|
|
Post by frankpick on Oct 22, 2006 18:07:13 GMT
Anyone confirm the last set of mechanically operated points in service on the Underground (excluding depots) was at Hounslow Central.
I remember the old signal box there and frame and as I recall the station foreman used to operate the box when required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2006 20:44:29 GMT
well i know there is a set at east putney with a ground frame also there was a set until resignalling at canal junction on the ell
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 22, 2006 20:58:51 GMT
Isn't Totteridge & Whetstone g.f. still theoretically available? Apparently when finally abolished in 1976, Hounslow Central was one of the last three mechanical boxes remaining on the London Transport network.
|
|
|
|
Post by coyote on Oct 22, 2006 21:55:07 GMT
well i know there is a set at east putney with a ground frame also there was a set until resignalling at canal junction on the ell Surrey Quays |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 23, 2006 4:15:02 GMT
Being lazy I can't be bothered to search, but I am sure that there was an answer some time ago about whether T&W might be retained in future works?
|
|
|
|
Post by motormanmet on Nov 8, 2006 17:14:32 GMT
Last mechanical points controlled from a signal box on LT was Ladbroke Grove (OU), closed 1983.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2006 18:38:36 GMT
There is also the loose, unsignalled trailing crossover at Royal Oak.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Nov 8, 2006 18:55:48 GMT
Wasn't Royal Oak used after 7/7 please? And can some kind soul suggest whether T & W could actually work as some years ago I gathered that it was unable to be used?
|
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Nov 8, 2006 19:00:18 GMT
Yup Royal Oak was used to form a service in July 2005 from Hammersmith-Paddington (Sub)- with Pilotman Working from Westbourne Park e/b to Paddington to Westbourne Park w/b
I think that this was the last tim it was used .
I understand that there is a "plan" to have it as a controlled junction from Hammersmith Box
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2006 19:03:43 GMT
Yup Royal Oak was used to form a service in July 2005 from Hammersmith-Paddington (Sub)- with Pilotman Working from Westbourne Park e/b to Paddington to Westbourne Park w/b I think that this was the last tim it was used . I understand that there is a "plan" to have it as a controlled junction from Hammersmith Box No, citysig said that it was to have been controlled from Edgware Road. Had this happened then no service would have operated on the Hammersmith branch, as apparently OP signal box would have been closed for security purposes and thus not accessible to yourself or your colleagues to reach the control panel for IMR 'OR'. |
|
Harsig
Posts: 983
Member is Online
|
Post by Harsig on Nov 8, 2006 19:06:35 GMT
Yup Royal Oak was used to form a service in July 2005 from Hammersmith-Paddington (Sub)- with Pilotman Working from Westbourne Park e/b to Paddington to Westbourne Park w/b I think that this was the last tim it was used . I understand that there is a "plan" to have it as a controlled junction from Hammersmith Box No, citysig said that it was to have been controlled from Edgware Road. Had this happened then no service would have operated on the Hammersmith branch, as apparently OP signal box would have been closed for security purposes and thus not accessible to yourself or your colleagues to reach the control panel for IMR 'OR'. Ah but under those circumstances interlocking would be manned locally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2006 19:38:58 GMT
No, citysig said that it was to have been controlled from Edgware Road. Had this happened then no service would have operated on the Hammersmith branch, as apparently OP signal box would have been closed for security purposes and thus not accessible to yourself or your colleagues to reach the control panel for IMR 'OR'. Ah but under those circumstances interlocking would be manned locally. Interesting - I had forgotten about that. But who's to say that a local control panel would have been provided? I am aware that most of the interlockings on the Central did (and still do?) have local control panels, but that many were removed after the resignalling was completed. Did the original plans for installing an interlocking at Royal Oak explicitly specify a local control panel? |
|
Harsig
Posts: 983
Member is Online
|
Post by Harsig on Nov 9, 2006 9:43:57 GMT
Ah but under those circumstances interlocking would be manned locally. Interesting - I had forgotten about that. But who's to say that a local control panel would have been provided? I am aware that most of the interlockings on the Central did (and still do?) have local control panels, but that many were removed after the resignalling was completed. Did the original plans for installing an interlocking at Royal Oak explicitly specify a local control panel? Any signal engineer who fails to provide a means of controlling the signalling locally should be shot! I should be very surprised if a means of local control was not part of the standard specification for all new interlockings. I don't know what you mean when you say the local control panels on the Central were removed after resignalling was completed. As far as I know they were simply relocated from the signal cabins, where there would no longer be any staff, to other places such as Station Supervisors' or Duty Managers' offices as these would be the staff expected to work them in an emergency in the first instance. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Nov 9, 2006 10:00:41 GMT
Interestingly, locally on NR there are ground franes at Wollston and Netley on the St Denys-Fareham line, and neither have signal controls. At Woolston last March the g.f. operator clipped and scotched the trailing crossover and rang the signaller using the usual phone under the grp cover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2006 10:30:44 GMT
Interesting - I had forgotten about that. But who's to say that a local control panel would have been provided? I am aware that most of the interlockings on the Central did (and still do?) have local control panels, but that many were removed after the resignalling was completed. Did the original plans for installing an interlocking at Royal Oak explicitly specify a local control panel? Any signal engineer who fails to provide a means of controlling the signalling locally should be shot! I should be very surprised if a means of local control was not part of the standard specification for all new interlockings. Agreed. But is the Central Line considered "new"? I don't know what you mean when you say the local control panels on the Central were removed after resignalling was completed. As far as I know they were simply relocated from the signal cabins, where there would no longer be any staff, to other places such as Station Supervisors' or Duty Managers' offices as these would be the staff expected to work them in an emergency in the first instance. Naturally I can never put my hands on anything when I need to, but I thought I had read somewhere that after the resignalling of the Central Line was finished and control concentrated at The Place That Shall Not Be Named, many of the interim control panels installed in the SERs were either removed or decommissioned. BAET has photos of the original panel in West Ruislip SER, and I was almost certain that when he published the photos, he said that the panel was no longer there or no longer in use. |
|
Harsig
Posts: 983
Member is Online
|
Post by Harsig on Nov 9, 2006 11:49:07 GMT
Any signal engineer who fails to provide a means of controlling the signalling locally should be shot! I should be very surprised if a means of local control was not part of the standard specification for all new interlockings. Agreed. But is the Central Line considered "new"? New in this context covers any remote interlocking installed since 1943. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2006 12:52:01 GMT
Agreed. But is the Central Line considered "new"? New in this context covers any remote interlocking installed since 1943. Ah, now I understand. I suppose then that the panels are still in place in the Central SERs. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 31, 2007 3:03:23 GMT
I'm not sure what the local control situation is on the Central Line. When the resignalling was planned I believe that the intention was to provide interlocking machines and that they were ordered from Westinghouse. However, AIUI the order was cancelled as the new trend was to do away with them. Under the resignalling all the lever frames were removed and no new lever frames were provided. I presume there are local control panels where an interlocking machine would normally have been provided.
The JLE of course went the same way whereby PLCs are utilised instead of interlocking machines and of course Heathrow T5 has a PLC operated by relay interlocking. Such arrangements do away with the more traditional mechanical interlocking of routes.
I am fairly certain that some form of local control exists at all such sites although I am not certain if it is on site i.e. in the SER! Certainly signal maintenance staff on the JLE carry laptops which enable them to interrogate and control signalling locally so I expect that any fixed local control panels are located in operating officials (station supervisors) offices.
Brian
|
|
