mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 11, 2012 9:44:18 GMT
I might be able to answer this myself, but can anyone come up with a station location that is between signals A 454 on one road and A 457 on the other?
I have a suspicion that the Picc. around South Ealing might be in that order of numbering, can anyone come up with other locations (possibly historical)?
I think I've found an LPTB-era example of RIPaS, with a three-platform station and sidings but no name or location - the drawing number is TC 19489/1 and the signalling looks to be ..er.. late New Works with no calling-on or warners. 23 lever frame with one spare, drawing to follow possibly (when I've finished typing up all the stuff from County Quarter Peal Week).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 19:22:47 GMT
A457 is the starting signal at South Ealing Plat 1, A454 does not exist the first auto signal out of Northfields is WSX452 and the last auto into Northfields is A458. Btw that is how it is numbered now god knows what it was back in the ye old days.
|
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 12, 2012 10:03:50 GMT
I was thinking Hounslow West but the sidings has thrown me perhaps when you put the drawing might help more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 12, 2012 10:55:01 GMT
Prior to 1931/32 and indeed the LPTB Acton Town was a 3-road, 4-face station.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 12, 2012 11:18:07 GMT
Prior to 1931/32 and indeed the LPTB Acton Town was a 3-road, 4-face station. That had crossed my mind as a suggestion for Acton before the four tracking; but it would require the absence of both the South Acton and Hounslow branches. |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 12, 2012 15:03:44 GMT
Looking further the Picc signals were numbered between 400-500 Hounslow West-Acton Town so A454/457 are somewhere in between where were the sidings situated?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 12, 2012 15:53:13 GMT
Looking further the Picc signals were numbered between 400-500 Hounslow West-Acton Town so A454/457 are somewhere in between where were the sidings situated? Does this link help? Underneath that drawing is a fully worked-up locking table, suggesting that the frame was an N style. |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 12, 2012 16:19:10 GMT
Looking further the Picc signals were numbered between 400-500 Hounslow West-Acton Town so A454/457 are somewhere in between where were the sidings situated? Does this link help? Underneath that drawing is a fully worked-up locking table, suggesting that the frame was an N style. Thanks for this the plot thickens what about Northfields I have looked at the previous layouts and the numbering is about right I seem to remember a plan to make the test tracks just that and there would have been a reduction in the number of tracks although I believe it was to three. If the depot at Ickenham had opened would that have replaced Northfields in some way. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 12, 2012 16:54:47 GMT
Hmm, I need to double-check the draughting style, but there is a slim possibility that it could be for Northfields without the depot: I think that the numbering is 180 degrees out though. I shall have to check.
|
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 12, 2012 18:48:24 GMT
Hmm, I need to double-check the draughting style, but there is a slim possibility that it could be for Northfields without the depot: I think that the numbering is 180 degrees out though. I shall have to check. I am sorry but could you enlighten me what do you mean the numbering is out by 180 degrees. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 12, 2012 19:13:48 GMT
I think he means that where it would be expected to go "1,2,3,4,5 and 6,7,8,9,10" it actually goes "5,4,3,2,1,10,9,8,7,6".
