FPLs for crossovers - are they always present, and how are they shown?

[robintw]

I've been looking at a diagram of Newland East signal box (between Malvern and Worcester), the central part of the diagram showing the crossover is attached.

I can't see any Facing Point Locks on the diagram for this crossover. Does that mean they weren't provided? Am I correct that FPLs would have to be provided for passenger trains to use the crossover in the facing direction, and if they weren't provided then they'd need clipping? This diagram is from 2009, and although I don't believe there are any timetabled trains using the crossover, I believe it is used in times of disruption.

If they were there, how would FPLs usually be shown on the diagram? Would it just be another number next to the points on the diagram?

(For context, the reason I'm asking this is that my wife made a birthday cake for me with the levers of Newland East signal box on it, as it was my local box growing up. She only had a diagram and no colour photo of the box, so she tried to work out the colours of each lever by determining their function from the diagram. She accidentally made 13 and 15 blue, as FPLs, whereas actually they're shunt signals - but that made me wonder where the FPLs actually are...).

Thanks,

Robin

 

[jfollows]

Because they're not facing points, so no FPL is needed?

 

[Rescars]

Am I correct in thinking that FPLs, where they are installed, may be worked by the same lever as the points, in which case the lever is painted half black above half blue? If they are installed surely they would be shown on the diagram.

By the by, the cake sounds terrific! Full marks to the baker!

 

[ac6000cw]

My understanding is that FPLs in mechanical boxes were usually only provided where required by law i.e. for passenger train movements through facing points (from memory I don't think freight-only lines required them - anyone confirm or deny?). This was to keep the number of lever movements to a minimum to reduce workload and keep the interlocking as simple as possible. In the diagram it looks like just a simple trailing crossover (controlled by ground signals), so wouldn't need FPLs.

 

[jfollows]

My understanding is that FPLs in mechanical boxes were usually only provided where required by law i.e. for passenger train movements through facing points (from memory I don't think freight-only lines required them - anyone confirm or deny?). This was to keep the number of lever movements to a minimum to reduce workload and keep the interlocking as simple as possible. In the diagram it looks like just a simple trailing crossover (controlled by ground signals), so wouldn't need FPLs.

And, I think, if there came a need to use them for passenger trains for some reason, then it would be possible to lock the points locally by staff on the ground before using them, for which there would be general procedures. But this is not from firm knowledge, others may be able to clarify or say that I'm talking rubbish.

 

[robintw]

Thanks for the responses.

Maybe I've got a misunderstanding of what facing points are then.

A train coming along the up line (moving from right to left) wants to get to the down line, so it goes across the level crossing, then reverses back across the crossover. Is that right? In that case, from the direction it was moving, wouldn't the points be effectively facing (because they are diverging in the direction of travel)?

Or am I talking nonsense?

 

[jfollows]

Thanks for the responses.

Maybe I've got a misunderstanding of what facing points are then.

A train coming along the up line (moving from right to left) wants to get to the down line, so it goes across the level crossing, then reverses back across the crossover. Is that right? In that case, from the direction it was moving, wouldn't the points be effectively facing (because they are diverging in the direction of travel)?

Or am I talking nonsense?

No, you're not talking nonsense, but it could well be that these sorts of movements - for passenger trains carrying passengers at least - could be prohibited unless staff were on the ground to ensure the points were properly set and locked when used.
If it's unlikely to happen much, if at all, it simplifies the design of the layout.
But I'm not an expert, but I'm sure in my youth I've been in signal boxes like this which didn't have FPLs everywhere.

 

[Lucy1501]

And, I think, if there came a need to use them for passenger trains for some reason, then it would be possible to lock the points locally by staff on the ground before using them, for which there would be general procedures. But this is not from firm knowledge, others may be able to clarify or say that I'm talking rubbish.

I can confirm. When crossovers need to be used on manual boxes for single line working, the MOM (Mobile Operations Manager) generally needs to come out and "clip and scotch" the points before a passenger train can go over them.

The clip is a G clamp like device under the rail which is used to secure the points on one side, and a scotch is a wooden wedge placed on the other side of the points. This prevents the points from moving under the train and makes it safe for the train to pass over.

 

[a good off]

Thanks for the responses.

Maybe I've got a misunderstanding of what facing points are then.

A train coming along the up line (moving from right to left) wants to get to the down line, so it goes across the level crossing, then reverses back across the crossover. Is that right? In that case, from the direction it was moving, wouldn't the points be effectively facing (because they are diverging in the direction of travel)?

Or am I talking nonsense?

That’s correct, they would become facing. In normal running the points are trailing so you wouldn’t need an FPL. If for some reason it was required to cross over a train carrying passengers, then the points would require clipping and scotching. If it was a non passenger train the movement can take place without clipping up.

