Nantlle – Signalling Notes – Port Dinllaen Lines

by tynewydd » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:10 am

Last in my series starting with Port Dinllaen and encompassing Pont Llynfi and Tan-Y-Graig is Nantlle – a single-line branch terminus.

Unlike the others there was a real station at Nantlle, but my version differs from the original in at least these respects –

1. There is signaling and token working rather than one-engine-in-steam
2. The track plan is not based on the original – especially in that the Nantlle tramway comes in from the direction of the standard-gauge line rather than the opposite direction.

Track plan is here and the blurb is here

Please let me know what you see as odd.

Thanks,
Adam

by davidwoodcock » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:30 am

To me, this seems to be the point where your “history” moves from the unlikely but not impossible of the rest of your scheme to unbelievable. [edit to change the word “improvable” – I am not quite sure what I intended to write previously but it wasn’t that!]

It wasn’t just the real Nantlle branch that was owned by the LNWR, so was the Nantlle Tramway (and subsequently by the LMSR and BR). The LNWR had a monopoly of the slate traffic from this area, either via the Nantlle Tramway or via the NWNGR, and would have been in an excellent position vis à vis the horse-worked Tramway to ensure that it kept it. What might, though, have been possible is an extension of the ~2ft gauge lines of the quarry owners to an MR terminus at Nantlle. (In reality, their slate output was trans-shipped twice 2ft to 3ft 6in and 3ft 6in to 4ft 8½in.)

by kbarber » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:35 am

I notice you call it Nantlle (MR) but your blurb refers to it as ‘Caernarvonshire Railway… assumed by the LNWR…’ so I wonder if you’re actually intending a LNWR influence here (with, presumably, running powers from Bangor to PLJ)?

The LNWR was rather a parsimonious outfit when it came to signalling branch lines. I wonder if (to add yet another variation of signalling practice) Nantlle might have been signalled with ground frames with Annetts key releases between them. There would have been an Annetts key on the end of the staff that released the GF controlling the entrance to the station (probably the only release needed for running round the local passenger trains).

I don’t know what the rationale is for two crossovers (7 and 9), unless there was a very good reason involving lots of extra revenue I’d expect even the most lavish company to try and provide only one of the two. To my mind, 9 would be the better candidate; that would allow the one GF to control 10 as well and the whole layout could be signalled with just five levers (one lever to work both FPLs, locked by Annetts key, two crossovers and one signal in each direction). The GF would most likely be open to the elements and the levers would have the LNWR’s very distinctive stirrup catch handles – a nice touch on a model.

I can’t see, on the layout as you’ve drawn it, a reason for a second GF released from the first. I believe (from Richard Foster’s book on LNWR signalling) the LNWR did use cascaded Annetts keys. So the first GF would be released by an Annetts key on the staff; once the points leading to the second GF were reversed a second Annetts key would be released to be taken to the second GF and release that. There would be no long runs of point rodding and a minimum of locking between GF levers, hence promoting economy of provision. On the layout you have here I’d expect GFs at both 7 and 9 with both being released by the same key, the one that was used depending completely on the needs of the train that was present.

The staff instrument for electric staff working would almost certainly be in the station building (protected from the weather without needing to build any kind of GF hut), allowing shunting across the main line to be carried out with no train present. In those more leisurely days, the need to stop those shunting moves before a train left PLJ and to wait until it arrived back there before restarting wouldn’t be regarded as quite the terrible thing it is today. (Shunting within the slate side, or within the dairy side, could of course continue regardless.)

In any of these scenarios I’d expect no shunting signals of any kind and, as I say, the fewest possible running signals (preferably just one home and one starter) with all other moves being controlled by the GF operator (who would also be the guard or shunter).

If it is MR, although there probably would have been a signalbox of sorts I’d still expect as few signals as possible (certainly no shunt signals) and, likewise, unless there’s an exceptional justification for the expenditure, only one of 7 or 9 crossovers. Again it’s a moot point, regardless of the kind of building provided, whether the apparatus would be considered a signalbox or a ground frame – in the latter case the operator would, again, be the shunter or guard and would be assumed to be in direct control of all movements in any case. Even if there was a signalman properly so called, the MR wasn’t one to provide shunt signals – the signalman was expected to control movements by handsignal.

by Mike Hodgson » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:50 am

I agree it looks heavily over-signalled, though I don’t necessarily agree that you should simplify quite as much as suggested. It all depends on your traffic pattern.

Does the engine shed only house “the branch engine” or do you envisage a second engine being steamed to shunt these various wagons about all day? If so, you can’t do it with Annetts keys on the train staff under TS&T – the staff would be away whilst you want to shunt. However I think you would need a quite remarkable volume of traffic to justify that economically. Are you expecting to have a freight come in and spend a couple of hours shunting using the train engine, whilst passenger services come and go? This is much more plausible economically (although it still assumes a more intensive passenger service than seems likely in rural Wales), but locking using only Annetts keys on the train staff would again be very limiting. Many branches were worked like that without needing full signalling, but it was typically a freight train using a two or three hour window in a sparse passenger timetable, and that meant it could carry the train staff.

If you are working Electric Train Staff rather than Train Staff & Ticket, you could at least extract a staff for shunting whilst the passenger train remained clear of the section at the far end. This would not be unreasonable for the LNWR.

Much as I like co-actors, I don’t see the case for one here (15) although the LNWR were unduly fond of tall posts. Since any departing train is starting from rest, you don’t need to see it from afar, so surely all you need is a short post to provide visibility under the bridge.

