Not only is routesetting a lot quicker for the signalman, the time for commands to be sent and detection to be returned can be signficant. Remember we tend to run quite a lot more trains in the UK than is typical in the US, and often with less running lines to put them through. CTC-style operation simply wouldn't cope. Incidentally, I believe the Sheerness branch did use CTC technology, so our S&T engineers were definitely aware of it and willing to try it out. There were also schemes in existence, I understand, for a CTC installation to operate the Central Wales line and the lines in East Yorkshire; neither of those came to fruition. As Geoff has commented, many of our panels lasted 40+ years; I understand 40yr is in fact the design life of a relay signalling system so there won't be many that are going early. Those that are replaced early may well have wire degradation issues that encourage (if not force) early replacement in any case. That is not uncommon in some of the 1980s installations. It's also worth noting that the large panels allowed much better regulation, with a box supervisor overseeing train running over considerable distances and individual signalmen able to watch situations develop and respond accordingly; all being co-located also made things easier, as instructions and information could easily be communicated in real time without having to pause and phone each other. As a result, West Hampstead was able to cover work previously requiring the best part of 30 signalmen with just four men (numbers are per shift), while improving regulation. Talking of West Hampstead, I remember its predecessor boxes and I still think of it as the new box; sobering to see it being abolished in its turn ![]() Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 13:58 #71059 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
" said:The specific communications technology actually isn't important (the 1930's vintage pulse code systems could get backed up, but today it uses fiber optics, data radios or whatever). What I noticed was that CTC style panels can get rolled into an office or tower and be good to go, while PSB's were built on top of what looks like a large telephone exchange. In fact the BR film reminded me of several 1970's vintage Bell System films about new Number 5 crossbar installations. " said: They have certainly completed full service lives, but they were nevertheless functionally obsolete by the 1980's. I respect the ambition regarding the functionality of the panels, but I am surprised that nobody thought that it might be trying to do too much too soon. I know we have the benefit of hindsight, but hundreds of mini-CRT's embedded in the panel? That should have been a red flag. Decoupling the interface from the signaling system (a la CTC) would have future proofed the scheme and allowed for VDU conversion in the 1980's. I am reminded of the SAGE air defense system, that was very impressive, especially with its displays and interfaces, but was functionally obsolete after 5-10 years due to the rapid pace of technological change. " said: I don't disagree, but it's just an interesting comparison with the North American model where such panels were relatively rare. Economic considerations in the 1970's resulted in towers being closed gradually, control being passed to other nearby towers. When the 1980's rolled around VDU and related computer technology had come down so far in price that the area panel phase of signaling control was largely skipped. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 14:09 #71060 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
You say they were functionally obsolete by the '80s; new panels were still being built at least until very recently! (The West of England and Weymouth resignallings involved building new panels in Basingstoke). I hear this is to save the bother of retraining. So yeah, even with the perfect opportunity to move to a VDU system, we sometimes don't, presumably because it's cheaper to just build a panel than to retrain dozens of signallers. Last edited: 14/04/2015 at 14:11 by Muzer Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 15:19 #71064 | |
Steamer
![]() 3958 posts |
" said:There's certainly a school of thought that BR rushed through modernisation, prime examples being the building of massive hump marshalling yards (wagonload freight never stood a chance against road) and the scrapping of relatively new steam locos in favour of diesels that could've done with a few more years on the test bench. In terms of signalling though, I don't think it was as much of an issue- the pace of change in computer technology was unprecedented, and the boxes have served for at least 40 years and many will be around for a long tme to come. Each major power box closed dozens of mechanical boxes, so there was a long term saving. Given the amount of time it takes to re-signal an area, it's good that a start was made in the 60s- the first UK IECC (Liverpool Street) only went live in 1989. It's possible to convert to VDU without changing other kit- the line between Southcote Jn and Newbury (see the Westbury simulation) is controlled from Thames Valley ROC on a VDU, but it uses the same relay interlockings that used to talk to Reading panel. Out of interest, does anyone know why the Nuneaton- Weaver Jn section of the WCML used lever frames controlling colour lights instead of the area going over to a panel? "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 16:41 #71068 | |
Cedric
![]() 43 posts |
So far as I recall it was because they ran out of cash and couldn't afford wholesale resignalling with Power Boxes. So north of Nuneaton they kept the mechanical interlockings at key sites, immunised the track circuits and put in power points and colour-light signalling, also creating some lengthy sections of automatic signalling. I'm pretty sure it was covered in OS Nock's book "Britain's New Railway" published by BRB in 1966 to celebrate completion of the EML electrification. Unfortunately I mislaid my copy during a house-move 18 months ago but hopefully will find it one day. One figure that sticks in my mind from that book was that the whole of the EML and EBML was completed for £128m - and I think that included the locomotives although don't quote me on that!
