Page 1 of 2
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 11:54 #130210 | |
MrSuttonmann
265 posts |
This might be more of a general signalling question rather than being specific to Westbury, but I noticed it on this sim. We have a run of automatic signals from Woodborough to Heywood Road Jn, but interestingly this run is broken by two non automatic signals on the Up line, and one on the Down (namely R807 & R811, and R896 respectively): Does anyone have any insights as to why these would be necessary? It's not like there's any other routes for the trains to take here. (Formerly known as manadude2) Last edited: 31/07/2020 at 11:55 by MrSuttonmann Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 12:03 #130211 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
807 / 811 have "Class 9" controls fitted, so I presume they are controlled signals for that reason. 896 looks to be to stop trains towards Westbury PSB if the emergency alarm is sent to Reading PSB. "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 |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 12:06 #130212 | |
greatkingrat
75 posts |
Sometimes it is because there used to be something there (such as a level crossing). If the crossing is removed, it is easier to leave the signals as is rather than convert to automatics.
Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 12:40 #130213 | |
bill_gensheet
1357 posts |
Is there any design preference in the real world for this (signal with an auto button) versus emergency replacement buttons on signals that are full time auto's ? Motherwell has several sets of 'E' on plain line between Carstairs and Gretna, about 1 signal in 5 depending on other nearby controlled items like LC and loops. Bill Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 13:27 #130214 | |
03piggs
68 posts |
I remember reading in a book series entitled 'signalman trilogy' that it was introduced as there was no way anyone could stop a train on auto sections. It was brought up with management, who thought it was a costly feature or something like that, and wasn't retro fitted until a derailment of a class 8 or 9 between Didcot and uffington due to a hotbox. This was around the time Didcot psb went live in the mid 60s. I think it's the same reason why on ars controlled areas you find the odd non-auto signal with one route available. A friend who was one of the first signallers in the iecc at Liverpool street told me why once, bit I can't remember. Last edited: 31/07/2020 at 13:44 by 03piggs Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 14:07 #130215 | |
clive
2766 posts |
greatkingrat in post 130212 said:Sometimes it is because there used to be something there (such as a level crossing). If the crossing is removed, it is easier to leave the signals as is rather than convert to automatics.Peterborough has an example of this: on the long 4-track section between Tallington and Stoke, there used to be a level crossing at Little Bytham. It's ben removed, but nobody has bothered to resignal it; the signals are just left in auto the whole time. Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 14:13 #130216 | |
clive
2766 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 130213 said:Is there any design preference in the real world for this (signal with an auto button) versus emergency replacement buttons on signals that are full time auto's ?The preference is emergency replacement. A controlled signal would only be provided in special situations or because they used to be there for some other reason. 1 in 5 used to be the standard; more precisely, you put in E buttons to replace AHBs or to protect tunnels and viaducts, then add others to ensure there are never more than 4 signals in a row without them. The modern standard is to put E buttons on every signal. With SSIs and IECCs there's no additional wiring required and only a trivial amount of extra code, so why not? Log in to reply The following user said thank you: bill_gensheet |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 14:18 #130218 | |
pedroathome
906 posts |
clive in post 130216 said:bill_gensheet in post 130213 said:Going to add here, not forgetting the difference in E and R replacements. R being guaranteed, E not being guaranteed (Or is it other way around).Is there any design preference in the real world for this (signal with an auto button) versus emergency replacement buttons on signals that are full time auto's ?The preference is emergency replacement. A controlled signal would only be provided in special situations or because they used to be there for some other reason. Going slightly off topic, when would R replacements have started to become common? Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 14:18 #130219 | |
clive
2766 posts |
03piggs in post 130214 said:I remember reading in a book series entitled 'signalman trilogy' that it was introduced as there was no way anyone could stop a train on auto sections. It was brought up with management, who thought it was a costly feature or something like that, and wasn't retro fitted until a derailment of a class 8 or 9 between Didcot and uffington due to a hotbox. This was around the time Didcot psb went live in the mid 60s.Adrian Vaughan, "Signalman's Nightmare". I think they also had a train that went wrong-line for several miles, including over open level crossings, and no way to turn a green signal red to hopefully alert them. Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 14:39 #130220 | |
03piggs
68 posts |
clive in post 130219 said:03piggs in post 130214 said:Yes! Thanks Clive, I couldn't remember the author.I remember reading in a book series entitled 'signalman trilogy' that it was introduced as there was no way anyone could stop a train on auto sections. It was brought up with management, who thought it was a costly feature or something like that, and wasn't retro fitted until a derailment of a class 8 or 9 between Didcot and uffington due to a hotbox. This was around the time Didcot psb went live in the mid 60s.Adrian Vaughan, "Signalman's Nightmare". Reminds me I really should re-read those books again....🤔🤔 Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 21:41 #130244 | |
GeoffM
6344 posts |