I don’t know what LNW practice was with running shunts, but 3/4/5 signals seem a long way past the Home signal. I’d be happier with a running signal there, but if you follow KBarber’s advice and dispense with 7 crossover, I think you should be moving 1 signal to that spot anyway.

My problem is more to do with the general geography of the station than its signalling, and of course any changes you may make to the station layout will impact the signalling. The goods shed location looks fairly improbable. I’m not clear as to where the other station buildings are, and how the public gain access, both for ordinary passengers arriving on foot to the booking office and more particularly for collections and deliveries by cart at the goods shed.

Is it (as I would expect given this layout) from a road leading to or past the platform end at the extreme right, or is it off the road overbridge in the middle? You do appear to have road access off the left hand bridge, which can no doubt serve the coal merchants (and possibly continuing under the other road bridge?) But I hope you don’t expect your distinguished first class passengers to come through the coal yard and over the sidings in their fine horse-drawn carriages! I think I would be tempted to swap the goods shed location with the coal merchants or the engine shed to get suitable road access.

Maybe it’s just the way you have drawn the diagram, but 12 crossover seems a long way down the platform, making the main part of the platform difficult to use. And if the main station building is indeed at the right hand end, you don’t really want all the passengers to have to walk all the way to the far end of the platform to board their train. So will the train be pushed back towards the stops after running around? Or will they have to walk to the narrow part of the platform clear of 12 crossover? I think I would probably want a bolt lock on this crossover, which I would expect to be controlled from the ground, using only hand signals.

You don’t show the cattle or end-loading facilities which would be usual, though I suppose you might be able to cater for end-loading by going though the goods shed.

Do you really need those gates on the exchange siding? That implies some sort of fence – so where exactly does that run? Does it not impede cart access to your goods shed (over the tramway track)?

by tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:39 am

davidwoodcock wrote:To me, this seems to be the point where your “history” moves from the unlikely but not impossible of the rest of your scheme to unbelievable.

Ok, I guess as Capt Mainwaring would say, “we appear to have entered the realm of fantasy now, Jones”. Let’s see what we can adjust to make it more believable. By the way, I had meant Midland Region rather than Midland Railway, but that is not an issue as if we are constructing a rival system out of whole cloth – we can go with that.

davidwoodcock wrote:What might, though, have been possible is an extension of the ~2ft gauge lines of the quarry owners to an MR terminus at Nantlle. (In reality, their slate output was trans-shipped twice 2ft to 3ft 6in and 3ft 6in to 4ft 8½in.)

So you are suggesting alternative to the tramway – servicing a subset of the quarries that wanted to AVOID the double shipment, and probably further up the valley as well? That would also make the “reverse engineering” of the narrow gauge line more probable and competition is good for the provision of services…

Adam

by tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:56 am

kbarber wrote:I notice you call it Nantlle (MR) but your blurb refers to it as ‘Caernarvonshire Railway… assumed by the LNWR…’ so I wonder if you’re actually intending a LNWR influence here (with, presumably, running powers from Bangor to PLJ)?

Yes – as I said to David MR was Midland region – but it proves I should be more careful with late night posting…

I guess we can go two ways – we can assume LNWR in which case we are just replacing one real station with a fictitious one or MR in which case we are constructing a rival.

kbarber wrote:The LNWR was rather a parsimonious outfit when it came to signalling branch lines. I wonder if (to add yet another variation of signalling practice) Nantlle might have been signalled with ground frames with Annetts key releases between them.

I’ll read through and see if I can make sense of the idea and pluses and minuses – intriguing, I agree.

kbarber wrote:I don’t know what the rationale is for two crossovers (7 and 9), unless there was a very good reason involving lots of extra revenue I’d expect even the most lavish company to try and provide only one of the two.

Well, I suppose I should reveal the basic inspiration for the track plan was Leighton Buzzard (GCR) – another exercise in fiction – and I think (re-reading the books) the second crossover arrived there because that layout was once shorter and got extended – not an especially good reason. So point(s) un-taken!

kbarber wrote:If it is MR, although there probably would have been a signalbox of sorts I’d still expect as few signals as possible (certainly no shunt signals) and, likewise, unless there’s an exceptional justification for the expenditure, only one of 7 or 9 crossovers. Again it’s a moot point, regardless of the kind of building provided, whether the apparatus would be considered a signalbox or a ground frame – in the latter case the operator would, again, be the shunter or guard and would be assumed to be in direct control of all movements in any case. Even if there was a signalman properly so called, the MR wasn’t one to provide shunt signals – the signalman was expected to control movements by handsignal.

Question – once we arrive at the BR days of the early 60s via the LMS – would that still have been considered OK in either and ex-LNWR or ex-MR scenario? Or would there have been an insistence on greater provision of signaling to keep goods away from passengers?

by tynewydd » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:52 am

Mike Hodgson wrote:Are you expecting to have a freight come in and spend a couple of hours shunting using the train engine, whilst passenger services come and go? This is much more plausible economically (although it still assumes a more intensive passenger service than seems likely in rural Wales), but locking using only Annetts keys on the train staff would again be very limiting. Many branches were worked like that without needing full signalling, but it was typically a freight train using a two or three hour window in a sparse passenger timetable, and that meant it could carry the train staff.

Yes – freight messing about while passengers come and go – needs to be able to happen even if a train is on the way from PLJ or on the way back which will take something like 12/15 minutes each way at 20MPH. As late as 1923 before passenger trains were withdrawn, the real Nantlle had 12 scheduled passenger departures a day M-F and 16 on Saturdays. Thursday evening (choir practice, perhaps?) had an extra one. That’s quite busy in my estimation once you add in maybe a pickup freight or two, two cattle/sheep trains a week for market days and slate trains.