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Steamer |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 17:33 #71075 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
" said:The specific communications technology actually isn't important (the 1930's vintage pulse code systems could get backed up, but today it uses fiber optics, data radios or whatever). What I noticed was that CTC style panels can get rolled into an office or tower and be good to go, while PSB's were built on top of what looks like a large telephone exchange. In fact the BR film reminded me of several 1970's vintage Bell System films about new Number 5 crossbar installations.Indeed, and this happens a lot in the UK. To take just one example, large chunks of Yorkshire were recontrolled to York IECC (VDUs) while keeping the existing relay interlockings. The TDM (etc) links simply got re-routed to the IECC instead of Leeds/York PSBs. " said: They have certainly completed full service lives, but they were nevertheless functionally obsolete by the 1980's. I respect the ambition regarding the functionality of the panels, but I am surprised that nobody thought that it might be trying to do too much too soon. I know we have the benefit of hindsight, but hundreds of mini-CRT's embedded in the panel? That should have been a red flag. Decoupling the interface from the signaling system (a la CTC) would have future proofed the scheme and allowed for VDU conversion in the 1980's.How can they be functionally obsolete when they were still (still are) controlling trains perfectly efficiently?! Decoupling the interface from the signalling system? Yes. It's called a panel/VDU and an interlocking respectively, and have been functionally separate since probably before the 1960s. It would be nonsense to combine them anyway because an interlocking is safety critical whereas a panel is only safety related. This is one difference from the US: there are three effective safety levels with non-safety being the one I have yet to mention, and safety-related doesn't have a direct parallel in the US (either vital or non-vital). RE my earlier question about light weight CTC which you haven't answered. Given your comments above I assume it's because you don't know. UK control systems require a direct physical connection to the interlocking which has its benefits in speed. US does not (indeed, would be expensive to do so) require a direct connection. Talking to a dispatcher controlling the Hi-Line in Montana from the BNSF NOC in Texas, he was demonstrating how slow and unresponsive their "light weight" (!) system was - he could issue a request and up to half a minute later he might get confirmation that something happened. Or not, by the time messages had bounced off a couple of satellites, gone through public telephone exchanges (I kid you not - Pomona near me is controlled that way), off to a local tower, broadcast over the air... - rinse and repeat the request/confirmation. Now, that's not so bad if you have a headway measured in tens of minutes, but horribly inefficient if you're trying to signal trains on 150 second headways in central London (or Yorkshire). Same for NS in Springfield IN. Maybe we went for reliability over weight. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 18:22 #71082 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
" said:I've heard elsewhere that the 1960's and 70's era panels were getting unreliable due to a lack of spare parts and wiring issues. They almost certainly have higher maintenance (and alteration) costs than something on a computer screen. " said: There appears to be some degree of coupling since the panels were co-located with large amounts of interlocking logic and are currently being taken out of service in conjunction with re-signaling projects, instead of re-control projects. Is there some level of integration between the panel and signaling that makes divorcing the two systems impractical? The film, while clearly meant for a mass audience, implies that everything in the PSB was knitted into a single whole. " said: RE my earlier question about light weight CTC which you haven't answered. Given your comments above I assume it's because you don't know. UK control systems require a direct physical connection to the interlocking which has its benefits in speed. US does not (indeed, would be expensive to do so) require a direct connection.What is known as "direct wire control" is a very specific thing that may or may not be employed in the WCML situation presented in the film. As it's been explained to me, direct wire is basically a signaler pressing a button on a remote panel and it acting like he was operating