03piggs in post 130220 said:clive in post 130219 said:He got booted from a Facebook signalling group because, though he might be a good author, it turns out he had zero respect for anybody's opinion or for modern signalling. Mods got tired of his frequent rants and personal attacks. Good riddance.03piggs in post 130214 said:Yes! Thanks Clive, I couldn't remember the author.I remember reading in a book series entitled 'signalman trilogy' that it was introduced as there was no way anyone could stop a train on auto sections. It was brought up with management, who thought it was a costly feature or something like that, and wasn't retro fitted until a derailment of a class 8 or 9 between Didcot and uffington due to a hotbox. This was around the time Didcot psb went live in the mid 60s.Adrian Vaughan, "Signalman's Nightmare". SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 21:44 #130245 | |
GeoffM
6344 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 130213 said:Is there any design preference in the real world for this (signal with an auto button) versus emergency replacement buttons on signals that are full time auto's ?A controlled signal has way more relays than an auto signal with emergency replacement, so cost. With CBIs like SSI, there is a little extra code but not much. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 21:45 #130246 | |
jc92
3649 posts |
Several groups*
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply The following user said thank you: GeoffM |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 31/07/2020 at 22:05 #130247 | |
Ron_J
330 posts |
GeoffM in post 130244 said:03piggs in post 130220 said:They are quite entertaining books, though I suspect much of the content is somewhat embellished and I get the distinct impression he must have been a right pain in the arse for his colleagues and managers alike. He does come across as a thoroughly unpleasant character (I remember him going off on a big rant against Catholics for some reason).clive in post 130219 said:He got booted from a Facebook signalling group because, though he might be a good author, it turns out he had zero respect for anybody's opinion or for modern signalling. Mods got tired of his frequent rants and personal attacks. Good riddance.03piggs in post 130214 said:Yes! Thanks Clive, I couldn't remember the author.I remember reading in a book series entitled 'signalman trilogy' that it was introduced as there was no way anyone could stop a train on auto sections. It was brought up with management, who thought it was a costly feature or something like that, and wasn't retro fitted until a derailment of a class 8 or 9 between Didcot and uffington due to a hotbox. This was around the time Didcot psb went live in the mid 60s.Adrian Vaughan, "Signalman's Nightmare". Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 08:07 #130257 | |
03piggs
68 posts |
Yeah all fair points. I haven't read them for s while but I did wonder when I read them whether it was really romanticized, real or made up. I think from what you said Geoff and form his books, he obviously loved AB and had a romantic view of it and he couldn't get his head round MAS. In my opinion, some the points he raises (Like what mentioned earlier) do have a bit of a point, but then but then it's just common sense. But yeah, he was quite opinionated, especially in the last book. A friend/indirect relative of mine, who I mentioned earlier, Robert (bob) Muffett used to mention to me he was glad he learned MAS after starting at Silvertown box , but he then ended his career going round all the manual boxes in the country so came round full circle a bit for him. Last edited: 01/08/2020 at 08:28 by 03piggs Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 09:31 #130259 | |
lazzer
611 posts |
headshot119 in post 130211 said:807 / 811 have "Class 9" controls fitted, so I presume they are controlled signals for that reason.My drivers' route map of the Reading to Westbury section annotates TR896 signal on the Down Westbury as being the "Last TVSC Signal". I remember being told years ago (and I don't know if this is still, or ever was, a thing) that the last signal in each signalbox's area was a controlled signal. The obvious reason, as you suggest, is so that the signaller in rear can stop a train before it enters the next signaller's area. I don't know of any other technical reason why it would be a controlled signal. In the up direction, Westbury's last signal is automatic signal UW93, followed by autos UW91 and UW90. Then it's the mysterious controlled TR807, located about half a mile physically from TR896 on the Down Westbury. TR896 and TR807 are either side of the site of the old Lavington station. I can find no evidence of a level crossing ever existing at Lavintgon (mostly from old photos), but photos show that the goods yard on the down side required crossovers to be protected by signals. If any of the pointwork still existed when the line was converted to colour light signals back in the day then the new signals there would have been controlled ones. I'm not entirely sure when the B&H was re-signalled to colour light - does anyone have any info on this, or a website or something? I can't find anything. As for TR811, I can see no obvious reason why that would be controlled, other than because there used to be emergency crossovers at Urchfont. But then that would imply that automatic DW83 in the other direction should also be a controlled signal. The topography of the line at Urchfont (an embankment on a hill in the middle of nowhere) suggests there was clearly never a road crossing there. Last edited: 01/08/2020 at 09:32 by lazzer Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 10:45 #130260 | |
JamesN
1591 posts |
lazzer in post 130259 said:headshot119 in post 130211 said:R896 and R807 (Now renumbered TRxxx) protected Lavington Emergency GF, that was removed in early 2000s807 / 811 have "Class 9" controls fitted, so I presume they are controlled signals for that reason.My drivers' route map of the Reading to Westbury section annotates TR896 signal on the Down Westbury as being the "Last TVSC Signal". I remember being told years ago (and I don't know if this is still, or ever was, a thing) that the last signal in each signalbox's area was a controlled signal. R811 (as well as R807) protected a set of spring catch points in the Up Westbury to protect against trains running away on the uphill Grade to Woodborough - there were box instructions for working unfitted or partially fitted trains over the B&H where those signals had to be maintained at Danger behind such trains until said trains had passed a given point further up line. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: lazzer |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 11:12 #130261 | |