Mike Hodgson wrote:Much as I like co-actors, I don’t see the case for one here (15) although the LNWR were unduly fond of tall posts. Since any departing train is starting from rest, you don’t need to see it from afar, so surely all you need is a short post to provide visibility under the bridge.

Gone.

Mike Hodgson wrote:I don’t know what LNW practice was with running shunts, but 3/4/5 signals seem a long way past the Home signal. I’d be happier with a running signal there, but if you follow KBarber’s advice and dispense with 7 crossover, I think you should be moving 1 signal to that spot anyway.

I did eliminate one crossover but made it No 9 that met with the acetylene torch – it was a facing three-way point – which I suspect would be unusual for a passenger line? So that led me to adding a real signal 3/4/5, but alternatively I could have just added a second minature arm to the #1 bracket for the #10 entrance to goods yard and a calling-on arm for movements into the occupied platform? I guess the difference is in having to shunt out goods from the lower yard beyond the #1 bracket versus just clearing the #10 crossover, reversing them into the platform road and then running around them there. But maybe its swings and roundabouts and such a move would be made controlled with flags anyway so simplicity and less levers would rule.

Mike Hodgson wrote:My problem is more to do with the general geography of the station than its signalling, and of course any changes you may make to the station layout will impact the signalling. The goods shed location looks fairly improbable.

Is it (as I would expect given this layout) from a road leading to or past the platform end at the extreme right, or is it off the road overbridge in the middle?

Right-hand end – I amended the plan to show this. I also moved the NG platform and provided a way through for vans and carts to access the goods shed and associated road with a passenger footbridge between the platforms. The goods shed on the (narrow) platform back-edge is something I remember from Valley station (C&HR->LNWR->LMS) where the platform was narrow and the name of the station was actually rendered on the goods shed wall. Valley had a particularly active cattle trade as the “valley smithfield” was there together with a bi-weekly cattle market.

Mike Hodgson wrote:12 crossover seems a long way down the platform, making the main part of the platform difficult to use. And if the main station building is indeed at the right hand end, you don’t really want all the passengers to have to walk all the way to the far end of the platform to board their train. So will the train be pushed back towards the stops after running around? Or will they have to walk to the narrow part of the platform clear of 12 crossover? I think I would probably want a bolt lock on this crossover, which I would expect to be controlled from the ground, using only hand signals.

In model compression, this has to be so – and the length taken of the platform has to accommodate the largest engine we may expect to arrive unless we want there to be an engine RR spur that goes over the station road… For loco-hauled departures, they will have to be reset after the run-around. For auto-coach they could run coach first into Nantlle. I assume you are saying that the signals 19 and 6 are not needed? But that the box would have a bolt on the 12 crossover to ensure it is open before the signals into the platform can be cleared (and presumably that would double as the GF release)?

Mike Hodgson wrote:You don’t show the cattle or end-loading facilities which would be usual, though I suppose you might be able to cater for end-loading by going though the goods shed.

Added

Mike Hodgson wrote:Do you really need those gates on the exchange siding? That implies some sort of fence – so where exactly does that run? Does it not impede cart access to your goods shed (over the tramway track)?

No I don’t – removed.

Thanks for all the tips, Mike.

Adam

by Mike Hodgson » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:33 am

Yes, I would say a 3-way point would be fairly unusual for a passenger road into a small rural station but not impossible. I think your rearrangement should handle road access, but I don’t see a footbridge as required over the cart access to the yard – only if you were also crossing the railway

Mike Hodgson wrote: For loco-hauled departures, they will have to be reset after the run-around. For auto-coach they could run coach first into Nantlle. I assume you are saying that the signals 19 and 6 are not needed? But that the box would have a bolt on the 12 crossover to ensure it is open before the signals into the platform can be cleared (and presumably that would double as the GF release)?
Yes, I would dispense with 19 & 6 and convert 12 to a GF or hand point. The reason I want to add a bolt or lock on this crossover is not for arrivals (you can trail through it and would not derail, although it would cause damage) but if trains are departing over it, when it becomes facing. Where terminal stations have room for it, the headshunt for the run-round road would usually continue beyond the end of the platform. Your geography doesn’t allow that, so you reduce usable platform unless you propel stock towards stops after running round. Don’t see that it matters which end of auto train is leading, although convenience of access to water & coal may have a bearing, as ideally you don’t want to have to uncouple to refuel.

by kbarber » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:24 pm

It has occurred to me that, at many locations where freight was (un)loaded, there was not a vast amount of shunting. So far as possible wagons would be positioned and the handling staff left to get on undisturbed for as long as possible. Only where there was a large depot with many handling roads would there be a call for shunting on anything like a continuous basis. That is why most stations were shunted by the local tripper once, or at most twice a day (perhaps with a horse to carry out positioning moves in between times if the site was so cramped that a whole shift’s work couldn’t be set up in one go). Continuous shunting at freight terminals (as opposed to marshalling yards) was probably restricted to major industrial sites or the goods stations in larger towns.

Adam, I wonder if you’re assuming the goods would precede the passenger up the valley and need to shunt while it was running up from PLJ and back again, then depart for PLJ as soon as the section clears? That would need the kind of signalling and facilities you’re talking about. But what seems more likely to me is that the goods would follow the passenger up, get inside to allow the passenger to depart and make whatever shunts were necessary that side while the passenger was still in section. After that it could be got across the road to shunt the other side (and probably assemble the outgoing train) before the next passenger needed the staff again. (In fact, given the sort of service density I’d expect in this area, it could probably take the train back to PLJ as well before the next passenger working.)

