Facing point locks

Discussions of the prototypes and how to model them. Show us how you do it.
User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby Martin Wynne » Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:13 pm

Noel wrote:
andrewnummelin wrote:Digging through old photos I found a couple showing short trains being left clear of the crossover but also two showing passenger trains over the crossover, one was pre-grouping and the other was a DMU (that I think did not run regular services).

I can offer you one from 1950, with the two [still chocolate and cream] bogie coaches pushed back right to the stops - Branch Line Byways, Ian L Wright

Is it possible to see in these photos whether the points are clipped?

Also there is no reason that empty stock cannot be stored at the buffers. But was it drawn forward before the passengers were allowed to get on?

Martin.
40+ years developing Templot. Enjoy using Templot? Join Templot Club. Be a Templot supporter.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby Tim V » Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:04 pm

bécasse wrote:Taken after the layout was altered post withdrawal of the passenger service. The point is clearly worked by the two-lever ground frame to the left but I'm not sure why both levers seem to work something, it clearly isn't a classic FPL as there is no locking bar and I can't think that the neck is track-circuited.

Correct after withdrawal of passenger services. However, a locking bar is not needed - the frame being released by the train staff.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby Noel » Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:36 pm

Martin Wynne wrote:Is it possible to see in these photos whether the points are clipped?
Also there is no reason that empty stock cannot be stored at the buffers. But was it drawn forward before the passengers were allowed to get on?

In the 1950 one I can't tell if the points are clipped. The photo shows a B-set with a loco attached; the caption and accompanying text are by the photographer and imply that it is the train he will be leaving on, but, of course, the train could pull forward before the, probably very few, passengers boarded.
I also have what is possibly the same photo of the diesel unit as Andrew has [WRA III No. 8, 11/2003, p184, Andrew]; the points are not visible but the station roof is, at an angle suggesting that the the DMU must have stopped over the point, but it departed empty. According to the accompanying article, the service was in the WTT, terminating at Central, but by the last day, which this was, never normally went that far, so definitely a one-off. (Any passengers normally left at Dowlais Top to catch the Corporation bus into Merthyr, so the train usually returned from there.)
Regards
Noel

martin goodall
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby martin goodall » Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:25 pm

The examples quoted in the last couple of contributions represent post-2WW / post-Nationalisation practice.

But I really don't think that before the War, anyone would have bothered to draw forward before boarding passengers, or clip the points. This not Paddington or some other large terminus we are talking about, but just a sleepy branch terminus, far from the madding crowd (and well away from the watchful eyes of officialdom most of the time).

Unless someone has actual evidence of such strict practices before WW2, I don't think there is any point in theorising about it.
Last edited by martin goodall on Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:38 pm

Tim V wrote:Correct after withdrawal of passenger services. However, a locking bar is not needed - the frame being released by the train staff.

Release by the train staff kakes no difference, there's no need of a locking bar when worked from a ground frame right on the spot, the one pulling the lever should notice if there's a train there. There's a rodding run going off to where the other end of the crossover would have been, so the GF and FPL very possibly predates the alterations.
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby Tim V » Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:41 am

I found a picture of the same location (not my copyright) from 1960, showing a crossover and no FPL! Since passenger services were withdrawn in 1966, this frame must have been put in between 1960 & 1966 - no need for FPLs in this location on a freight only line.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

martin goodall
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby martin goodall » Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:55 pm

Tim V wrote:- no need for FPLs in this location on a freight only line.


Actually, an FPL would be installed on a line used only by goods trains where running moves (as distinct from shunting moves) would be made over the point in a facing direction.

I don't know whether this was a rule, or just good practice, but (other than in the case of an engine release crossover at a branch terminus, as discussed above) the GWR, and no doubt other companies, would have installed an FPL on a goods running line (but not a siding) where running moves would be made in a facing direction over that point.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby grovenor-2685 » Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:06 pm

martin goodall wrote:I don't know whether this was a rule, or just good practice,

Good practice but by no means always done. The MOT blue book 1950 was "Requirements for passenger lines and recommendations for goods lines of the Minister of Transport in regard to railway construction and operation".
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby Tim V » Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:09 pm

At Staines, the points were worked by ground frames in passenger days. I expect the ground frame was carried forward from those days.

Here is Bodmin in 1978 - after removal of the signalling equipment. The more usual arrangement. Hand levers on the points.
Bodmin 9 December 1978 OM1 157-017.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

martin goodall
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby martin goodall » Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:55 pm

Just to clarify, I was referring to pre-WW2 practice. As I have observed in comments above, there were various changes in practice in the post-war period.

I am grateful to Keith for the reminder that it was in the 1950 MoT rules and recommendations (of which I have a copy) that the recommendation of FPLs on goods lines is to be found. I am reasonably sure that earlier [pre-2WW] editions said much the same thing.

As always, what the 'Bible' says is not what people necessarily do.

In the period we were modelling on the North London Group's Bodmin layout, the arrangement of FPLs at that station was as described earlier. The point in the main line (from Bodmin Road) giving access to the platform or to the loop and goods yard had an FPL that had to be locked either way before either the Down Main Home or the Down Main to Loop Home could be pulled off, the latter being for a running move by a goods train over this point.
Last edited by martin goodall on Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Facing point locks

Postby grovenor-2685 » Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:21 pm

martin goodall wrote:I am grateful to Keith for the reminder that it was in the 1950 MoT rules and recommendations (of which I have a copy) that the recommendation of FPLs on goods lines is to be found. I am reasonably sure that earlier [pre-2WW] editions said much the same thing.

1928 edition was essentially the same, the original 1858 requirements makes no mention of FPLs.
My copy of the 1902 version appears to be a draft where some wording is struck through and other words added. A requirement for FPLs and Lock bars is struck through!
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings


Return to “Signals and Control Systems”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests