Hartleyburn Colliery

Discussions of the prototypes and how to model them. Show us how you do it.
User avatar
John Donnelly
Web Team
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby John Donnelly » Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:45 am

charliemiller77 wrote:Just wondering about number plates for the levers. . Does anyone produce a set or would I have to get them custom etched?


DCC Concepts do them:

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/cob ... mbers-199/

and an example of them painted and installed:

Image

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:44 am

Thanks John. I like that they are rectangular too.

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:26 am

Well it’s painted and all the locking is in and does what it’s supposed to do.
I took it to EM North , Wakefield , at the weekend and had a few compliments. Barry Luck asked why I didn’t have sequential locking for the starters and home?
I don’t know how to arrange that, and we didn’t have time to discuss properly with operating Eccleston etc. If it can be added without Interfering with what’s already there I might amend the locking. Any suggestions welcomed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby kelly » Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:06 am

It was appreciated by those on the SRS stand that you brought your frame across to look at. They were rather impressed by it.

I think at some point such a thing for the SRS stand may have to be built as a display item (as well as some working signals etc).
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:53 am

Glad you found it interesting and happy to see you dropping in on this thread.

davebradwell
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby davebradwell » Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:22 pm

Sequential Locking? I hope you're not importing any Midland wizardry here, Charlie. Can't say I recall a reference to it in Mackay's book but then I know little of these subtleties and his index is very short. Someone will put me right pretty quickly, I expect. The NER was slow to install any locking so it seems strange to add extra bits.

DaveB

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby Terry Bendall » Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:27 pm

charliemiller77 wrote:Well it’s painted and all the locking is in and does what it’s supposed to do.


And very nice it looks to Charlie. Very impressive.

Terry Bendall

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:49 pm

davebradwell wrote:Sequential Locking? I hope you're not importing any Midland wizardry here,

Barry is an LBSC man so maybe that explains it !!!

Chris Pendlenton
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:14 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby Chris Pendlenton » Sun Aug 28, 2022 8:01 am

Sequential locking is something I’ve certainly come across and ensures signals are pulled off in the correct order. Not immediately sure what this protects against- the answer may lie somewhere in “Red for Danger”- and it must be fiendish to arrange especially when a second train into the next section comes from a siding within station limits and you want the starter but not the home. In any case it is apparently usually arranged electrically rather than via the mechanical locking, which is very complex. A more useful feature on Hartleyburn might be to install a line clear release from the fiddle yard, as I have at Collingwood, either via block instruments or a simple acceptance switch in the fiddle yard. I use a electro magnet to operate a lever that normally drops by a counterweight into a notch in the starter tappet, and is pulled up by the electromagnet when an acceptance switch in the fiddle yard is "reversed".


Chris

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3918
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Aug 28, 2022 10:20 am

For the LMS the block controls specified are available here,
http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalli-LMS.htm
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:19 am

Thanks both for so much information. I’m currently in Spain with intermittent internet.
Brought some micro strip and acetate to try and build up windows for the bakery , if 6 grandchildren allow!!!

Alan Turner
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby Alan Turner » Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:35 pm

Chris Pendlenton wrote:Sequential locking is something I’ve certainly come across and ensures signals are pulled off in the correct order. Not immediately sure what this protects against-

Chris


It's principal purpose is to prevent the Home being pulled OFF having been returned to ON until the section signal/starter has been returned to ON. Some times referred to as poor-man's track circuit. It is used where there is no track circuit protection.

Widley used on the GWR.

It protects against pulling the Home OFF with a train standing at the section signal.

regards

Alan

JFS
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby JFS » Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:41 am

Alan Turner wrote:
Chris Pendlenton wrote:... Not immediately sure what this protects against-

Chris


It's principal purpose is to prevent the Home being pulled OFF having been returned to On until the section signal/starter has been returned to ON. Some times referred to as poor-man's track circuit. It is used where there is no track circuit protection.


Just to amplify this - it more broadly ensures that no stop signal can be cleared whilst the next signal in advance is already off. Thus it ensures that signals are always cleared in the "correct sequence" - ie (in this instance) Home then Starter, What this protects against is a signalman admitting a train into the section in advance (with a line clear release) then leaving his starter "off" and clearing the Home for a following train - which would admit two trains into one section. Of course, if he left both signals off, the same situation arises, and this is avoided by preventing a line clear being given to the box in rear whilst the home signal is off.

Just to mention that there is a further kind of lock which perhaps more properly provides what Alan describes, and this is a "rotational lock". An RL ensures (In this case) that once the Home signal has been cleared and replaced, it cannot be pulled a second time until the Starter has also been Pulled and Replaced. (that could of course apply to any pair of consecutive signals). The purpose of that is to prevent a signalman forgetting he has sent a train up to his Starter and clearing his home for a second train without first releasing the first train into the next section. The Hawes Junction accident would have been prevented by this kind of lock which was fundamental to Lock and Block sytems. The LSWR (for one) was an extensive user of such locks.