I think the governing principle for track and signalling is that the company would be looking to spend as little as they could get away with. If they could safely save three or four signals, a couple of sets of points and a signalbox building by careful timetabling that is what they would have done (or face the shareholders’ wrath at the AGM)! That would be even more apparent at the end of a small local branch than on a busy main line (though even there you shouldn’t expect the sort of gratuitous provision a modeller would love to be able to get his teeth in to – everything would have a purpose and its benefit carefully costed).

by tynewydd » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:44 pm

kbarber wrote:Adam, I wonder if you’re assuming the goods would precede the passenger up the valley and need to shunt while it was running up from PLJ and back again, then depart for PLJ as soon as the section clears? That would need the kind of signalling and facilities you’re talking about. But what seems more likely to me is that the goods would follow the passenger up, get inside to allow the passenger to depart and make whatever shunts were necessary that side while the passenger was still in section.

I take your point, Keith, and yes that’s one scenario I had thought about. And what you say is of course true. If we take Nantlle (LNWR) as the prototype, economy ruled to the extent of having no signal box at all! A key difference is that the time-to-junction of the model is twice the time for real Nantlle (LNWR) because PLJ is much nearer the sea than Pen-Y-Groes, leading to a section blocked % of only 25%, compared to 50% for the model if we assume a roughy hourly service.

From a modeling perspective, with time compression aka scale time (which we have to use to get through a timetable in a decent time period of time) shunting tends to be elongated relative to wall clock time since it involves manual tasks.

kbarber wrote: That would be even more apparent at the end of a small local branch than on a busy main line (though even there you shouldn’t expect the sort of gratuitous provision a modeller would love to be able to get his teeth in to – everything would have a purpose and its benefit carefully costed).

Agreed, but we have to look at the factors that allow economy and what resulted, and actually, I have another prototype branch terminus to look at that fits the model slightly better is several respects – Bethesda. Bethesda was on a steep line rising 300 ft (forgot to mention that for modeling purpose we have a steep gradient up). It was a slate transfer point in competition with a narrow gauge railway for slate traffic to the sea (Penhryn Quarry Railway). The trip time to Bangor was 18 minutes and, one imagines maybe longer uphill. In 1932 it had 16 arrivals and departures daily and 19 on Saturdays. Admittedly after the war the service level was so kept low at 8 per day that it lost out to bus traffic and had no passengers beyond 1951. But it did have a run-around loop within the platform length (but was mainly push-pull) and crucially a signalbox which didn’t close until 1954. <not true – see below> It had a layout with a constrained footprint, with a station building accessed from a station road orthogonally across the end. Didn’t have NG interchange sidings, but had extra length of goods sidings that were used to load slate from carts and a goods shed for freight from a local lorry service, cattle dock, etc. I don’t see a box diagram around for Bethesda, perhaps someone has one so we can see what it controlled?

I hope we can agree to some modeling license in that the combination of less parsimonious service with the difference between a stopping bus time to Caernavon and Bangor and high-speed train time via PLJ – especially in tourist season – would have resulted in continued passenger service for at least another decade.

I am not wedded to all of the signals – bracket 3,4,5 looks like overkill to me, now, for example. I am wondering about that middle bridge, it does tend to break up the scene which is good, but it reduces the operability of the layout and introduces some possibly un-needed partitioning in the yard(s).

I am wedded to the signalbox – removing that means depriving someone small but feisty of “her” box and “her” bells. Just as in the real railway there are sometimes factors beyond pure economy that drive decisions!

But I do appreciate the input as always. It certainly drives my thinking in the right direction.

Adam

by kbarber » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:37 pm

tynewydd wrote:Agreed, but we have to look at the factors that allow economy and what resulted, and actually, I have another prototype branch terminus to look at that fits the model slightly better is several respects – Bethesda. Bethesda was on a steep line rising 300 ft (forgot to mention that for modeling purpose we have a steep gradient up). It was a slate transfer point in competition with a narrow gauge railway for slate traffic to the sea (Penhryn Quarry Railway). The trip time to Bangor was 18 minutes and, one imagines maybe longer uphill. In 1932 it had 16 arrivals and departures daily and 19 on Saturdays. Admittedly after the war the service level was so kept low at 8 per day that it lost out to bus traffic and had no passengers beyond 1951. But it did have a run-around loop within the platform length (but was mainly push-pull) and crucially a signalbox which didn’t close until 1954.<edit not true – see later discussion>. It had a layout with a constrained footprint, with a station building accessed from a station road orthogonally across the end. Didn’t have NG interchange sidings, but had extra length of goods sidings that were used to load slate from carts and a goods shed for freight from a local lorry service, cattle dock, etc. I don’t see a box diagram around for Bethesda, perhaps someone has one so we can see what it controlled?

But I do appreciate the input as always. It certainly drives my thinking in the right direction.

