Page 2 of 2
| Traditional signal levers 21/12/2015 at 22:36 #79071 | |
Steamer
3984 posts 
|
Thanks. Was there any particular preference between companies/regions?
"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 |
| Traditional signal levers 22/12/2015 at 09:35 #79082 | |
Danny252
1461 posts |
GWR/WR preferred points unlocked for trailing moves, and earlier interlockings sometimes enforced this. Later practise was that the FPL position didn't matter, but it seems that signalmen still regarded it as a bad habit to lock points for trailing moves. There's arguments both for and against - the FPL lever can provide more security against the signalman moving points under a train (especially in the absence of track circuits), but a lot more damage is done if a locked set of points is run through compared to unlocked points. Last edited: 22/12/2015 at 09:40 by Danny252 Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Steamer |
| Traditional signal levers 22/12/2015 at 10:56 #79088 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
" said:Thanks. Was there any particular preference between companies/regions?We used to have several sets of points on Bristol Panel that were only fitted with FPLs at the facing end. There was a list of these in the box footnotes and the Rule was that they had to be clipped and scotched if a passenger train needed to use those points in the trailing direction. At Little Mill Jn the crossovers outside the box had FPLs at both ends, if I remember correctly. Kev Log in to reply |
| Traditional signal levers 22/12/2015 at 13:32 #79092 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
" said:It depends on how the interlocking was set up. Of course requiring FPL unlocked for trailing moves can save a bit of locking - the FPL effectively becomes a direction lever through those points (and thus, presumably, for the entire route); by locking the trailing move signal to the FPL you have your opposing locking. Log in to reply |