|
Post by Harsig on Mar 29, 2006 11:08:51 GMT
Thanks to MandGC a large number of gaps in my collections of signalling notices have been filled in. In consequence I've been able to compile the following diagrams which show the Eastern extensions of the Central Line from Liverpool St to Epping, Ongar and Hainault as they were when first opened 1946-1949 (Epping-Ongar shown as at electrification 1957). Central Line Eastern Extensions
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Mar 29, 2006 14:37:15 GMT
Nice work Harsig, well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2006 15:11:52 GMT
WHEEEE!!!!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. Is there any particular reason why the fixed yellow lights in Liverpool Street Sdgs are not shown? Are they not considered part of the signalling system? 2. Why are there wrong-road FRLs with trainstops at Liverpool Street and Bethnal Green w/b line, facing e/b? Did anyone really think that some dummy of a T/Op would really go that far away when shunting amongst the crossovers at Bank and LS? 3. Why is there a policeman at Mile End e/b but not one on the w/b? 4. Was Drapers Field SB simply a small TC-operated power frame, later downgraded and relocked for the conversion of Leyton SB, or was it a fully-fledged mini-cabin/slave cabin removed after the opening of Leyton Junction? 5. Why was a tripcock tester provided at Leyton e/b but not Leyton w/b? Also, was the train detector in Leyton w/b disabled whenever LE4 route 2 was set for a shunt bypass of the e/b platform? 6. Why was LE23a slotted by LF12? Was it there to keep Leyton from accidentally pulling off the outer home in front of a train due to set back via LF40 into the w/b loop? 7. LF5a, LF10a, LF24a. What a fascinating setup - it almost looks like a splitting junction home; what is it? 8. Why do LF2 and LF7 have splitting repeaters for LF3 and LF8? I can understand LF7 having splitting repeaters due to the need to provide unambiguous signal info to a freight train, but why LF2? 9. How was LG main ground frame released? Did LF release it electrically or was an Annette's key used? 10. Another example of odd slotting is LG516a, slotted by LH46. Is this slot the same type of setup as the other slot? 11. Are LJ53 and LJ58 BR-style facing shunts, i.e. they did not have to be cleared for movements not involving 50 or 55 crossovers? Ditto for LM3 and LM4 at Fairlop. 12. Could LJ18 be cleared for movements over both 13 and 37 crossovers? 13. What are the X aspects underneath LS655a, LS655b and LS656 at Buckhurst Hill, and LG513b, LG517 and LG512 at Snaresbrook, AND LV688 and LV691 at Theydon Bois, AND LN593b and LN598 at Barkingside, _AND_ LM606a and LM606b at Fairlop? The legend in the Harrow PDF doesn't list these. 14. Similarly to Question 9, how were LM, LS and LV ground frames released? 15. What sort of mechanical/electrical proving did LX2, LX17, LX19, LZ3 and LZ4 have? 16. What kind of thinking led to 38 crossover at Newbury Park? That has got to be one of the most unusual installations I've seen; surely it would have better to link the yard to 31RD instead of 32RD? 17. IIRC Q8's words correctly, the first ETD is designed to allow electric trains to enter the platform at high speed, with the operation of the ETD allowing LP21abc to clear with 17 points reversed. The second ETD would then allow LP20 route 1 to clear with 17 points reversed. If the second ETD failed to operate, but the first ETD did and the signalman knows that no other trains have moved, is there a workaround? Or would the train be terminated, a release taken on 17 and 20 and the rotue set for a shunt via the freight line and LP27? 18. Another funky slot can be seen at LP22, slotted by LN9. Since this slot is a GF released by LP signalbox lever 43, how was the slot enabled/disabled when 43 was reversed or normalised? 19. Last but not least, why did the LL numer sequence start with LL1, the shunt signal protecting the exit from 71RD at Grange Hill? Apologies for the longish monologue of questions, but I love diagrams ;D ;D ;D
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Mar 29, 2006 16:30:20 GMT
As for the yellow lights in tunnel sidings, these were not in place in 1957.
The yellow lights were a result of the crash in Tooting Broadway siding at a later date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2006 16:48:07 GMT
As for the yellow lights in tunnel sidings, these were not in place in 1957. The yellow lights were a result of the crash in Tooting Broadway siding at a later date. That was in 1975, right?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Mar 29, 2006 17:02:28 GMT
As for the yellow lights in tunnel sidings, these were not in place in 1957. The yellow lights were a result of the crash in Tooting Broadway siding at a later date. That was in 1975, right? 1975 was the Moorgate Crash, the Tooting Broadway accident was before this, but as only the train crew were on the train, when it hit the stops in the siding, it was not as well known outside of the Underground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2006 22:05:10 GMT
Fantastic diagrams !