a button on the local control panel. It is generally less popular than "code" systems because you have to physically run a bunch of wires from the remote panel to the remote interlocking. See the neck-thick bundle of cables in this photo? That's direct wire. " said: Talking to a dispatcher controlling the Hi-Line in Montana from the BNSF NOC in Texas, he was demonstrating how slow and unresponsive their "light weight" (!) system was - he could issue a request and up to half a minute later he might get confirmation that something happened. Or not, by the time messages had bounced off a couple of satellites, gone through public telephone exchanges (I kid you not - Pomona near me is controlled that way), off to a local tower, broadcast over the air... - rinse and repeat the request/confirmation. Now, that's not so bad if you have a headway measured in tens of minutes, but horribly inefficient if you're trying to signal trains on 150 second headways in central London (or Yorkshire). Same for NS in Springfield IN.Code systems have vastly different performance depending on the technology. A 504X pulse code system running over a 50 year old pole line will have far more trouble than a fiber optic link. Your story reminds me of the Port Jervis Line running from Suffern, NY to Port Jervis, NY. It was run by New Jersey Transit for Metro North over tracks owned and maintained by Conrail/Norfolk Southern. The telecom grade code line was in such bad shape it would sometimes take 20-30 minutes to get a route lined. That was over a decade ago and the line is only now seeing a new signal system installed. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 18:59 #71086 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
" said:" said:Some boxes have wire degradation issues. In itself it's not too much of an issue as long as you don't trying to pull new wires or alter wiring. There are several grades of degradation from "not a problem" to "do not touch". That does not make it functionally obsolete though.I've heard elsewhere that the 1960's and 70's era panels were getting unreliable due to a lack of spare parts and wiring issues. They almost certainly have higher maintenance (and alteration) costs than something on a computer screen. " said: There appears to be some degree of coupling since the panels were co-located with large amounts of interlocking logic and are currently being taken out of service in conjunction with re-signaling projects, instead of re-control projects. Is there some level of integration between the panel and signaling that makes divorcing the two systems impractical? The film, while clearly meant for a mass audience, implies that everything in the PSB was knitted into a single whole.Co-located does not equate to coupled. Most likely there would always be a relay room under the operating floor but that safety separation is still there, whether it's one floor below or 100 miles away. (Actually Wimbledon ASC has a relay room alongside rather than below, and IIRC is connected by a TEML41 comms link, and even has a slave panel not 30ft away from the normal panel). To a certain extent the panel is connected to the local interlocking directly (except Wimbledon ![]() " said: " said:No, it's via comms links, not really functionally any more clever than your bog standard RS232 serial cable. You could have 1 button or 100 buttons in the signal box but still only need the same few number of wires to the remote interlocking. The only tree-like cable bundles would be at the interlocking itself out to the nearby field equipment. Possibly the confusion is that outside of the coding equipment the local interlocking looks as if the buttons were pressed locally instead of remotely, as the button relays are effectively repeated.RE my earlier question about light weight CTC which you haven't answered. Given your comments above I assume it's because you don't know. UK control systems require a direct physical connection to the interlocking which has its benefits in speed. US does not (indeed, would be expensive to do so) require a direct connection.What is known as "direct wire control" is a very specific thing that may or may not be employed in the WCML situation presented in the film. As it's been explained to me, direct wire is basically a signaler pressing a button on a remote panel and it acting like he was operating a button on the local control panel. It is generally less popular than "code" systems because you have to physically run a bunch of wires from the remote panel to the remote interlocking. See the neck-thick bundle of cables in this photo? That's direct wire. (I should note that there are always exceptions but the above is the usual case) SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 14/04/2015 at 20:49 #71091 | |
