|
|
Post by Nortube on Feb 23, 2017 17:49:11 GMT
Now it makes sense with NH27
I was looking at the diagram and wondering where the shunt stick was that let trains from the SB into Highgate Woods and couldn't find it. I should have joined the two sections of Harsig's diagram together in my mind and it would have made instant sense!
I used to like entering service from Highgate Wood siding. Shunt south up to the tunnel mouth on the NB main line, change ends and then full speed to East Finchley middle platform under colour light signals.
All that changed after Highgate Depot closed. When it reopened some years later, Highgate Wood sidings had been gone away with and the two tracks up to the Highgate High Level tunnel mouths were disused, although technically available as a unsignalled move. All moves out of Highgate Sidings (as the depot was called on reopening) were to speed-controlled shunt signal NP19 which was on the (ex) NB main, just over a train length away from platform 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 23, 2017 18:44:06 GMT
Dave,
If all the sites were signalled to LT practice, the practice made yellow discs obsolete years ago, indeed years before my service began with LT. It is almost impossible to know what the signal practice was without the bookwirings and strip prints which give details of all the changes of signalling over the years. Thus one might pinpoint when the yellow disc shunts and yellow disc distants were replaced and/or removed as appropriate. That is the only way to know, it would also throw light on your question. In that regard perhaps the yellow disc shunts like the yellow disc distants were required only where BR steam ran and I would assert that BR steam did not run into East Finchley sidings as they appear to be LT rolling stock sidings. The suggestion is that the sidings etc that BR steam ran into were signalled to BR practice as I asserted such that BR drivers were not to be confused by LT siding practice after the line was taken over by LT.
That is where my speculation ends as I can find no definitive answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Feb 23, 2017 20:03:15 GMT
Dave, If all the sites were signalled to LT practice, the practice made yellow discs obsolete years ago, indeed years before my service began with LT. It is almost impossible to know what the signal practice was without the bookwirings and strip prints which give details of all the changes of signalling over the years. Thus one might pinpoint when the yellow disc shunts and yellow disc distants were replaced and/or removed as appropriate. That is the only way to know, it would also throw light on your question. In that regard perhaps the yellow disc shunts like the yellow disc distants were required only where BR steam ran and I would assert that BR steam did not run into East Finchley sidings as they appear to be LT rolling stock sidings. The suggestion is that the sidings etc that BR steam ran into were signalled to BR practice as I asserted such that BR drivers were not to be confused by LT siding practice after the line was taken over by LT. That is where my speculation ends as I can find no definitive answer. RT They were all done from 1939/40 the alterations for taking out were in the mid 1960s. East Finchley was a goods yard and except No 25 road were all non electrified. Looking Here you will see some of the roads in the goods yard on the left. This view is looking south. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 24, 2017 6:16:22 GMT
Dave, If all the sites were signalled to LT practice, the practice made yellow discs obsolete years ago, indeed years before my service began with LT. It is almost impossible to know what the signal practice was without the bookwirings and strip prints which give details of all the changes of signalling over the years. Thus one might pinpoint when the yellow disc shunts and yellow disc distants were replaced and/or removed as appropriate. That is the only way to know, it would also throw light on your question. In that regard perhaps the yellow disc shunts like the yellow disc distants were required only where BR steam ran and I would assert that BR steam did not run into East Finchley sidings as they appear to be LT rolling stock sidings. The suggestion is that the sidings etc that BR steam ran into were signalled to BR practice as I asserted such that BR drivers were not to be confused by LT siding practice after the line was taken over by LT. That is where my speculation ends as I can find no definitive answer. RT They were all done from 1939/40 the alterations for taking out were in the mid 1960s. East Finchley was a goods yard and except No 25 road were all non electrified. Looking Here you will see some of the roads in the goods yard on the left. This view is looking south. Dave, What else do you know that you have not mentioned? Do you know what alterations were made when and what those specific alterations were between 1939/40 and the 1960s? As I said my speculation ends without further info, I did not notice anywhere that the East Finchley sidings were unelectrified but what did stand out was the lack of shunt signals and use of switchlock points to access the sidings. Obviously the photo shows the sidings in view had no current rails but that is new info to the discussion which adds little in terms of operations and procedures in use at the time although obviously a shunter had to be involved (unless the goods train driver or guard operated the switchlocks) in the same way as a shunter does these days to get trains in/out of e.g. Northfields and Cockfosters depot reception roads. |
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Feb 24, 2017 11:42:32 GMT
RT They were all done from 1939/40 the alterations for taking out were in the mid 1960s. East Finchley was a goods yard and except No 25 road were all non electrified. Looking Here you will see some of the roads in the goods yard on the left. This view is looking south. Dave, What else do you know that you have not mentioned? Do you know what alterations were made when and what those specific alterations were between 1939/40 and the 1960s? As I said my speculation ends without further info, I did not notice anywhere that the East Finchley sidings were unelectrified but what did stand out was the lack of shunt signals and use of switchlock points to access the sidings. Obviously the photo shows the sidings in view had no current rails but that is new info to the discussion which adds little in terms of operations and procedures in use at the time although obviously a shunter had to be involved (unless the goods train driver or guard operated the switchlocks) in the same way as a shunter does these days to get trains in/out of e.g. Northfields and Cockfosters depot reception roads. RT Everything I mentioned is from yellow perils/traffic circulars, I am not hiding anything. I will ask again although I thought I had corrected it but here goes perhaps with a slight alteration. Using East Finchley as the example why did they not provide yellow bar shunt signals like all the other Northern line goods yards, High Barnet/Totteridge/Woodside Park/Finchley Central all had them. I am not hiding anything waiting to hear and then release information just trying to find out if anyone knows the reason why or at least like yourself has an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 25, 2017 0:23:06 GMT
Dave,
I was not suggesting that you were deliberately hiding anything, but wondering if there was another panel to the drawing with a title box and list of alterations or similar. Most drawings are usually signed and dated, have a drawing number and other details which are not evident in any of the panels.