I see some quadruple multiple home signals there, something which is now sadly a rarity on the tube.
Does anyone know when the scissors crossover at Liverpool St was replaced by a trailing crossover, when the scissors crossover at Epping was replaced with seperate crossovers, and when the double reversing siding at Newbury Park was repaced with a single crossover?
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Mar 30, 2006 0:33:41 GMT
2 - Wrong Road 'FRLs' at Liverpool street and Bethnal Green. These were,I think, Brackets to take an Oil Lamp and Handworked Train Stops for use by the Pilotman during Single Line Working.
5 -Leyton, Trip cock Tester This was , I think, to test the tripcocks of Engines coming onto 'the System' from the Main Line.There was a similar one at Newbury Park.
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Mar 30, 2006 5:32:33 GMT
6 - LF Slot 12 on Sig.LE23A : This would allow Leytonstone to hold a train or loco that was intended to set back with LF40
11 - LJ 53 & LJ58 and LM 3 & 4 : These Shunt signals had a Yellow bar on the white disc which allowed them to be Passed at Danger for shunting along the siding
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 30, 2006 8:04:57 GMT
Fantastic diagrams ! I see some quadruple multiple home signals there, something which is now sadly a rarity on the tube. Does anyone know when the scissors crossover at Liverpool St was replaced by a trailing crossover? 1948, when speed control signalling was introduced there.
|
|
|
Post by russe on Mar 30, 2006 12:22:19 GMT
1948, when speed control signalling was introduced there. On what principle was that speed control signalling based? Russ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2006 13:49:04 GMT
6 - LF Slot 12 on Sig.LE23A : This would allow Leytonstone to hold a train or loco that was intended to set back with LF40 Exactly as I suspected. It seems like a rather unorthodox use of slotting, especially given that by the 1940s I would have expected that box-to-box telephones would have been a much simpler way of telling your colleague to hold a signal on for a shunt maneuver. 11 - LJ 53 & LJ58 and LM 3 & 4 : These Shunt signals had a Yellow bar on the white disc which allowed them to be Passed at Danger for shunting along the siding Again, exactly as I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 30, 2006 15:16:22 GMT
6 - LF Slot 12 on Sig.LE23A : This would allow Leytonstone to hold a train or loco that was intended to set back with LF40 Exactly as I suspected. It seems like a rather unorthodox use of slotting, especially given that by the 1940s I would have expected that box-to-box telephones would have been a much simpler way of telling your colleague to hold a signal on for a shunt maneuver. What you've failed to take account of so far is the fact that Leyton Cabin was not always open. The slot gives the Leytonstone Signalman control of that signal when Leyton Cabin is closed and the signal would otherwise be working automatically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2006 17:08:25 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2006 19:14:25 GMT
Hold on... East of Leytonstone, on the westbound line, there's speed control homes LE23, but between the last of these signals and the platform, there is another signal, LE21...
Doesn't this kinda defeat the object of having those homes in the first place?
Sam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2006 20:02:00 GMT
Interesting, I hadn't seen that thread before. If my calculations are correct based on that article, then with a speed/multiple home signal approach, the theoretical station run out run in time is 52secs. This figure was for the District Line, so with a 10m/s run in speed, this would be approx 54secs on the Central with its longer trains. This is still less than the present station run in run out time of 58-60secs on the Central Line with Distance To Go ATO signalling. Obviously this may not be fair comparison, as I'm comparing theoretical times with the old signalling, with actual measured consistant timings with the new signalling.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 30, 2006 21:46:10 GMT
Lets try and answer a few more of these questions WHEEEE!!!!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4. Was Drapers Field SB simply a small TC-operated power frame, later downgraded and relocked for the conversion of Leyton SB, or was it a fully-fledged mini-cabin/slave cabin removed after the opening of Leyton Junction? This is what the yellow peril had to say This was the standard arrangement at the time where repeaters were mounted below junction signals. At a later date these would almost certainly have been modified so that there was only a single repeater head which repeated whichever of the signals the train was signalled towards. Yes. I should imagine LJ18 could only be cleared with 13 crossover reversed. This is because of the presence of signal LJ44 in the alternative route via 37 crossover. Likewise I should think LJ12(2) would also be via 13 crossover reverse. I may get around to answering some of the other questions when I have a bit more time, but in the meantime the answer to question 13 has been discussed in the past and I know TheOneKea read that thread because in another later thread he subsequently quoted a link I had posted in the original thread.