lazzer
611 posts |
JamesN in post 130260 said:R896 and R807 (Now renumbered TRxxx) protected Lavington Emergency GF, that was removed in early 2000sWell I think you've just answered the OP's question, as well as more or less confirming my suspicions about left-over pointwork at Lavington. Do you have any more info about old track layouts and signalling on the B&H? It's a line I drive regularly and it's always nice to know more about how it used to be back in the day. (Fun fact - my avatar is a photo of me driving 57303 with ECS sleeper stock, on the Up Westbury near Frome back in 2015.) Last edited: 01/08/2020 at 11:15 by lazzer Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 12:08 #130262 | |
VInce
579 posts |
Hi all, From memory - and it is a while ago now - i think the signalling design rule was that in run of autos, every fifth signal has to be able to be set to danger manually by the signaller. Common sense, really. If you have an incident whereby you have to block the opposite line in an emergency, you need a controlled signal or a signal with emergency replacement to do it. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 12:52 #130265 | |
JamesN
1591 posts |
lazzer in post 130261 said:JamesN in post 130260 said:I’ve done loads of research into signalling history in the Thames Valley over the past few years. It’s probably not for this thread but if there’s other bits specifically you’re after then feel free to get in touch by PM and I can have a look at stuff.R896 and R807 (Now renumbered TRxxx) protected Lavington Emergency GF, that was removed in early 2000sWell I think you've just answered the OP's question, as well as more or less confirming my suspicions about left-over pointwork at Lavington. Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 13:08 #130266 | |
Albert
1315 posts |
JamesN in post 130260 said:[...]The Westbury signal number plan still shows the emergency GF - which is no longer there on the sim's present version. (The signal numbers on that plan don't match those on the present sim either. Not only the Reading panel differs but also UW93 is UW92 there.) OpenStreetMap shows me a foot crossing at Urchfont, but it is probably not the reason why there is a signal. The reason is also not the Devizes branch closed 1966 - measuring distances on Google Maps and comparing them with the length of track circuits in the sim, it appears that that junction would have been between present-day UW83 and UW82. EDIT: I didn't read properly. JamesN already answered this. AJP in games Last edited: 01/08/2020 at 13:17 by Albert Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 13:42 #130267 | |
lazzer
611 posts |
Albert in post 130266 said:JamesN in post 130260 said:One thing I DO know about this area is the junction with the original Berks and Hants extension to Devizes was at the 81 and three-quarter milepost, which is located a short distance east of Stoner Bridleway crossing, and about half a mile west of the old Patney and Chirton station. Indeed, that exact distance was specified in the Act of Parliament for the "Stert and Westbury Railway", as the Devizes cut-off was nominally known.[...]The Westbury signal number plan still shows the emergency GF - which is no longer there on the sim's present version. (The signal numbers on that plan don't match those on the present sim either. Not only the Reading panel differs but also UW93 is UW92 there.) Source - "A history of the Berks and Hants Railway - Reading to Westbury", by Peter Simmonds. Last edited: 01/08/2020 at 13:52 by lazzer Reason: None given Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 14:44 #130268 | |
Stephen Fulcher
2055 posts |
It’s not every case where the last signal on a Western Panel was controlled - Plymouth going on to Exeter for example. Controlled signals randomly in the middle of nowhere would normally mean something has been removed in the past, ground frames, controlled crossings etc. Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 01/08/2020 at 21:53 #130288 | |
clive
2766 posts |
lazzer in post 130259 said:I remember being told years ago (and I don't know if this is still, or ever was, a thing) that the last signal in each signalbox's area was a controlled signal.Definitely not a rule. From some slightly old diagrams. KX to Peterborough: the last signals on the downs are autos. On the ups they're controlled, but they protect the ladder at the south end of Sandy. KX to Cambridge: the last signals on the down protect the crossovers. CA104 on the up is controlled (with A button) for no obvious reason. Liverpool Street to Cambridge: CA20 on the up is an auto; don't have information about the down. Peterborough to Doncaster: the last signals on the down are controlled as they protect the convergence at Stoke. D2 on the up is an auto. Doncaster to York: D857 on the down is semi-auto; it protects a level crossing. Y868 on the up is a semi-auto as it protects Heck sidings. York to Tyneside: Y501 on the down is auto. T968 on the up is auto. Log in to reply |
In a run of automatic signals, why do we have a couple of non-automatics? 02/08/2020 at 07:01 #130290 | |
Giantray
342 posts |
pedroathome in post 130218 said:'E' Emergency replacements were not lamp proved. The indication in the signal box for these was just to show the button had been operated, there was no proof the signal was actually at danger. 'R' replacements have become more common as the move from old lamp proven signals changes to LED aspect signal heads. These are relied upon to be at danger when replaced and can be used to protect Line Blockages and Engineer's Possessions unlike 'E' replacement auto signals that must not be used. Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amatuer wannabees! Log in to reply |