Further speculation/explanation requires further input of one sort or another, e.g. the definitive signal installation standard of the time and/or the operational procedures in force at the various locations. I have yet to discover any beyond that which I have already referenced above.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Feb 25, 2017 18:54:15 GMT
Dave, I was not suggesting that you were deliberately hiding anything, but wondering if there was another panel to the drawing with a title box and list of alterations or similar. Most drawings are usually signed and dated, have a drawing number and other details which are not evident in any of the panels. Further speculation/explanation requires further input of one sort or another, e.g. the definitive signal installation standard of the time and/or the operational procedures in force at the various locations. I have yet to discover any beyond that which I have already referenced above. RT I only have the yellow perils and a few traffic circulars, I can put the other diagrams but they are similar to the ones I have already done like I said its East Finchley that does not follow suit with the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Feb 26, 2017 10:17:20 GMT
Below is the text strip from the bottom of the East Finchley area diagram from the 80s. It was scanned from a photocopy and the original photocopy unfortunately lost a fraction of the text boxes, but I don't think it's enough to make any difference. Also one for Woodside Park. Other than the dates that the event took place, I'm not sure if there's anything very informative there.  East Finchley  Woodside Park |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 26, 2017 11:09:58 GMT
Below is the text strip from the bottom of the East Finchley area diagram from the 80s. It was scanned from a photocopy and the original photocopy unfortunately lost a fraction of the text boxes, but I don't think it's enough to make any difference. Also one for Woodside Park. Other than the dates that the event took place, I'm not sure if there's anything very informative there. East Finchley Woodside Park Certainly for East Finchley the dates 1955 and 1958 show that signalling aspects were standardised which I take to mean from non-standard practice to LT standard practice. It would appear that steam traffic ceased in 1964 as the distant signals (I am presuming the discs mounted below the running signals for steam trains) were removed then although the goods train detector remained in situ until 1973. Believe me when I say that a few words in an alterations box can be quite significant although how so depends upon what one already knows of the standards of the time, history of wrong side failures, new technology, changes to railway operations etc It is a shame that the original title box is not present as that would date the initial signalling installation. I do not necessarily believe that the area was signalled or resignalled from BR practice until after WW2 as the Northern Line extension works were suspended. Some of the people I worked with in my first years with LT had been employed for those extensions working out of Cranley Gardens installation depot and from what they told me before they retired in the late 1970s not much happened once war was underway, some trains were apparently running although I doubt there was any passenger service. Thus I have always suspected that BR signalling was inherited and later updated. It remains my belief that yellow disc shunt signals in those yards that had them were remnants of the original BR signalling as I stated much earlier in the thread. I have no doubt that LT would have maintained the necessary signals that steam train drivers were used to rather than expecting them to adapt to LT practice, so why spend money changing shunt discs to standard LT practice while steam trains still ran on the line and into those yards. Obviously the main line running signals had to cater primarily for electric trains and also provide the LT practice distant yellow discs for the steam trains due to the differing overlap requirements i.e. steam trains requiring longer stopping distances. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 26, 2017 11:35:06 GMT
Dave, I was not suggesting that you were deliberately hiding anything, but wondering if there was another panel to the drawing with a title box and list of alterations or similar. Most drawings are usually signed and dated, have a drawing number and other details which are not evident in any of the panels. Further speculation/explanation requires further input of one sort or another, e.g. the definitive signal installation standard of the time and/or the operational procedures in force at the various locations. I have yet to discover any beyond that which I have already referenced above. RT I only have the yellow perils and a few traffic circulars, I can put the other diagrams but they are similar to the ones I have already done like I said its East Finchley that does not follow suit with the others. I can only suggest that the difference with East Finchley is something operational but I am guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Feb 26, 2017 12:26:27 GMT
I've often wondered why the diagrams showed additional main line signals, such as distants etc. I didn't think of the 'Bleedin' Obvious' which was the fact that, as you say, steam trains were still running on the tracks. One of the first things we were taught on Rules and regs was that one of the requirements for positioning a signal is based on the longest braking distance of any train in that area. (I forget the exact wording).
Obviously it would be pointless for LU to run electric trains with their much faster braking capabilities over track signalled to main line standard with signals spaced much further apart, hence the dual signalling system until main line trains disappeared.
|
|