|
|
|
Post by russe on Mar 30, 2006 22:48:08 GMT
Thanks Sam, I was aware of that thread. The method of instantaneous speed detection discussed in that thread was by a 12' length of 'dummy' conductor rail, under which were a set of twelve magnets and coils, the speed being measured from the induced currents/frequencies in those coils. The apparatus was devised by Mr R Dell, an LTE signal engineer, and constructed by Westinghouse. It is thought that the apparatus could detect speeds to within 0.5mph. So far so good. I understand the above apparatus was first deployed on the District (at Victoria), and it is thought, in 1955. This correlates with Harsig's 1956 booklet on the subject (as referenced in the above thread). Presumably then, Harsig's reference to speed control at Liverpool Street in 1948 must have been by a different method. My question remains. Russ
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Mar 31, 2006 4:03:56 GMT
" *AN* LT Sgnal Engineer" (RussE#17)?
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Mar 31, 2006 5:35:49 GMT
15 - Mechanical/Electrical Proving.
North Weald and Ongar retained their existing Mechanical Frames on Electrification. The Signals and Points were interlocked through the Frame. Mechanical Facing Point Locks were also retained (ie - 6 locking 5 crossover and 10 locking 9, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 31, 2006 7:41:48 GMT
Thanks Sam, I was aware of that thread. The method of instantaneous speed detection discussed in that thread was by a 12' length of 'dummy' conductor rail, under which were a set of twelve magnets and coils, the speed being measured from the induced currents/frequencies in those coils. The apparatus was devised by Mr R Dell, an LTE signal engineer, and constructed by Westinghouse. It is thought that the apparatus could detect speeds to within 0.5mph. So far so good. I understand the above apparatus was first deployed on the District (at Victoria), and it is thought, in 1955. This correlates with Harsig's 1956 booklet on the subject (as referenced in the above thread). Presumably then, Harsig's reference to speed control at Liverpool Street in 1948 must have been by a different method. My question remains. Russ The 1948 yellow peril states the following The new and altered signals will be speed-controlled when the platform track circuits are occupied, i.e. a signal will be lowered for an approaching train. provided the speed of such train when traversing a timing section located in rear of the speed controlled signals does not exceed the speed indicated by the illuminated speed restriction indicator situated at the commencement of the timing section.Incidentally the date of introduction for Speed Control signalling was Sunday 11th April 1948, with No 9 crossover being removed (along with signal LB.2B) three months earlier after the last train on Saturday night, 10th January 1948. The alterations carried out to the signalling as shown in my diagram, in connection with Speed control signalling (in addition to the removal of No. 9 crossover) was as follows (a) Eastbound Road
(i) Stop Signals
Intermediate home signal LB.2A will be moved approximately 90 feet eastwards, and refixed on the right-hand side of the line. Intermediate home signal LB.3A will be renumbered LB.2C Intermediate home signal LB.3B will be taken out of commission. Additional intermediate home signals LB.2B on the left-hand side of the line, LB.2D on the right-hand side of the line, and LB.2E on the left-hand side of the line, will be provided respectively 356, 153 and 59 feet west of the station. A new inner home signal (LB.2F) will be provided in the station ground, on the right hand side of the line, 39 feet east of the tunnel headwall. A trainstop, No. 103, will be provided in the platform road, 114 feet east of signal LB.2F.
(ii) Repeating Signals
Repeating signal R.LB.2A, located below signal LB.1, will be renumbered R.LB.2A & B/1. Repeating signal R.LB.3B, located below signal LB.3A, will be taken out of use. New repeating signals will be provided as follows : R.LB.2A & B/2, 85 feet west of signal LB.2A on the right-hand side of the line. R.LB.2B/C/D/E, located below signal LB.2A R.LB.2F, located below signal LB.2E
(b) Westbound Road
(i) Stop Signals
Outer home signal LB.23A will be renumbered LB.23. Intermediate home signal LB.23B will be renumbered LB.22A. Intermediate home signals LB.23C and LB.23D will be taken out of commission. Additional intermediate home signals LB.22B and LB.22C on the right-hand side of the line, and LB.22D on the left-hand side of the line, will be provided respectively 402, 307 and 180 feet east of the station. Innermost home signal LB.22 will be moved 16 feet westwards, re-erected on the right-hand side of the line and re-numbered LB.19B/20B/22E. A trainstop, No. 102 will be provided in the platform road 78 feet west of the tunnel headwall. Siding outlet signals LB.19 and LB.20 will be renumbered LB.19A and LB.20A respectively.