Both of these locks are usually done electrically, but were mechnical in earlier days - Rotational Locking is tricky to make in model form (I did design one, but found reasons to avoid using it!!), but Sequential locking is easy enough using a "lifting tappet" and I will post a picture showing how I did mine a bit later, but just have a think how it might be arranged - all you need is a lock which works to prevent a lever being pulled, but does not prevent it being replaced :?:

Frame looks excellent Charlie! Just the sequentials to do now ... (Trust Barry ... :D)

Best Wishes,

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby John Palmer » Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:05 am

Howard, I'm a bit puzzled by your assertion that the Hawes Junction accident would have been prevented by rotation locking. The relevant sequence of movements leading up to that crash were:

1. Down special express passes HJ at 5.20. All down line signals cleared for this then restored.
2. Two Carlisle-bound light engines crossed to down main from up side, coming to a stand between Down Starting and Down Advanced Starting signals. This movement does not involve passing any down line running signals, so none are cleared fot it.
3. At 5.43 Ais Gill accepts HJ's offer of the midnight down express, and HJ clears his down line signals for it. Mistakenly believing the Down Advanced Starting signal has been cleared to permit their departure to Carlisle, the light engines set off towards Ais Gill.
4. The midnight down express passes HJ under clear signals at 5.47.

If I have correctly understood the principles of rotation locking, its presence at HJ at the time of the accident would have had no effect on the outcome because the light engine movement onto the down line didn't involve clearance of the Down Home signal – or any other running signal on the down line. This being the case, I don't see how that movement could have had any bearing on the state of the locking. But I admit to dunce status regarding the subtleties of rotational locking, so I may well have missed something obvious.

Enforcing a particular sequence of pulls by means of rotation locking is all very well when you have a procession of trains following each other past a block post, but seems to me to become problematic when a train is diverted off the running line and so does not pass into the forward section.

It appears that just such a situation might arise with the Hartleyburn layout. Signals 2 and 3 are cleared to permit a train terminating there to draw forward to the section signal 4, which remains at danger. 2 and 3 are put back, and the train is then shunted back clear of the running line over 10 points. If rotation locking were to enforce a pull sequence 2 then 3 then 4, and 2 can't be pulled until 4 has been pulled and replaced then in these circumstances the Home signal 2 is going to remain locked because it was never necessary – or desirable – to clear and replace the section signal 4.

Entirely by coincidence I have recently been involved in a discussion of S&D signal layouts where subsidiaries may have been provided beneath running signals in rear of the section signals precisely to deal with such a contingency.

Look forward to seeing your picture of the lifting tappet arrangement!

JFS
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby JFS » Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:07 pm

Hello John,

As you describe it, you would be correct to say that the Home signal would be free to pull given that the Starter had been pulled and replaced for the last train to pass it.
BUT in the circumstance where there are two signals (or more) in rear (in this case a running and a shunting signal) THEY ALL must share the same Rotational lock. Hence my statement.

Another example of where such an approach is needed would be at a converging Junction where both Homes must be rotational locked by the signal in advance.

Edit:- also perhaps worth mentioning that the reverse situation also exists in a location such as Hawes J - Ie the Home signal with a rotational lock must be released by either of two signals - consider an engine being allowed past the Home in order to then set-back over the crossover. In that case, the rotational lock on the Home would need to be released by the shunt signal for the set-back move in addition to the (Adv) Starter.

Hope that helps,

Alan Turner
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby Alan Turner » Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:59 pm

John Palmer wrote:3. At 5.43 Ais Gill accepts HJ's offer of the midnight down express, and HJ clears his down line signals for it. Mistakenly believing the Down Advanced Starting signal has been cleared to permit their departure to Carlisle, the light engines set off towards Ais Gill.
4. The midnight down express passes HJ under clear signals at 5.47.


One thing has always puzzled me about this accident is why Ais Gil did not send 2-4 (blocking back inside the Home) and collaring his Home.

Had he done so the midnight express would not have been offered until the blocking back had been lifted.

Failure to send 2-4 was, of course, a key feature of Quintinshill.

regards

Alan

bécasse
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby bécasse » Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:35 pm

Alan Turner wrote:
One thing has always puzzled me about this accident is why Ais Gil did not send 2-4 (blocking back inside the Home) and collaring his Home.

Failure to send 2-4 was, of course, a key feature of Quintinshill.


Placing a reminder device (aka a collar) on the home signal lever would have prevented Quintinshill too. The Caledonian had recently introduced such devices at the time but too many signalmen considered it demeaning to use them.