Adam

I really should have remembered Bethesda

it was one of the boxes my instructor at signalling school had covered during his time on the North Wales Coast. In fact I recall him telling the story of how he was unable to close the box at end of traffic because the locking disintegrated (he ended up booking a 35 hour shift, he said – or maybe 35 years has gilded my memory of the tale).

by davidwoodcock » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:44 pm

Did Bethesda have a box? It certainly had signals, two in each direction because of the distance between the loop and goods yard points, but I have it noted as yet another example of a North Wales branch terminal with an open frame. In this case a 10-lever frame mounted on the platform which worked the signals and both sets of loop points (with one fpl) while the goods yard points were (typically for the LNWR in this area) released by an Annett’s Key. I believe the distant was fixed (typical LNWR practice?).

by MRFS » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:31 pm

Can’t find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda – far end at the station throat.

by davidwoodcock » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:51 pm

MRFS wrote:Can’t find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda – far end at the station throat.

I think that is probably the GF for working the goods yard points and released in typical LNWR fashion by Annett’s Key. Bethesda was long and thin and a box at the station throat would have been too far out, certainly in 1889 and probably later, to have worked the points for the platform loop.

By having an open GF on the platform the LNWR saved the cost of a dedicated signalman – as they did at almost every branch terminal in North Wales. I may have missed one but I suspect that only Llandudno, Blaenau Festiniog and Afonwen had proper boxes and they were all special cases.

by kbarber » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:08 am

davidwoodcock wrote:MRFS wrote:Can’t find my Wagstaff diagram, but there is an SB on the 1889 OS at Bethesda – far end at the station throat.

I think that is probably the GF for working the goods yard points and released in typical LNWR fashion by Annett’s Key. Bethesda was long and thin and a box at the station throat would have been too far out, certainly in 1889 and probably later, to have worked the points for the platform loop.
By having an open GF on the platform the LNWR saved the cost of a dedicated signalman – as they did at almost every branch terminal in North Wales. I may have missed one but I suspect that only Llandudno, Blaenau Festiniog and Afonwen had proper boxes and they were all special cases.

Sadly George Morgan is no longer with us to ask, but he certainly spoke of working Bethesda as a signalman; this would’ve been (I think) the early ’50s when he was on the relief, he was signalmens’ instructor at Carlow St in the late ’70s (I knew him at the back end of ’78).

by davidwoodcock » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:06 am

kbarber wrote:Sadly George Morgan is no longer with us to ask, but he certainly spoke of working Bethesda as a signalman; this would’ve been (I think) the early ’50s when he was on the relief, he was signalmens’ instructor at Carlow St in the late ’70s (I knew him at the back end of ’78).

I had noted what you wrote previously but I wonder whether George Morgan was referring to Bethesda Junction box where the Bethesda branch came off the main line.

Where there was no need to differentiate (and there is no way that the open frame on Bethesda’s platform warranted the added expense of a signalman), I have in the past heard men refer to junction boxes without using the actual “junction” word, much in the same way as in area with only a single station with a pair of boxes one would hear reference to “the east box” or “the west box”.

For example, I never heard Borough Market Junction referred to in speech as anything other than “Borough Market”.

by Pete2320 » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:59 pm

Probably worth remembering that some LNWR open frames were actually signal boxes, e.g. those on the Bedford to Bletchley line. Given the apparent intensive passenger service to Bethesda I suspect it was a block post.
Concerning George Morgans’ incident, I think it sounds more likely to have occurred at a box that needed to switch out, which certainly favours Bethesda Junction but as the rules prohibit closing a box with a fault we can’t rule out Bethesda itself, and George may well have fancied the O/T!

Pete

by tynewydd » Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:20 pmThere is a way for both the signalbox to have existed and the open GF based on timing. Although clearly not definitive, the disused-stations site entry that I linked to in my earlier post positively asserts that

Bethesda was provided with signal box to control traffic movements. It was located to the north of the passenger station between the lines that led to it and the goods yard sidings
On 11 February 1954 the Bethesda signal box was closed and demolished
It was replaced by a 9 lever ground frame

Presumably a definitive date of closure and other details like that came from somewhere..

And it is also very possible that there was a second GF on the platform for goods yard and run-round work.

I have seen a picture of an open ground frame on the platform at Bethesda somewhere – but if there was a signalman (or even porter) required because of the volume of traffic at any stage – an open frame would have been torture (of the water variety). Throughout the year Bangor always has between 19 and 25 days of rain a month and between 2 and 4″ totals, and Bethesda was (in my recollection) if anything slightly wetter – such that the spoil heaps of slate would always be shiny. A testament to the ruggedness of equipment and men.

And we also have a different date given for the closure of the Bethesda Junction box here of 28 August 1965 – two years after the end of all branch traffic – so a simple substitution error doesn’t seem to be at work.

I have ordered a used copy of the book cited as a principal source “Chester to Holyhead: The Branch Lines” and we can see what can be gleaned therein. The snail mail to the former colonies will take a while, so I will just have to be patient unless someone else has a copy to hand.

Adam

by John Hinson » Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:29 am

I think some of the comments on Bethesda and Bethesda Junction need clarifying and summarising to make sense.

There was a signal box at Bethesda from the opening of the line in 1884 and 1954 sounds an appropriate date for its abolition. Working had been by Train Staff & Ticket between Bangor No1 and Bethesda, and Bethesda Junction was a block post only in that section (and of course on the main line).

When Bethesda box closed, working was One Train in Steam between Bethesda Junction and Bethesda, with a ground frame released by the Single Line Staff provided at Bethesda to work the yard connections. This was necessary as excursions continued to run until 1962.