(ii) Repeating signals
Repeating signals R.LB.23A and R.LB.23A & B, located 898 and 718 feet in rear of signal LB.23, will be renumbered R.LB.23 and R.LB.23/22A respectively. Repeating signal R.LB.23B & C, located below signal LB.23 will be renumbered R.LB.22A & B. Repeating signal R.LB.23C & D, located below signal LB.22A will be renumbered R.LB.22B/C/D.
Alterations to King Levers.
(a) The existing King Lever, No. 7 will be used for automatic working of the signals on the eastbound road only.
(b) A new King Lever, No. 12, will be provided for the automatic working of signals on the westbound road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2006 9:41:43 GMT
Harsig once posted this diagram of Fairlop (LM): www.geocities.com/idsmesig/Signals/FailopLM1948.jpgMandGC said the following about the interlocking on site: Fairlop Diagram - When the Ground Frame was in use the Outer Rail signals LM 606A and 606B were extinguished, the train stops lowered (to avoid delay during shunting on the Running line ) and the Marker lights "in the form of a cross" illuminated ( which authorised the Driver to pass the signals for Shunting purposes. Question 13 is answered. Thanks for the tip Harsig Exactly as I suspected. It seems like a rather unorthodox use of slotting, especially given that by the 1940s I would have expected that box-to-box telephones would have been a much simpler way of telling your colleague to hold a signal on for a shunt maneuver. What you've failed to take account of so far is the fact that Leyton Cabin was not always open. The slot gives the Leytonstone Signalman control of that signal when Leyton Cabin is closed and the signal would otherwise be working automatically. Ahhhhh, now it all makes sense. I hadn't even considered the possibility that Leyton cabin would be closed; given its location I would have thought that it would be permanently manned. Speaking of Leyton cabin, do you have any info on its interesting hybrid nature? www.signalbox.org has photos of the cabin, showing its original Dutton mechanical frame for the points and a new N-style frame for the signals.
|
|
|
Post by russe on Mar 31, 2006 10:21:26 GMT
" *AN* LT Sgnal Engineer" (RussE#17)? Whoops, err, yes sorry, I did wonder about whether to use the definite or indefinite article. I guess I should have said 'the LTE signal engineer'! But there must have more than one, surely? Russ (and thanks Harsig on the Liverpool Street 'timing section')
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Mar 31, 2006 23:06:28 GMT
Sorry RussE, I missed off the Smiley Face !
I thought he was considered *THE * LT Signal Engineer. I only saw him once, at the other end of the platform but - - - ( Be still my beating heart! )
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Apr 1, 2006 8:13:06 GMT
Some further comments on TheOneKea's Questions (Reply # 2)
16. Just a thought, 38 Crossover would allow an Engine to leave its train in the yard and return to its Shed via Seven Kings should it not have be able to complete its work for any reason during the night.
18 The additional control of the Ground frame at Barkingside may have been to allow the Newbury Park Signalman to delay shunting at Barkingside in the event of the last electric trains to Hainault Depot running late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2006 8:25:06 GMT
Question 13 is answered. Thanks for the tip Harsig What you've failed to take account of so far is the fact that Leyton Cabin was not always open. The slot gives the Leytonstone Signalman control of that signal when Leyton Cabin is closed and the signal would otherwise be working automatically. Ahhhhh, now it all makes sense. I hadn't even considered the possibility that Leyton cabin would be closed; given its location I would have thought that it would be permanently manned. Speaking of Leyton cabin, do you have any info on its interesting hybrid nature? www.signalbox.org has photos of the cabin, showing its original Dutton mechanical frame for the points and a new N-style frame for the signals. Can't comment on the reason for there being two methods of operation, but I can say that if the points are mechanically operated with FPLs at each end, you do not need to provide detection. This would've saved a helluva lot of locking complication and cost! Sam
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Apr 1, 2006 23:42:24 GMT
Question 19 - LL 1 Signal (OneKEA # 2)
Hainault Signal Box Frame lies (roughly) parallel to the Inner Rail and the levers were numbered from left to right. Signal LL 1 was at the left of the Frame and of the Illuminated Diagram. It will be seen that the levers are grouped (1 - 22, Grange Hill Local routes; 27 - 39, Outer Rail; 45 - 55, Inner Rail; 60 - 83, Depot South End) and I wonder if Grange Hill Frame( Levers 1 to 22 ?? ) was manned for movements into and at the North end of the Depot relieving the Main Signalman/men of this work ?
|
|