Firefly
![]() 521 posts |
Quote:Actually Wimbledon ASC has a relay room alongside rather than below, and IIRC is connected by a TEML41 comms link, and even has a slave panel not 30ft away from the normal panelIndeed. The slave panel. ![]() Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 08:46 #71105 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
" said:" said:Wrong and wrong.I've heard elsewhere that the 1960's and 70's era panels were getting unreliable due to a lack of spare parts and wiring issues. They almost certainly have higher maintenance (and alteration) costs than something on a computer screen. There have been wiring degradation issues; it seems to me they've affected 1980s installations far more than the earlier ones (Cambridge relay room is full of notices on the racks warning against disturbing the wiring, while the 1960s panels on the WCML continued without significant problems until replaced under the recent resignalling). That would have happened equally in a locally-controlled small installation, or indeed in the electrical portion of a mechanical installation. In many cases it made reasonable sense to install the panel at the same location as the largest interlocking (or one of the largest) going in under the scheme. So Kings Cross was at KX station. Old Oak Common (1967 IIRC) was installed where there was space to put it; I think the interlockings there and at Paddington were of comparable size so it made little difference which was chosen. West Hampstead was probably one of the earliest that had the panel in a location where there was relatively little interlocking (the nearby large interlockings were St Pancras and the Cricklewood Junction/Brent Junction complex). The integration of panel and interlocking systems into a seamless whole was more apparent than real. Integration of that kind was beneficial to the operators as it concentrated control and regulating functions in one place with consequent huge benefits for train running. But every large panel had groups of controlled signals separated by automatic sections, with signalmen watching trains approaching the interlocking areas they were controlling but not actually doing anything with those trains - again, an aid to co-ordination and regulating. (It might be worth underlining a considerable difference between UK and US practice; we indicate all running lines and signal sections, whereas I understand that in the US once a train leaves an interlocking area it effectively becomes invisible until it reaches the approach tracks for the next interlocking - hence the need for 'stop & proceed' working in the US, in contrast to the UK requirement to be talked by failed signals in all cases.) Recontrol is an old idea. When the Kings Cross area was resignalled in the early '70s, each major location was resignalled in turn and a small NX panel installed in one of the local signalboxes, working Track Circuit Block to adjacent boxes. A little later each of those panels was taken out of use and control transferred to KX panel via a data link, the panel being moved to the local relay room for emergency use. (There is a story that there was an ASLE&F strike in the week before Welwyn Garden City was to be transferred. The S&T took advantage of the total lack of trains to temporarily change over the controls and test out the whole system, before restoring things at the end of the day. Come Sunday (changeover day) they came out, booked for 12 hours work (very lucrative), knocked out the local links, connected the remote links and went home again.) More recently, the abolition of Leicester PSB was a straightforward recontrol of the existing installation, the existing relay interlockings continuing in service controlled from East Midlands Control Centre. We do have some direct wire control (a wire pair per function) of remote interlockings. It tends to be used for nearby interlockings and is more common in older installations where a multiplexing system would have been more expensive. But even where we use multiplexing systems the signals are run through railway-owned cables laid at the lineside rather than through the public network. The thought of most of Victoria PSB area being worked through the telephone exchanges of South London makes my blood run cold. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 11:30 #71111 | |
Jan
![]() 892 posts |
And it works the other way round as well: A number of relay interlockings have been replaced by computer-based ones, while still being controlled from the original signalling panel.
Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 11:31 #71112 | |
headshot119
![]() 4869 posts |
" said:And it works the other way round as well: A number of relay interlockings have been replaced by computer-based ones, while still being controlled from the original signalling panel.From the notes I made when I visited I believe Manchester Picadilly SC is one of those. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 12:41 #71113 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
" said:It was explained to me elsewhere that the 1960's Panels were being replaced ahead of many century old mechanical frames because parts were no longer available to maintain the panels and they had become unreliable. Mechanical frames on the other hand could be repaired with basic tools. " said: In CTC systems the operator is at least aware of when a train is in a section between interlockings, even if exactly which blocks are occupied are not displayed. Newer systems should show the exact status of each block. " said: For a time American railroads almost doubled as telecommunications companies (the long distance provider Sprint was spun off from the Southern Pacific Railroad), but lately the idea of maintaining wires and cables have become an anathema to the for profit freight railroads. Maintaining a telecom network is not a core business function and requires all sorts of extra management. As far as they are concerned there are ample private sector communications companies and what once had to be "managed" can now be completely handled through a contractual relationship with an ostensibly more qualified provider. Signal power is exactly the same way with utilities replacing railroad pole line power. Like IT functions, power and coms have been outsourced to the cloud. Major passenger rail providers have tended to retain those functions in house. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 13:10 #71116 | |
Danny252
![]() 1461 posts |
" said:" said:Assuming that has any truth to it at all, is it not likely related to the fact that mechanical boxes have been closing continually for decades, providing a stream of spare parts, whilst also reducing the number of complicated layouts controlled or rare bits of equipment still in use? Even then, it's a rarity to see mechanical signalling replaced like-for-like with spares - there's plenty of precedent for signals and trackwork controlled by mechanical boxes being removed or modernised when parts could not be found to replace them.It was explained to me elsewhere that the 1960's Panels were being replaced ahead of many century old mechanical frames because parts were no longer available to maintain the panels and they had become unreliable. Mechanical frames on the other hand could be repaired with basic tools. Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 13:30 #71117 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
" said:All that mechanical stuff can be fabricated or machined. Many electronic components from the 1960's and 70's require complex manufacturing processes that no longer exist. (I am reminded of the propulsion group of a recently retired class of electric MU's that relied on the analogue properties of specific germanium semiconductors.) At least this is what explained to me on another signaling forum. I guess you can replace the Mini-CRT's from discarded Microvisions ![]() Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 14:18 #71118 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
I was under the impression that most of the Mini CRTs have been replaced yonks ago, using the property that these systems appear to have been designed with foresight in an at least somewhat modular manner, so all the CRT modules at some point were replaced with more modern things (I don't recall what, presumably LEDs). Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Last edited: 15/04/2015 at 14:18 by Muzer Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 14:50 #71119 | |
Steamer
![]() 3958 posts |
" said:" said:The argument against 1960s electronics applies equally to the mechanical stuff. It gets hideously expensive to manufacture small quantities of specialist components, especially when what you want is in imperial sizes that no-one makes any more.All that mechanical stuff can be fabricated or machined. Many electronic components from the 1960's and 70's require complex manufacturing processes that no longer exist. (I am reminded of the propulsion group of a recently retired class of electric MU's that relied on the analogue properties of specific germanium semiconductors.) At least this is what explained to me on another signaling forum. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
WCML Resignalling film (1974) 15/04/2015 at 15:41 #71120 | |
Jersey_Mike
![]() 250 posts |
" said:I've heard the opposite argument since much of that age of steam kit was able to be repaired or manufactured in the Railroad's in house forge or metalworking shop. Today that's expensive, but it is still feasible. Also how many of the components are so robust that that will never need to be replaced. I am reminded of how the rubber industry in the Akron Ohio area still relies on many machines that were made 80-100 years ago. No better tools have been invented and when one wears out it is sent in for a rehab with a standby unit taking its place. Compare that to what the early television crowd needs to do to keep 1950's and 60's color television sets operating. Log in to reply |