Small Dolly CIE signals

[Junctionmad]

Sorry for the very detailed question, but this is one for the signalling aficionados. Because CIE kept modifying semaphores with all sorts of bits from elsewhere , its hard to tie down specifics

 

 

copyright odea collection, NLI

 

shows the junction signals on the approach to claremorris in the 1960s, note the very small " dolly " the junction signal for the minor road is more like a " calling on " rather then a junction dolly. There was two of these signals , one from the approach from Balla, the other from Kilimagh both had the dolly on the left as you approached the station

 

later cie replaced the remaining one ( i.e. the burma road was closed ) with a much more typical dolly ( i.e. where the lower arm was separate from the main post by 2 feet or so

 

in fact the both these signals are built identically to the calling on signal , further towards the station , where in that case the lower arm refers to the same track

 

I have detailed pictures of all the signals in claremorris, except these junction signals

 

Interrestinging the 1960 signalling diagram , taken by Odea, had the lower dollies on the other side of the main pole in the drawings, however several photos confirm the "mini-dolly" was to the left (which is weird as you'd expect the dollies from the Burma road and Balla road would be opposite hand

 

( if you see what I mean )

 

The main question , anyone have any photos showing this mini-dolly signals ! elsewhere , thats shows the detail

Edited February 16, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Mayner]

The main question , anyone have any photos showing this mini-dolly signals ! elsewhere , thats shows the detail

 

There is an explanation of Mayo Road signalling in N J McAdams 2 part paper on the Mayo Line in the IRRS Journal 1976 or 77 if I remember correctly.

 

Briefly the mini-dollies were treated as calling-on signals up to the time of the Manulla Junction collision in 1961? then re-classified as "loop homes".

 

I am not sure about Claremorris but the up platform was treated as the through road at a number of stations including Ballymoe, Castlerea & Castlebar .

 

I have some Herbert Richard photos of the signals at Ballymore & can organise copies if you send me a PM

[Junctionmad]

The main question , anyone have any photos showing this mini-dolly signals ! elsewhere , thats shows the detail

 

There is an explanation of Mayo Road signalling in N J McAdams 2 part paper on the Mayo Line in the IRRS Journal 1976 or 77 if I remember correctly.

 

Briefly the mini-dollies were treated as calling-on signals up to the time of the Manulla Junction collision in 1961? then re-classified as "loop homes".

 

I am not sure about Claremorris but the up platform was treated as the through road at a number of stations including Ballymoe, Castlerea & Castlebar .

 

I have some Herbert Richard photos of the signals at Ballymore & can organise copies if you send me a PM

 

 

Thanks John.

 

Calling on signals in this location would never have made sense , because calling on always refers to the same road as the main signal above. ( that's the whole purpose of the signal , ie it's facilitated the interlocking to prevent the main signal to be pulled off.

 

These mini dolly signals seemed always to refer to the loop road. In claremorris that was platform 1 , , platform 2 was the main road. There is a genuine calling on arm in claremorris that in effect is mechanically

Very similar to the junction signals ( Which are in effect inner home signals ) it seems to be only used to signal engine run rounds on passagner trains , specially the Manulla junction empty passagner train

 

PM sent

[Mayner]

Pre-Manulla collision practice may have been to hold the home signal at danger to stop an approaching train, then lower the subsidiary signal to admit a train into a station, loop or siding in a similar manner to a "calling on arm" in the UK.

 

I used NJ McAdams description of the subsidiary arms as calling on arms and later loop homes, Mc Adams appears to be an Athlone railway man who fired and later drove on the Mayo Rd from the 1940s.

 

Two way signalling and reversible working at single line passing places appears to have been a GSR/CIE development following the singling of the Galway Line west of Clonsilla in the late 1920s and double line sections of the Mayo, Sligo & Meath Roads.

 

The Manulla collision involved the Down Dublin-Westport railcar passenger and the C Class on the up Limited Mail.

 

The railcar collided head on with the Mail on the Down Platform road. The signal man had not returned the subsidiary arm on the down home signal to danger or set the road for the passenger after the C Class completed a shunt on to her train.

 

I wonder did the report make any comment on the risks created by permitting the Mail to shut into section while the passenger approached from Balla, the circumstances leading up to the 1979 Arklow collision are broadly similar a train running under apparently clear signals into an occupied section of track

[Junctionmad]

John , many thanks

 

Rule 39 (a) in the old UK signalling rule book , describes the process of " checking trains" , which applies to a situation that the nest stop signal ahead of the one being approached is at danger

 

ie

 

When a stop signal is at Danger the stop signal next in rear of it and worked from the same box must not be lowered for an approaching train until it is close to such signal and has been brought quite or nearly to a stand.

 

This is a signalling process that railway modellers rarely understand by the way

 

Checking trains , was ( and is ) carried out in Ireland in semaphore areas .

 

This is entirely different to " calling on ".

