Heysham Harbour Branch Signalling, 1970?

[Chrius56000]

Just a quickie one!

Can anyone suggest why the home signal 33 that admitted trains to the original three Heysham Harbour Station Platforms was a colour–light when all the rest of the station layout was Semaphore?

The 1970 layout diagram here:–

Track Diagram: Heysham Harbour (1970)

. . .The Distant signal for the Home No. 33 also had a note appended to it – "operates for platform 3 only" (the distant doesn't have a number shown) – were there any other colour–light distant signals approaching termini that operated like this?

Would I be correct in saying that the Heysham Harbour distant could have been cleared to green only for Platform 3 if the Home Signal 33 was set for that route, and always displayed yellow for Platforms 1 and 2?

What signalling was used after B.R. resited Heysham Harbour and replaced the signal box in 1970?

Chris Williams

 

[Rescars]

Just guessing, but was #33 colour light because of issues with sighting semaphores against the overbridge or alternatively because there was some other factor which made a semaphore gantry impractical?

Looks like the distant would only clear if the route was set for platform 3. Presumably it would act as a "fixed distant" to slow trains routed over the crossover into platforms 1 or 2.

 

[John Webb]

I think it more likely that the #33 signal was a replacement for semaphore(s) following alterations to the track, or perhaps the proximity to the coast and/or being in a cutting had led to failure of the semaphore signal post(s)? In which case it would be sensible to replace with a single colour light signal as the quickest way of getting things running again.

 

[Gloster]

The semaphore that the colour light replaced would probably have had three arms, or even been three posts, and one or, more likely, two subsidiary signals. In a location like Heysham it would have had to be well fixed in its foundations and probably guyed as well. Much easier to replace all that with a single colour light.

 

[P Binnersley]

Signal 33 has calling-on aspects for platforms 1,2 & 3 (the arrow points to both the main and subsidiary signal). This probably wasn't provided on the original signal as there does not seem to three additional spare levers (next to or near the original signal levers) to operate them.

The new signal may have been prompted by the need for the calling on aspect; or this may just have been provided as part of the renewal.

 

[Andy873]

Can anyone suggest why the home signal 33 that admitted trains to the original three Heysham Harbour Station Platforms was a colour–light when all the rest of the station layout was Semaphore?

In 1968 Sealink announced it was going to convert the two ferries that operated the Belfast route to roll on / roll off car ferries. This required the berths at the port to be altered. As part of these alterations the station building was demolished and a new one was built at an adjacent site, together with a new signal box and associated siganaling.

This was completed in 1970, the same year as the box diagram.

It could be that it was felt a new clearer signal (No. 33) was needed, and as this is 1970 the new signal (and the distant one) would be the electric type.

One interesting question would be (moving east / away from the port) were any other signals upgraded? that is, did the new signals stop at No. 33, if not, then I think it was just an opportunity to replace the existing semaphore signal(s) with a clearer modern one? - perhaps.

 

[30907]

One interesting question would be (moving east / away from the port) were any other signals upgraded? that is, did the new signals stop at No. 33, if not, then I think it was just an opportunity to replace the existing semaphore signal(s) with a clearer modern one? - perhaps.

Thanks for the context.

The diagram shows the distant ("only cleared for P3") as a 2-aspect c/l. These were common at manual boxes across the LMR, so it's just possible it was older.

 

[Belperpete]

If signal 33 were a semaphore, it would have needed 3 separate main arms for the three routes (or one arm with 3 mechanical route indicators), worked by 3 levers. Plus three separate calling-on arms, with another three levers for those (in addition to the arm and lever for the shunt to the sidings). Assuming that lever 35 would originally have been for the distant, there just aren't enough spare levers. In addition, the wire runs from the signalbox would have had to go all the way from the signalbox to the station, to mechanically detect facing points 12, 15 and 18, then all the way back past the signalbox out to the signal.

With the crossovers widely spread around the layout, this really doesn't look like a traditional mechanically-signalled layout to me. With traditional mechanical-signalling, I would have expected there to be an inner home at the tips of 18 points, to simplify the locking and wire runs. In addition, how would steam services turn-back? Only platform 3 has a loco release facility, and there are no set-back shunts at 11 or 15 points to get the loco back onto its train.