I do not know whether the L&NWR’s practice of using Key Interlocking frames as signalboxes applied at Bethesda but it seems unlikely. However, to be clear, its purpose was not to economise in staff but to economise in signalling costs. The desire to save staff by combining platform staff’s jobs with that of signalman didn’t really flourish until after nationalisation, when labour costs were becoming expensive. Back in the 1880s, when key interlocking “seemed a good idea”, signalling was something the railway companies didn’t want to spend money on, preferring to channel their funds into building bigger and faster engines to outrun their competitors. Around the turn of the century, when the L&NWR started extending the KI system to larger layouts, controlled from full-sized signal boxes, the Board of Trade tapped them on the shoulder and the idea immediately went out of fashion although existing examples remained until recent years.

My records show that Bethesda Junction closed on 1st August 1965.

John

by tynewydd » Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:51 amThanks, John.

I have updated the plan to remove the inner home bracket and the second bridge.

Adam

by Chris L » Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:29 amForgive me if this has been mentioned before (can’t spot it), but there is a diagram of Bethesda on p.233 of Richard Foster’s “A Pictorial Record of LNWR Signalling”. The diagram itself is undated, but a note states that the lever frame was installed in 1884. The legend on the diagram reads; “Open ground frame on platform – set of 10 levers – spaces 1 and 8. Siding points released by Annetts key ‘C’. (The platform run-round loop points – both ends – were worked directly from the frame.)

Chris.

by John Hinson » Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:52 am

Chris L wrote:Forgive me if this has been mentioned before (can’t spot it), but there is a diagram of Bethesda on p.233 of Richard Foster’s “A Pictorial Record of LNWR Signalling”. The diagram itself is undated, but a note states that the lever frame was installed in 1884. The legend on the diagram reads; “Open ground frame on platform – set of 10 levers – spaces 1 and 8. Siding points released by Annetts key ‘C’. (The platform run-round loop points – both ends – were worked directly from the frame.)

It hasn’t, and I hadn’t noticed that despite having the book out today to look up something else.

This shows, and the accompanying text confirms, that although an uncovered frame it was not of the Key Interlocking type. It was raised above platform level, as some of that time were. So basically, I guess, it could be regarded as a signalbox without walls or roof!

John

by tynewydd » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:18 pm

Found it! Here is a scanned picture of the platform ground frame at Bethesda – the accompanying “blurb” says that it was taken in 1927.

It seems to be looking out over the goods yard – opposite what would be the cattle dock. The “box” diagram is titled “Bethesda Station”. That blurb also calls that box on the fence a “telegraph instrument” – I see maybe a bell tapper but it doesn’t have any block indicator that I can see. Also in the text is mention of this frame controlling points signals and “crossing gates”. But that seems improbable – I can’t see any crossing within range of the platform based on the OS map. There is a shadowy blob on the platform at the LHS of the frame that is shaped like the head of an Annett’s key vertically inserted into a “lock” – is the picture showing the frame unlocked?

On the diagram you can just make out two pairs of ?crossover points? both facing SW-NE on the right lower end (one partly under a lever). <edit – maybe it is one facing point partly under the lever #4 and a crossover – that would make it more likely to be the passenger loop, but would also fit the goods RR>. Then there is also at least a crossover to the left upper and several suggestions of points in that area as well.

If you compare to the 1889 Map the diagram doesn’t seem to all be quite right in several respects to fit all the aspects of that layout. The situation in the Goods Yard seems a little more complex than I would have expected. There’s an ability to run-round completely within the yard, I think, and a through line in the goods shed that ends in a head shunt accessed via crossover over another line? Nice to see a prototype for the commonly modeled reverse road into Gas works siding!! And a handy crane near where the long sidings and the good shed line converge. The turntable has a coaling line – just space for a coal wagon but no coal dock, perhaps, and also a space for an engine to stand beyond the turntable – but no shed.

Not sure what we are to make of all this. The signal box on the same 1889 map that other people mentioned seeing would have to be beyond the end of this map. At the LHS in the photo’s diagram the lines do not seem to be converging like the map shows them to be – supporting the notion that a signal box controlled the divergence point and this frame controlled shunting?

Adam

by Chris L » Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:09 pm

Thanks for posting the photo of the frame.

The diagram I referred to above (in Richard Foster’s book) does explain how it worked (it’s not, of course, de rigueur to reproduce it here).

It would seem that all points in the goods yard itself were hand operated; the frame was only concerned with the “main”, passenger-carrying line. As I said in the previous post, the actual connection to the goods yard was released by an Annetts key which could be obtained from the frame when the appropriate levers were Normal (and locked them so while it was absent). Hence there was deemed to be no need for any more signalling facilities at Bethesda than those provided by this relatively modest installation; of course, it should be remembered that the LNW was renowned for the simplicity of its signalling provisions, when compared to some other companies!

Chris.

by John Hinson » Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:13 pmtynewydd wrote:There is a shadowy blob on the platform at the LHS of the frame that is shaped like the head of an Annett’s key vertically inserted into a “lock” – is the picture showing the frame unlocked?

There aren’t any nameplates on the levers, but they seem to be differently colored – all “shades of grey” to coin a phrase… I see light, light, dark, dark, light, dark, space, space, dark, dark – those last two are reversed.
The blob is indeed the Annett’s key holder and the key is in because the goods yard is not in use. It would have to be in the frame for the right-hand two levers to be reversed (as they are) as they are the signals for a passenger train departure.

The levers are probably painted correctly. They would look shades of grey in a monochrome picture! The desription plates can clearly be seen behind the levers, near ground level. The badges on the levers just list the pulls. If you can’t make them out, see here for an indoor example: http://www.signalbox.org/gallery/lm/widnes7.php

John

PS – I think the box on the fence would have contained the repeater for the distant signal when it was operational, which it can’t be by the date of that photograph because somebody has nicked the lever. The block instrument would have been in the station somewhere, along with the train staff and the ticket box.

by tynewydd » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:27 amJohn Hinson wrote:The blob is indeed the Annett’s key holder and the key is in because the goods yard is not in use. It would have to be in the frame for the right-hand two levers to be reversed (as they are) as they are the signals for a passenger train departure.

Hate to quibble slightly, John, but those two reversed levers are “dark” which is what a black or blue lever would look like in a BW photo when compared to a light -> red or lighter -> yellow. (I did the experiment with the Widnes picture). So I think that they would be a pair of points (like maybe a RR loop)? That way this frame has 3 signals and 5 points/FPLs – which is better than the alternative 5 and 3 – a case of the over-signalling I have been accused of

I have then a space (former distant?), two home signals, two points (or FPL and point), possibly a starter, a point, a space and then two points (or an FPL and a point).

Adam\

by Pete2320 » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:58 am

I’m not going to get into a debate about the apparent colours of levers in a black and white photo. Agreed the right hand pair look darker than the left hand pair but feel this may well not be due to levers being different colours, perhaps different reflection from reversed levers, camera angle, etc. However this is all pointless debate as we know there is a diagram in Richard Fosters book, accessible to at least two of the contributors to this thread who can doubtless confirm the function of those reversed levers. As one is John Hinson I imagine he checked up on this before his post.

Pete

by JRB » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:08 pm

Not needed this time, but a lot CAN be deduced from colour rendering in b/w photos. Most noticeably, anything old enough to be taken on orthochromatic film has reds very dark and wellows and oranges tending that way. Later panchromatic films is designed to give a more even response – not helpful in this context.

by Stuart Johnson » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:31 pmFor those who don’t have the Foster book, the numbering is:
1 Space
2 Home
3 Inner Home
4 FPL on loop points
5 Loop points
6 Disc from loop
7 Space (was engine release points)
8 Space
9 Advance starting (on same post as 2)
10 Starting (on same post as 3)Stuart J

by tynewydd » Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:38 pm

Stuart Johnson wrote:For those who don’t have the Foster book, the numbering is:
1 Space
2 Home
3 Inner Home
4 FPL on loop points
5 Loop points
6 Disc from loop
7 Space (was engine release points)
8 Space
9 Advance starting (on same post as 2)
10 Starting (on same post as 3)

Thankyou, Stuart. That gives me enough to think about the signaling contrasts between the proposed model as it is now and the prototype, including of the sharing of posts, which is a nice thought.

It is clear to me that there was no way to get the needed information from the photograph (I did use a crude orthochromatic filter in photoshop in my experiment, incidentally) and the nameplates are illegible even using the best techniques in detail enhancement I have once John had kindly pointed their position to me.

I looked through the large-scale OS county maps from 1887 onwards and in the first one I see a black dot at the position that others claimed to have seen a box which vanishes entirely in 1889 to be replaced by an open dot in 1919 and each subsequent map. In none of these maps does it carry a label. A dot just beyond the road bridge similarly vanishes from the next station up the line at Tregarth also by 1889 but is replaced by an SP.

Passim Bethesda – Back to Nantlle.

I think, therefore, an open platform-based GF it has to be in order to be prototypical for the LNWR, although perhaps one may go soft and ensure it has a roof – which helps in ensuring that the lack of movement of the levers is not so glaring. That leaves the question of whether it would be better to move the prototype to the Midland as a Nantlle (Midland) competing with the real Nantlle (LNWR) or a fictional continued Nantlle Railway to Caernavon owned by the LNWR – for reasons other than the presence or absence of a physical signalbox.

Thanks all.

Adam

by davidwoodcock » Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:03 pm

John Hinson wrote:
I do not know whether the L&NWR’s practice of using Key Interlocking frames as signalboxes applied at Bethesda but it seems unlikely. However, to be clear, its purpose was not to economise in staff but to economise in signalling costs. The desire to save staff by combining platform staff’s jobs with that of signalman didn’t really flourish until after nationalisation, when labour costs were becoming exp*, ensive.

Perhaps I can quote Richard Foster writing in his article in British Railway Journal no.50 (winter 1994) entitled The Train Services on the Anglesey Central Line* “The old LNW practice at small stations, such as Holland Arms, was to combine the signalman’s duties with those of a porter, shunter or even station master in order to reduce staff costs.” (Note that Holland Arms was a junction station.) Certainly the Southern Railway, from early in its existence, followed the same route, and it is perhaps not a coincidence that its General Manager was a former LNW man.

* The article not only covers train services but includes full signalling diagrams, all of the stations including the junction at Holland Arms having typical LNW open frames with the instruments in the booking office. Associated articles on the Red Wharf Bay branch and on the signalling on the Central Anglesey Line appeared in British Railway Journals no.1 and no.38 respectively.

As I have indicated before, these economical arrangements were certainly very typical of the LNW throughout North Wales although perhaps less ubiquitous in England – the LNW didn’t get where it did by spending money unnecessarily.

by tynewydd » Wed Jul 9, 2014 2:17 pm

Just as a coda to Bethesda of sorts – with the help of Nick Catford of the disused-stations site, I found the OS map with “Signal Box” attached to an open dot near the end (more or less) of the goods headshunt and so relatively close to the outer home/advanced starter SP. The words appear only in the 1889 25″ map but by the time of the same scale 1901 map the dot remains but is missing any rubric and has acquired an interior diagonal line suggestive of a hatching – which distinguishes roofs (an added feature of the 1901 survey). In the 6″ OS map of 1901 the rubric for a milepost on the road wipes out this area – hence the disappearance/reappearance of the dot. As the years roll on that area gets maintained on the 25″ as something with a roof right up through 1970 when all track has already been lifted and the whole area was clearly re-surveyed.