Most FPLs have their own dedicated lever, but in some places on the MR and GN economic FPLs were provided which did both point and FPL on one lever.

 

[robintw]

I can confirm. When crossovers need to be used on manual boxes for single line working, the MOM (Mobile Operations Manager) generally needs to come out and "clip and scotch" the points before a passenger train can go over them.

The clip is a G clamp like device under the rail which is used to secure the points on one side, and a scotch is a wooden wedge placed on the other side of the points. This prevents the points from moving under the train and makes it safe for the train to pass over.

Interesting, thank you.

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that the crossover is fully-interlocked, with levers in the frame etc - but then still needs a manual step of clipping and scotching to be able to actually use it. Presumably they're used extremely rarely then - with all the bother of getting a MOM out etc.

 

[Lucy1501]

Interesting, thank you.

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that the crossover is fully-interlocked, with levers in the frame etc - but then still needs a manual step of clipping and scotching to be able to actually use it. Presumably they're used extremely rarely then - with all the bother of getting a MOM out etc.

Indeed, they typically aren't used very often.

The only example I can think of off the top of my head is the crossovers at Drigg and Bootle. A viaduct near Ravenglass started to fail on one side a few years ago and single line working was enforced. There's a youtube video showing it from a mixture of the drivers, signallers and MOMs perspective here if you'd like a watch

.

 

[jfollows]

RSSB has documents "Requirements for the Design, Operation and Maintenance of Points", eg https://www.rssb.co.uk/en/standards-catalogue/CatalogueItem/GIRT7004-Iss-1
Registration is required but it's free.
The version I came across is probably not current, but:

7.1 Facing Point Lock on Worked Points
Worked points shall have a facing point lock, other than as noted below.
It is permissible to omit the facing point lock on trailing points in mechanically worked installations where it can be demonstrated that the risk of derailment is negligible. Additional requirements for installations where the movement, detection and locking of points are performed mechanically are set out in GK/RT0039.
It is permissible to omit the facing point lock on points in sidings.

11.1 Provision of Facilities for Securing Points
All points shall include a means of manually securing both open and closed point ends relative to their respective stock rails or equivalent. The means of securing the points shall be independent of the point operating mechanism. It shall allow for:

• points temporarily secured (for example, to permit single line working; when the point operating mechanism has failed; for unsignalled movements);
• points secured out of use for extended periods (for example, where the wear and damage on the switch or stock rail exceeds permissible limits - see section 16.2; when not connected to a controlling signal box or ground frame operation - see section 14).
  A device (for example, a padlock) shall be provided to prevent unauthorised removal of the means of securing the points.
  Where point clips are used to secure points, the points shall be designed to permit the clips to be fitted as close to the toe of the points as possible.

 

[Rescars]

Am I correct in thinking that FPLs, where they are installed, may be worked by the same lever as the points, in which case the lever is painted half black above half blue? If they are installed surely they would be shown on the diagram.

By the by, the cake sounds terrific! Full marks to the baker!

My guess is that there is a FPL at Malvern Wells (next box to Newland East), where the line splits from single to double having emerged from Colwall Tunnel. If you can find illustrations of this frame and track diagram, this should show how FPLs are treated where they do exist (at least on the Worcester and Hereford line).

 

[MarkyT]

In this location, with the points immediately outside the signalbox, I'd expect the signaller to go and clip the points when required. When early electric point machines came out, many models had an option to include an equivalent internal FPL mechanism or not; just as with mechanical operation an FPL is required for facing passenger movements. The non-fitted versions were simpler and hence a little cheaper. Eventually, BR decided to only buy and install the FPL versions, which makes emergency wrong direction running much easier today as most points don't need clipping as long as they can be commanded successfully with correct indication feedback.

 

[zwk500]

Interesting, thank you.

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that the crossover is fully-interlocked, with levers in the frame etc - but then still needs a manual step of clipping and scotching to be able to actually use it. Presumably they're used extremely rarely then - with all the bother of getting a MOM out etc.

Non-passenger trains do not require points locked for facing movements. It would be exceptionally unlikely to require a passenger-carrying train to use this crossover, hence the omission of FPLs. A light engine could reverse here without FPLs.

If they were there, how would FPLs usually be shown on the diagram? Would it just be another number next to the points on the diagram?

Not sure if this has been answered already, FPL's can be shown a number of ways: There may be just 'F.P.L. 17', or a Horizontal line at the 'Toe' of the points, or a cross at the toe of the points. These differences may have been just company preference, or showing different types of locks.
The diagram on this page: https://signalbox.org/block-system/shunting/ shows Points 12 locked by FPL 11, with both Bar indicator and the little cross on the 'reverse' side.
This diagram shows the little cross and 'F.P.L. XX' notation: https://auctions.gcrauctions.com/ca...t-auction-of-railwayana-by-gcr-auctio-lot-35/

 

[ac6000cw]

Interesting, thank you.