Personally I knew several Southern signalmen who considered them God's gift to busy signalmen and routinely used them whenever it was even remotely appropriate to do so - on the better safe than sorry premise.

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby John Palmer » Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:12 pm

JFS wrote:Hello John,
...
Hope that helps,


Hello Howard, I think that helps!

If I've correctly followed the principles involved, it appears that:
1. where multiple signals read up to a signal forming part of a rotation locking scheme then each and every such signal must participate in that scheme; and
2. every movement that has the effect of removing the obstruction the rotation lock is intended to protect must likewise be controlled by a signal that will release the rotation lock, regardless of whether such movement is via the route controlled by the signal that first applied the lock or via some entirely different route.

Just to take the Hawes Junction layout as an example, what I think you are saying is that:
1. in addition to any rotation locks applied by down running line signals that read up to the Down Advanced Starting signal there needs to be a shunt signal reading over the crossover from up line(s) to down line (in this case from the Back or Branch Platform Line at HJ) and that this must share the rotational lock applied to the down running line signals; and
2. The route over the crossover from down line to up must, conversely, be signalled so as to release the rotation lock applied by any of the signals referred to in (1).

It gets more complicated than that, because at Hawes Junction there was also a trailing connection in the down line immediately in rear of the Down Advanced Starting signal that led into the engine sidings to the west of the running lines (including that famous stockaded turntable). It seems that any movement through that connection in either direction also needs to be controlled by signals participating in the rotation locking scheme on the same basis. This would mean that the ground signal that controls the movement from down line to engine sidings must release the rotation lock (because the movement authorised is one that removes the obstruction to the rotation lock is intended to protect) even though such movement is likely to be over a different route to that controlled by the signal(s) that caused the lock to be applied in the first place.

Similarly, if an engine is to move onto the down line from the engine sidings then, say, wrong road along the down line and over the crossover leading to the up side, exit from the engine roads must be controlled by a shunt signal which also participates in the rotation locking scheme.

I don't doubt that in principle rotation locking can be applied in this way, but it does appear that as soon as you have multiple connections to a running line over which rotation locking (and its releases) must be enforced then the complexity of the locking is considerably increased.

Have I got the hang of it?

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby John Palmer » Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:49 pm

bécasse wrote:
Alan Turner wrote:
One thing has always puzzled me about this accident is why Ais Gil did not send 2-4 (blocking back inside the Home) and collaring his Home.

Failure to send 2-4 was, of course, a key feature of Quintinshill.


Placing a reminder device (aka a collar) on the home signal lever would have prevented Quintinshill too. The Caledonian had recently introduced such devices at the time but too many signalmen considered it demeaning to use them.

Personally I knew several Southern signalmen who considered them God's gift to busy signalmen and routinely used them whenever it was even remotely appropriate to do so - on the better safe than sorry premise.

Alan, I assume you meant to suggest that Hawes Junction rather than Ais Gill might have blocked back - can't see any reason for Ais Gill to have done so. Major Pringle's report explicitly notes that at this time Midland Railway regulations did not require or permit a procedure for blocking back inside the home signal; it was applied only to trains standing outside the home signal.

I've thought for some time that failure to block back at Quintinshill is something of a red herring because the same effect would have been achieved by not sending TOS to Kirtlebridge* following arrival of the Jellicoe empty wagon train, and it's crossed my mind that this may have been the reason why neither of the Quintinshill signalmen was prepared to admit to having done so.

Although it appears that some Midland signalmen improvised equivalents to lever collars to aid themselves, their employer declined to provide them on the basis that they were not, unless used invariably, "a desirable adjunct to signalling." It seems that between 1910 and 1915 company attitudes towards these devices were far from being uniform.

* Correction: Kirkpatrick, not Kirtlebridge, was the next block post north of Quintinshill and received the TOS signal.

User avatar
John Donnelly
Web Team
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby John Donnelly » Sat Oct 08, 2022 4:47 pm

Got to see Charlie's lever frame and locking frame at an EMGS event today, a work of art. As a complete novice of such things, it was great seeing the locking bars actually working.

John

charliemiller77
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Hartleyburn Colliery

Postby charliemiller77 » Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:34 pm

Hi John, good to see you and others at Workshopwise, and thank you for your kind comments.
You and at least three others said they would be more comfortable with electrical or electronic locking. As we discussed you don’t get the levers to lock with that, at least not simply.
I know you’re well down the path with the DCC components levers, maybe one or two may have been tempted to go the mechanical route. If not, then like you, a lot have now seen exactly how tappets, bridles and nibs interact and some of the mysterious dark arts have been dispelled.
Prior to starting this I was a total novice so I’m pleased I could shed some light.
All in all it was a good little event and a chance to exchange ideas with many talented people.


Return to “Signals and Control Systems”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 1 guest