I presented the evidence to them that I am aware of to date (including the wording in one of their source books “Branch Lines” which is consistent with what has been discussed here). My copy of Richard Foster’s book has not yet arrived, but I put them onto that anyway. I pointed out that the closing and demolition they talk about would actually be consistent with decommissioning of a platform ground frame – leaving the goods ground frame in situ – since it was after the cessation of passenger traffic and that certainly by the time of the railtours we can see from photos that the passenger tracks had been lifted well before the goods yard.

They are considering what they will do to change or augment the information on their site.

I have put together a newer version of Nantlle (V3) – based on a combination of the real Nantlle and Bethesda and will post about that shortly to get feedback.

Adam

by tynewydd » Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:16 amOk – here is V3

I took the goods yard of Bethesda and swapped in the Nantlle passenger side (basically reversed the platform so that the station building is at the rear rather than being between the goods and passenger side) and then I added a second industry to the reverse siding (a dairy).

Finally, to cope with the cramped site, I took my courage in both hands and produced a slate exchange siding reached via a diamond crossing from the goods side over the passenger-line. I saw something similar (as a narrow gauge crossover) in John’s diagram for Blaenau Ffestiniog GW Exchange. This siding clearly would need to be protected via a catch point on the siding – I am unclear if there would need to be a ground signal on exit as well as entry, or if the rule would be that no engine could linger in the exchange siding, so once admitted, it would not need to be expressly signaled back into the goods yard. More conventionally that could be just a point off the passenger, but then goods would need to get out of the yard, come over and that could not be done with a passenger train in the platform.

Signalling (very early 60s remember) is supposed to include surviving LNWR LQ. I could even drop the miniature arm 3 on the bracket and make that signal a plain post with a pair of LQs as well.

I currently signaled it as though there was only one ground frame/blockpost and not two. The handling of the goods entrance crossover and signalling makes a two GF config seem unlikely to me in the model. There is not enough room to get a goods train out of the yard via the ground signal 11 and up to the AS 13, close and lock the crossover, remove the key and hotfoot over to platform to offer the train and pull off the AS. So then we would need the AS to be free if the annett’s key was with the goods GF… I will also have the LNWR book here by August so I can see how that was arranged – but obviously the space constraint is very different.

Adam

by kbarber » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:20 am

Broadly speaking it’s looking good. However I’d be inclined to have no shunt signals at all. That would accord with typical LNWR parsimony, which even extended to main lines. it was a feature in the Penmaenmawr collision of 1950 http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docume … wr1950.pdf (Signalman Morgan was the very same George Morgan who was my instructor at Signalling School). All movements in the station area would be controlled by handsignal (technically a green flag by day or handlamp at night; in reality the daytime signal was likely to be a wave from the box).

Technically the ‘catch points’ in the slate siding are trap points but I wouldn’t worry overmuch, the purpose is to derail anything that’s likely to cause problems if it goes any further.

There would be nothing to stop a loco sitting in the slate siding all day. It shouldn’t try and move out without a handsignal. And if it did, well that’s what the trap is for…

It would be quite usual to shunt out through 4 and beyond 13. The Electric Token Regs include specific provision, both to obtain a token for shunting purposes and to occupy the line outside the (advanced) starter while the section is occupied (provided the train is going away from you). Technically it’s two in a section but that’s what the regs say…

Interesting looking layout and the minimal old-style signalling is probably unusual on a model, particularly an ambitious one such as this. It’s also a nice contrast to the very full signalling at PLJ and PD.

by John Hinson » Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:47 am

kbarber wrote:technically a green flag by day or handlamp at night; in reality the daytime signal was likely to be a wave from the box

I think you will find the hand-wave (white light at night) was what was required by the rules . . . a green flag or lamp was not permitted. This placed an obligation on the driver, guard or shunter to ensure the points were set correctly as there was no detection of course.

John

by kbarber » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:36 am

John Hinson wrote:kbarber wrote:technically a green flag by day or handlamp at night; in reality the daytime signal was likely to be a wave from the box
I think you will find the hand-wave (white light at night) was what was required by the rules . . . a green flag or lamp was not permitted. This placed an obligation on the driver, guard or shunter to ensure the points were set correctly as there was no detection of course.

John
I’m rustier than I thought… perhaps St Albans South is about right for me at present

by tynewydd » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:42 am

Rusty or not

– thanks so much for posting this info including the accident, Keith. Just the description of how the un-signalled moves are supposed to work and how they could have led to this accident is fascinating. Here is Pathe news on the subject of the crash aftermath.

I work in a field where preventing “accidents” is important but without the deadly consequences, thank goodness. Still, under-investment in safeguards and therefore total reliance on strictly following working practices between two people who can’t directly talk to (or even see) each other; coupled with an ever-changing set of new people is always a recipe for failure eventually, I have found.

I’ll bet that this experience created one diligent and highly motivated instructor. We find war stories told by those who were there the most effective training tool we have.

Adam

by John Hinson » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:08 am

tynewydd wrote:I’ll bet that this experience created one diligent and highly motivated instructor. We find war stories told by those who were there the most effective training tool we have.

It actually led to a rather disillusioned signalman as the railway’s internal process of investigation was badly conducted and included a determination to condemn him regardless of other factors. They failed.

John