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 12, 2012 22:46:43 GMT
I think he means that where it would be expected to go "1,2,3,4,5 and 6,7,8,9,10" it actually goes "5,4,3,2,1,10,9,8,7,6". Not quite (err... I think) take a look at this link - I've rotated the image through 180 degrees to get the drawing into the same sort of spatial relationship as Northfields/S. Ealing. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to have all the motored crossovers at the country end: was this a terminating point for shuttles - if so, then Northfields seems an unlikely location for a shuttle terminus. If on the other hand, could this be an early draft for somewhere like Hainault or Loughton - I think that the worked crossovers would be nearest the London end (town) rather than the country end. Of course, it could just be an intellectual exercise in demonstrating how much could be achieved with two standard frame sections from Westinghouse? |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 13, 2012 10:57:44 GMT
I think he means that where it would be expected to go "1,2,3,4,5 and 6,7,8,9,10" it actually goes "5,4,3,2,1,10,9,8,7,6". Not quite (err... I think) take a look at this link - I've rotated the image through 180 degrees to get the drawing into the same sort of spatial relationship as Northfields/S. Ealing. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to have all the motored crossovers at the country end: was this a terminating point for shuttles - if so, then Northfields seems an unlikely location for a shuttle terminus. If on the other hand, could this be an early draft for somewhere like Hainault or Loughton - I think that the worked crossovers would be nearest the London end (town) rather than the country end. Of course, it could just be an intellectual exercise in demonstrating how much could be achieved with two standard frame sections from Westinghouse? Thanks I thought of that but it still does not work for me if you take Arnos Grove the sidings don't face in the direction of Town likewise Loughton so it could as you say just be an exercise by someone. There are a number of questions. 1. Lever 16 is this shown as spare/release/king or something else? 2. No crossover at the lower end of the frame so any short working would have to use middle road, sort of makes the other end of layout the more important perhaps. 3. No cabin shown or even a code which would identify or at least help. 4. I have a document somewhere which shows how frames are laid out and numbering of signals. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 13, 2012 15:55:57 GMT
Thanks I thought of that but it still does not work for me if you take Arnos Grove the sidings don't face in the direction of Town likewise Loughton so it could as you say just be an exercise by someone. There are a number of questions. 1. Lever 16 is this shown as spare/release/king or something else? 2. No crossover at the lower end of the frame so any short working would have to use middle road, sort of makes the other end of layout the more important perhaps. 16 is spare; agree with you about short workings and the middle road. Out of interest, and after a lot of jiggery-pokery here's the locking table (in Interboro' and UERL stylee  also LPTB, apologies to those who are used to the 4-column non-SR style):   NB it is actually two separate images, so still complies with the forum rules. The locking table isn't all that exciting, but there are a couple of itemos of interest/queries that I have - 18 locking 14N, 14R, 15N, 15R, 17R as slack locking. I'm not sure if this is the same as 'permissive locking, so I need to dig around a bit. I'm not altogether sure why this should be slack locking <shrug> unless it is to speed up the clearance times of trains into and out of the siding.
- the first conditional for 20 which I have transcribed as 17 w 6, 8 N and 9R is I think the reciprocal of the sixth conditional of 17: (20, 21 N w 6, 8 N and 9R), the 17 is not especially clear in the original.
3. No cabin shown or even a code which would identify or at least help. 4. I have a document somewhere which shows how frames are laid out and numbering of signals. No cabin code whatsoever, nor any supporting documents with it, so this is a total mystery! I'd be interested in seeing the document detailing how frames are laid out: I suspect that I might have the gist of it after all the drawings I did for the Northern Heights, but it would be cool to see what is the official way of doing things! I still think that this is 'late' New Works planning - the selected main and disc at the platform ends has more in common with the Central Line Eastern end works than the Northern (Morden - Edgware) extension. Of course, as I've said before, this may be a red herring to see how much could be squeezed into 2 westo frame untis, but that doesn't square with the duplication of 21 and 22 - ie the feather on 21 could be on 22, but I don't know the distance between 7 and 12 crossovers. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Jun 13, 2012 19:05:46 GMT
The locking table isn't all that exciting, but there are a couple of itemos of interest/queries that I have - 18 locking 14N, 14R, 15N, 15R, 17R as slack locking. I'm not sure if this is the same as 'permissive locking, so I need to dig around a bit. I'm not altogether sure why this should be slack locking <shrug> unless it is to speed up the clearance times of trains into and out of the siding.
My first reaction is that the [SLACK] locking applies only to the last item 17R. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that there is sufficient slack to allow 17 lever to be moved away from the reverse position enough to restore that signal to danger before No 18 lever is fully normal. Without this facility the signalman would (once one of 18 signals had cleared) be unable to return 17 signal to danger in an emergency as its lever would be locked fully reverse until No 18 signal lever could be returned to fully normal. 3. No cabin shown or even a code which would identify or at least help. 4. I have a document somewhere which shows how frames are laid out and numbering of signals. I'd be interested in seeing the document detailing how frames are laid out: I suspect that I might have the gist of it after all the drawings I did for the Northern Heights, but it would be cool to see what is the official way of doing things! I'd also be interested in seeing this document. Mention of MRFS' Northern Heights diagrams reminds me that these very diagrams imply that Automatic Signal Numbers on the Bushey extension are in the right range for this diagram, although nothing that exactly matches the numbers shown here. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 13, 2012 20:53:17 GMT
Quite. Draughting style is different though, unfortunately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 21:12:28 GMT
What crosses my mind is a post war proposal for Brockley Hill, when with the green belt there was little justification for going further apart from Aldenham depot.
Don't know how that would fit with anything else known.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 14, 2012 10:40:11 GMT
What crosses my mind is a post war proposal for Brockley Hill, when with the green belt there was little justification for going further apart from Aldenham depot. Don't know how that would fit with anything else known. Yes - I see what you're saying, but there is the slight disadvantage that Brockley Hill station was planned from the outset to be on a two-track viaduct: this proposal would require the widening of the viaduct at a time when money was a little tight compared to the pre-war situation. I shall double check the state of construction as recorded in the 1944 survey and report back. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 12:13:43 GMT
I would agree it presupposes major changes to Brockley Hill compared to what was planned.
I am wondering if perhaps it was a suggested 'ideal' layout for a station in that situation (where most/many trains terminated, others continuing), drawn up more as an exercise than anything actually intended to be built (which might explain the lack of any definite location indication)
Further wild thought - what was to happen to Golders Green come Aldenham depot? Might it fit somehow into that sort of scenario?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 14, 2012 12:41:51 GMT
Further wild thought - what was to happen to Golders Green come Aldenham depot? Might it fit somehow into that sort of scenario? I like that thought, unfortunately the TC numbering doesn't fit with any of the variations I've seen for Golders: A15x and increasng southbound, A41x and increasing northbound. Will dig out the 1944 survey later on. |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jun 14, 2012 16:11:28 GMT
Thanks I thought of that but it still does not work for me if you take Arnos Grove the sidings don't face in the direction of Town likewise Loughton so it could as you say just be an exercise by someone. There are a number of questions. 1. Lever 16 is this shown as spare/release/king or something else? 2. No crossover at the lower end of the frame so any short working would have to use middle road, sort of makes the other end of layout the more important perhaps. 16 is spare; agree with you about short workings and the middle road. Out of interest, and after a lot of jiggery-pokery here's the locking table (in Interboro' and UERL stylee also LPTB, apologies to those who are used to the 4-column non-SR style): NB it is actually two separate images, so still complies with the forum rules. The locking table isn't all that exciting, but there are a couple of itemos of interest/queries that I have - 18 locking 14N, 14R, 15N, 15R, 17R as slack locking. I'm not sure if this is the same as 'permissive locking, so I need to dig around a bit. I'm not altogether sure why this should be slack locking <shrug> unless it is to speed up the clearance times of trains into and out of the siding.
- the first conditional for 20 which I have transcribed as 17 w 6, 8 N and 9R is I think the reciprocal of the sixth conditional of 17: (20, 21 N w 6, 8 N and 9R), the 17 is not especially clear in the original.
3. No cabin shown or even a code which would identify or at least help. 4. I have a document somewhere which shows how frames are laid out and numbering of signals. No cabin code whatsoever, nor any supporting documents with it, so this is a total mystery! I'd be interested in seeing the document detailing how frames are laid out: I suspect that I might have the gist of it after all the drawings I did for the Northern Heights, but it would be cool to see what is the official way of doing things! I still think that this is 'late' New Works planning - the selected main and disc at the platform ends has more in common with the Central Line Eastern end works than the Northern (Morden - Edgware) extension. Of course, as I've said before, this may be a red herring to see how much could be squeezed into 2 westo frame untis, but that doesn't square with the duplication of 21 and 22 - ie the feather on 21 could be on 22, but I don't know the distance between 7 and 12 crossovers. I must admit I don't like locking it's all Cats & Dogs, I agree with Harsig about the slack for 17s and while we are talking locking permissive and slack are the same AFAIK. I can not find the document I mentioned but it must be at the office so when I am there next will retrieve it, basically it was a 3 page put together by the LT signals people basically it said that levers one end would control signals in a particular direction and the other end the opposite with point levers in between there would be exceptions to this. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 14, 2012 21:59:34 GMT
Having looked at the 1944 survey for Brockley Hill, it seems that the main abutment piers were constructed as well as the various ones over the road, but not all of the viaduct had been built by then:  Note that the widest piers were the width of two tracks and two platforms. The completed piers are denoted by the blue hatching. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jun 15, 2012 7:25:46 GMT
Maybe there's a clue in the use of junction route indicators. Junctions signals were split for the 1932-3 Picc extensions weren't they? Didn't arbour lights first appear on the Barnet extension? So, diagram date late 30s?
|
|
also LPTB, apologies to those who are used to the 4-column non-SR style):