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that the crossover is fully-interlocked, with levers in the frame etc - but then still needs a manual step of clipping and scotching to be able to actually use it. Presumably they're used extremely rarely then - with all the bother of getting a MOM out etc.

In the earlier days of railways, there were accidents caused by trains 'splitting' facing points e.g. a wheel flange getting between the point blade and the stock rail, resulting in serious derailments. Hence (eventually) regulations were introduced to require FPLs on passenger lines, which positively lock the point blades in position within tight tolerances so they can't move underneath a train. There are also detectors to check the FPL and the point blades are in the correct positions before controlling signals can be cleared.

Just think about the dynamic forces on the track components when a train runs through a set of points at speed...it's the reason checking and maintaining them is such an important job.

 

[robintw]

Non-passenger trains do not require points locked for facing movements. It would be exceptionally unlikely to require a passenger-carrying train to use this crossover, hence the omission of FPLs. A light engine could reverse here without FPLs.

Why would it be exceptionally unlikely for a passenger train to use this crossover? As far as I'm aware, there are no loco hauled passenger trains normally running in this area, so light engine moves would be fairly uncommon too. I believe it was proposed to remove the crossover a while back, but they were persuaded to keep it because it would increase operational flexibility: what sort of flexibility would it give without passenger trains using it?

Or is it just that its only real use is for single line working, and that's very rare anyway?

 

[MarkyT]

In the earlier days of railways, there were accidents caused by trains 'splitting' facing points e.g. a wheel flange getting between the point blade and the stock rail, resulting in serious derailments. Hence (eventually) regulations were introduced to require FPLs on passenger lines, which positively lock the point blades in position within tight tolerances so they can't move underneath a train. There are also detectors to check the FPL and the point blades are in the correct positions before controlling signals can be cleared.

Just think about the dynamic forces on the track components when a train runs through a set of points at speed...it's the reason checking and maintaining them is such an important job.

Before FPLs, I think railways tried to avoid facing points in passenger lines as much as humanly possible. Even after they were available, numbers were consciously limited, partly to avoid the extra cost no doubt. Many small wayside freight facilities required trains to run past and back into them.

 

[zwk500]

Why would it be exceptionally unlikely for a passenger train to use this crossover? As far as I'm aware, there are no loco hauled passenger trains normally running in this area, so light engine moves would be fairly uncommon too. I believe it was proposed to remove the crossover a while back, but they were persuaded to keep it because it would increase operational flexibility: what sort of flexibility would it give without passenger trains using it?

Or is it just that its only real use is for single line working, and that's very rare anyway?

I will admit, I'd missed the '2009' legend! Having said that, this layout is likely historic more than anything else, and it's been kept for a number of reasons, operational flexibility being one of them.

Without FPLs, you could terminate a train at the previous station, run it empty up to this location, shunt it across then return to the previous station to form a service in the opposite direction. If you were doing Single Line Working, it'd be rather more involved, as this old training film shows:

 

[MarkyT]

Why would it be exceptionally unlikely for a passenger train to use this crossover? As far as I'm aware, there are no loco hauled passenger trains normally running in this area, so light engine moves would be fairly uncommon too. I believe it was proposed to remove the crossover a while back, but they were persuaded to keep it because it would increase operational flexibility: what sort of flexibility would it give without passenger trains using it?

Or is it just that its only real use is for single line working, and that's very rare anyway?

Or turning back a track machine or other engineering train. Usage is probably fairly rare, but nonetheless useful for efficiently dealing with something unusual.

 

[a good off]

Why would it be exceptionally unlikely for a passenger train to use this crossover? As far as I'm aware, there are no loco hauled passenger trains normally running in this area, so light engine moves would be fairly uncommon too. I believe it was proposed to remove the crossover a while back, but they were persuaded to keep it because it would increase operational flexibility: what sort of flexibility would it give without passenger trains using it?

Or is it just that its only real use is for single line working, and that's very rare anyway?

When I was a Worcester area controller, we used this crossover for Single Line Working, Pilot working to point of obstruction, to set back an HST from the Down platform at Malvern Link to Worcester when there was a fatality at Great Malvern. It was also used one evening to send a train back to Worcester when there was a failure at Malvern Wells. The crossover is an insurance policy for when things go wrong or there is a planned requirement for SLW etc, hence why it doesn’t get used very often.

 

[robintw]

Without FPLs, you could terminate a train at the previous station, run it empty up to this location, shunt it across then return to the previous station to form a service in the opposite direction. If you were doing Single Line Working, it'd be rather more involved, as this old training film shows:

Goodness I'm being silly today: I'll blame the heat! Am I correct that a passenger train which has no passengers on board can use a facing point without a FPL?