 

Checking trains , can be done using any signal, and ONLY applies where the section ahead to the next signal is NOT occupied , but the signal ahead is at danger. The premise being that a driver was never presented with an unexpected stop signal. Ive seen trains being "checked" at signals regularly in the past , in this case the signal ( before the signal at danger that must not be passed ) is held in the stop position until the train draws near and is visibility slowed to a near halt ( that interpretation is up to the signalman ) that the signal is lowered and the train proceeds with the knowledge that the next signal is at stop. This is often used to draw trains into a station, where the platform starter is not yet released , for example . If the section ahead to the next signal was " blocked or occupied, "checking" was NOT used as a method of indicating " calling on ". ( where a calling on signal was not provided, in this case train would be halted at the stop signal and the driver manually informed to proceed with caution )

 

Calling-on is an entirely different situation , and ONLY applies where the section ahead to the next signal is " blocked " i.e., there is a train or part of a train standing in that section . A subsidiary signal ( i.e. referring to the same road as the main signal above it ) is provided, specifically informing the driver that the section ahead is occupied and to proceed with caution.

 

Whats perplexing in Claremorris, before the Burma road was " de-signaled " , is that the two home junction signals, one of which is pictured above , are clearly and by definition not " calling on " as they refer to a different road to the signal above. Yet in Claremorris , there is a specific calling on signal, with a yellow subsidiary arm , that is of the exact same physical construction ( until replaced by a "proper " dolly , later in the 80s)

 

clearly the two junction home signals cannot be calling on , yet are the same physical construction as a genuine calling-on further into the station. The mini dollies if so interpreted as junction signals are both referring to the road into platform 1 , which in Claremorris, even though closest to the station , was the loop road, and was clearly the minor road as so indicated on conventional dollies on the approach from Athlone or Athenry .

 

was this done because of space ?, convenience ?

 

A quear one to be sure

 

PS I can find nearly all rail accident enquiries online , even historical ones , but not the manulla one

Edited February 20, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

John , while the "The railway Archives" http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk, contain as far as I can see almost all Irish accident reports , there is no mention of the accident you describe , anyone have the report .

[Junctionmad]

John , heres what you said previously on the subject

 

............

 

Up to the Manulla collision in the early 1960s "calling-on" arms were fitted to home signals (mother and child signal) to control movements into a station when the Main Line into the next section was blocked and the Home signal at danger. If the station was blocked the (mother) signal was held at danger and the calling on arm (child signal) only lowered when an approaching train came to a complete stop.

 

An AEC railcar set was blocked outside of Manulla as a C Class shunted the Night Mail. The signal man forgot to return the "calling on arm" to danger after a shut, seeing the calling-on arm in the off position the driver of the passenger ran into the loop and collided with the mail.

 

The rule book was re-written after the accident and the 'calling on arms" on CIE re-designated "loop homes", the home signal reading to the main-line. This was ok at stations where bracket signals were at equal height but could be confusing to a driver if the loop was on the right hand side of the running line

 

 

 

 

while I have nothing to add to this , an examination of the Manulla signal diagram , 1963 from a photo in the Odea collection , shows than the junction signal had a very specific " calling -on " subsidiary signal below it ( actually lever 1 ) the junction signal itself ( levers 2 & 4 ) being a two dolly conventional junction signal. Hence I can easily see how CIE would then remove such situation . However again this does not seem to be the situation one the Junction signals at Claremorris , the mini dollies were never calling-on arms IMHO

 

 

Interesting , There was a previous accident at Balla ( Up Mail and down passenger train ) in 1919 , where the recommendation that passing trains should not be hand signaled and that calling-on arms should be provided , perhaps this also resulted in the installation of calling on arms at other passing points

Edited February 20, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

I may be talking to myself here , but I find the subject very interesting

 

To further add to the confusion , heres Odea picture of the signalling diagram dated 1960 , three years before the one I showed in the first post ,

 

(© Odea Collection NLI

 

In my experience its very unusual to see a signalling diagram that does not reflect the reality outside the window, as they are of operational importance and are usually updated to correct any error.

 

Yet this diagram clearly show a typical junctional signal and it would be very hard to take from it that Numbers 8 and 4 were calling on arms . furthermore the signal priorities dont even match the photograph three years later , with the main roads being signalled into Platform 1 from Sligo but using conventional signal reading logic , signal 8 reads to platform 1 as well ( which is the conventional "up" platform " ) with the junction dolly ( 6) reading to platform 2, and none of this is the same as the photo in 1963, which is very much conventional Midland logic )

 

 

John, I also got a good explanation from signalbox.org, that midland practice after the singling of its double lines, was to prevent the operation of the home signal if the subsequent section signal could not be released ( i.e. in effect it avoided a rule 39 style of operation ) . Hence calling-on subsidiary signals were provided that read to either road. This would then suggest that the Home signal pictured above , is a main signal that equally reads to either road and a sub-sid signal under it that also read to any road. ( i.e. this was not in effect a junction signal at all )

 

The difference of the reality and the diagram are hard to explain ( could it be that the diagram illustrates the re-tasking of the physical signal as a loop home junction signal , even though physically it was the same signal as the original calling-on version )

Edited February 21, 2017 by Junctionmad