This looks like a modern(ish) diesel-era layout to me. I suspect that the layout was significantly remodelled in 1970 for diesel services, when the alterations mentioned by Andy873 were made. Prior to that it may have been that platform 3 was an arrivals platform, and trains were run-round and shunted to platforms 2 or 3 for departure - if all arrivals came into platform 3, this would explain why there weren't many levers for the home signal(s).

 

[Rescars]

IIRC Heysham was electrified by the Midland before WW1, so multiple unit working without the need for steam loco release would have applied here for a long while prior to 1970.

 

[Springs Branch]

Only platform 3 has a loco release facility, and there are no set-back shunts at 11 or 15 points to get the loco back onto its train.

This looks like a modern(ish) diesel-era layout to me. I suspect that the layout was significantly remodelled in 1970 for diesel services, when the alterations mentioned by Andy873 were made. Prior to that it may have been that platform 3 was an arrivals platform, and trains were run-round and shunted to platforms 2 or 3 for departure - if all arrivals came into platform 3, this would explain why there weren't many levers for the home signal(s).

Following Sealink's initiatives to develop Heysham / Belfast as a main sea route to Northern Ireland and BR's 1970 alterations, Heysham Harbour station became a busy old spot for loco-hauled rail services around the times of ferry arrivals and departure.

See the attached scans of the May 1971 Working Timetable covering the Morecambe - Heysham line around the time of the night sailing for Belfast. Lots of loco-hauled trains arriving requiring diesel loco release - not just passenger services, but parcels and newspaper trains too.

You'd have to hope the bobby in the signalbox had eaten his tea and 'paid a visit' before the late evening rush hour started. Same thing along the line at Morecambe, where there had to be reversals a-plenty.

. .

1P49, the 18:55 from Euston was still officially named The Ulster Express in the public timetable, while 1P02, the 21:05 from Manchester Victoria was still the Belfast Boat Express.

Heysham station was similarly busy with loco-hauled trains in the morning following the arrival of the overnight boat from Belfast.

 

[thesignalman]

There is a lot of guesswork and conjecture above regarding the initial question.

There were two signal boxes plus a sizeable ground frame at Heysham controlling the layout prior to the new station and layout opening on 4th May 1970; having two boxes allowed the Station signalman to "refuse" trains from the Junction box whilst movements were going on at the station. With the new layout being controlled from one box, refusal of trains would have resulted in their being held back at Heysham Moss (if switched in) or Morecambe itself, which would not have been practical.

Therefore a home signal was needed a quarter of a mile from the station throat, to allow trains to be freely accepted. By 1970, a four-doll bracket semaphore signal would not have been justified on the grounds of cost, a colour-light signal being far cheaper to install, particularly as the layout was largely track-circuited which would additionally ensure the signal reverted to danger at the right moment.

The subsidiary signal under the main aspects read only into the Cattle Sidings (later to become the CEGB, of course) and displayed the letter S for that. Locomotives would attach to trains using signal 30.

The two-aspect colour-light distant working in conjunction with that signal was not abnormal - the one interesting feature is that it only operated for the route into platform three - the speed limit through 18 points to the other platforms would be the reason for this.

Remarkably, traffic had fallen to such a level that the new box closed after only seven years use, with the line singled from Heysham Moss Sidings. That box was later destroyed by fire but I believe the double-to-single arrangement survived for a while - today the line appears to be worked as single throughout.

John

 

[Railsigns]

By 1970, a four-doll bracket semaphore signal would not have been justified on the grounds of cost, a colour-light signal being far cheaper to install

There was a third option: One main and one subsidiary semaphore arm on a single post with a theatre type route indicator, and a disc signal for the route to the sidings.

 

[Gloster]

Just for clarity. It was Heysham Moss Sidings that was destroyed by fire, although the lower half remained out of use for many years, on or before 13 January 1987. The LM standard design at Heysham Harbour was taken out of use from 30 January 1977, but only about nineteen years later was it removed and taken to the Dean Forest Railway for use at Lydney.