I was thinking it was "passenger train consisting of coaches in which passengers can be carried" vs "other train" as opposed to "train actually carrying passengers" vs "other train".

 

[edwin_m]

Goodness I'm being silly today: I'll blame the heat! Am I correct that a passenger train which has no passengers on board can use a facing point without a FPL?

I was thinking it was "passenger train consisting of coaches in which passengers can be carried" vs "other train" as opposed to "train actually carrying passengers" vs "other train".

That's correct. A passenger train with no passengers doesn't need a FPL or clips and scotches.

This was a factor in the run-up to the fatal accident at Carmont. The southbound train had to be turned back at just such a crossover due to the line being blocked further south, but the signaller wasn't certified competent to fit the clips and scotches so had to wait several hours for a MOM to turn up. The crossing move was then made but the train was derailed on its way back north.

 

[ac6000cw]

Before FPLs, I think railways tried to avoid facing points in passenger lines as much as humanly possible. Even after they were available, numbers were consciously limited, partly to avoid the extra cost no doubt. Many small wayside freight facilities required trains to run past and back into them.

I agree - hence the common wayside station/block post arrangement of a trailing crossover and/or goods train refuge sidings accessed via trailing points, involving slowly reversing the goods train back into them.

 

[Western Sunset]

Sometimes there were moves that allowed vehicles carrying passengers to traverse facing points without locks, for example, the manoeuvres to get the Lyme Regis through carriage from the mainline to the bay at Axminster.

 

[krus_aragon]

In the illustration above, I note that several numbers are listed as "spare levers", but some others are "spaces".

What is the distinction between the two? Is it just a gap that has/hasn't got a lever fitted at the top, or is it more significant?

 

[robintw]

This was a factor in the run-up to the fatal accident at Carmont. The southbound train had to be turned back at just such a crossover due to the line being blocked further south, but the signaller wasn't certified competent to fit the clips and scotches so had to wait several hours for a MOM to turn up. The crossing move was then made but the train was derailed on its way back north.

I remember that from the RAIB report.

Is it common that signallers wouldn't be trained/certified in fitting clips and scotches? I'd have thought it'd be fairly standard knowledge for them, particularly if they are operating a box that has a crossover outside... I'm presuming it's not considered a massively difficult competency to gain?

For somewhere like Newland East it'd be so much easier and quicker for the signaller to do the clipping and scotching rather than calling out a MOM (presumably the nearest MOM would be Worcester at best?).

 

[MarkyT]

In the illustration above, I note that several numbers are listed as "spare levers", but some others are "spaces".

What is the distinction between the two? Is it just a gap that has/hasn't got a lever fitted at the top, or is it more significant?

Simply that. White spare levers are often remnants of former facilities long since removed. In earlier times, some spares might have been installed in anticipation of some fairly definite future expansion, but usually, spaces were allocated for that.

 

[TrainTrackJack]

Why would it be exceptionally unlikely for a passenger train to use this crossover? As far as I'm aware, there are no loco hauled passenger trains normally running in this area, so light engine moves would be fairly uncommon too. I believe it was proposed to remove the crossover a while back, but they were persuaded to keep it because it would increase operational flexibility: what sort of flexibility would it give without passenger trains using it?

Or is it just that its only real use is for single line working, and that's very rare anyway?

Last time it was used for passenger working was 2016, when Malvern Wells was blockaded for track renewal. Trains ran to Great Malvern on the down line as usual then proceeded wrong road to Newland before crossing over and regaining the up line. Since then, I don't belive there have been any instances of the crossover being used - any track machines run down to Malvern Wells to change tracks.
And the chance of seeing a locomotive using it, on this line? When pigs fly!

 

[John Webb]

If I've got the location correct, then maps on the National Library of Scotland's website show that at one time there were sidings each side of the line. It is likely then that the crossover was needed to allow shunting between the sidings. As this would have been only for freight trains no FPLs were needed.

This is part of the 1970 track diagram at St Albans South:

In this case facing crossover 4 had been added in 1973 to allow passenger trains to be sent into the Up Slow platform to terminate there (note the fixed 'stop' signal at the end of the platform). End 4A was locked by FPL 5 being 'Normal' in the frame, end 4B by a separate FPL 3 reversed.
But trains could also be terminated in the Down Slow platform and returned towards London via crossover 17; if this happened then 4A became a trailing point and 17A a facing point. So they arranged things so that 17A was locked by an FPL worked by reversing lever 5. Signal 16, a 3-aspect colour light signal and mounted at ground level in the 6foot between the two slow lines, controlled movement across 17 to the up slow line, allowing this move to be made by in-service passenger trains.
In this case the FPLs on facing points on the diagram were, as can be seen, marked simply with FPLX, where X was the lever number.