• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Remaining single lines with traditional token working.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Thanks to both for the quick response.

Maybe one day I'll use it - must be the most infrequent of Passenger Services over Unusual Lines.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,084
The 'balancer' device was an expensive add-on no doubt, usually only employed where an imbalance occurred routinely and developed very quickly, such as at a NSTR passing loop like Eggesford where withdrawals and insertions almost exclusively occur at different instruments. Plausibly, a balancer can be used by a suitably trained operating staff member with no technical knowledge, whereas the manual lock-pick method can clearly only ever be performed by a qualified S&T technician.
The imbalance could commonly occur on lines where assisting engines went one way on double-headed trains, but returned light engine separately to the train. The Taunton to Barnstaple line regularly got this in the summer, where Taunton 43xx would work down to Ilfracombe in varying combinations on Saturdays assisting the holiday trains. I never knew how the rebalancing was done, but did hear that on one or two odd occasions there had been severe delays because the tokens had run out at one end.

I was reprimanded on a thread here a while ago for describing how, in the quiet hours of a Sunday morning, the signalman would get out the brass disc tablets and polish them up a treat with Brasso. Yes, there was a formal key for the token instrument, which only the S&T technician could get at, all having to be written up in the register etc. Unfortunately Mr Tyer never noticed that the standard issue poker for the coal fire perfectly fitted the lock as well ...

Here are a couple of exhibits from my wall at home, having been in my possession since they became redundant in the mid-1960s. That's a GWR pattern key token above, and a brass (as in Brasso, and occasionally given a very 21st-century polish-up by Mrs Taunton) Southern tablet below. The actual key end of the key token that operated the token machine lock has been sawn off by Exeter S&T on the section being closed, that was their standard approach whenever there were changes. GWR/WR always painted their tokens in different colours (blue/green/red/yellow) for adjacent sections, that's still the original paint on it.

DSCN2239.JPG
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,423
Location
Up the creek
Here are a couple of exhibits from my wall at home, having been in my possession since they became redundant in the mid-1960s. That's a GWR pattern key token above, and a brass (as in Brasso, and occasionally given a very 21st-century polish-up by Mrs Taunton) Southern tablet below. The actual key end of the key token that operated the token machine lock has been sawn off by Exeter S&T on the section being closed, that was their standard approach whenever there were changes. GWR/WR always painted their tokens in different colours (blue/green/red/yellow) for adjacent sections, that's still the original paint on it.

View attachment 86793
The different colours indicated the configuration of the key token: Red was an A configuration. The colours may have been the manufacturer’s standard ones or a nationally agreed standard. I think that there were six token configurations, although E and F were rare, and their colours were black and white (or v.v.).
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,762
Normally there would be enough tokens in the system to account for temporary imbalances. But there could be a situation like when I visited Princes Risborough signal box many years ago, and the signaller mentioned the single line to Aylesbury had one more working each day in one direction than the other.

This is no different from, but less severe than the situation described above where there are token machines on opposite platforms so one only collects tokens and the other only distributes them. Periodically a technician would transfer a batch of the tokens from one machine to the other, obviously under some sort of possession to prevent any trains running while this was happening.


For lines worked with a single staff rather than token machines, there was at one time a system called "staff and ticket". If a train was to be followed by another in the same direction the signaller would obtain a special form from a box unlocked with a key on the staff, and fill this in with the details of the train in question. The driver would be given this "ticket" and shown the staff as authority to proceed, and the last train in that direction would carry the staff as normal. This was obviously more cumbersome as the signaller needed to fill in the ticket and could cause problems with the staff being at the wrong end if the sequence of trains changed unexpectedly. I think it was superseded on the national network some time ago, with staff working limited to dead-end lines where it's not physically possible to operate more than one train. I've an idea though that some preserved lines use it.
wasn't there an incident recently on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch recently where procedures were not correctly followed which nearly caused and accident.

I may be barking up the wrong tree and it was something totally different.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
In the 1990s, a certain heritage railway found itself in hot water with officialdom (not sure whether it was RAIB or their predecessors) when the following incident happened:

A signalmen at station A extracted a token from the machine, for the section A to B, and gave it to the engine driver (his train was indeed heading for B).
The signalmen then closed the box, and drove to the box a B (a car being quicker than the 25 mph limited train), opened the box, and then accepted the (obviously, same) token.
Someone on the train reported this (he recognised that the signalman at B was the same person as the one at A), and it was seen as a serious breach of regulations.
But I'm still puzzled what was wrong with this - does anyone know? Was it something to do with boxes being closed when a train is running - but doesn't this happen sometimes?
 

JBuchananGB

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2017
Messages
982
Location
Southport
The Omskirk branch has ETB from Midge Hall as far as Rufford and then one train working without a staff to Ormskirk.
I thought I could see the distinct red shape of a token machine as I drove across Midge Hall crossing yesterday. Clearly I was not imagining it.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,423
Location
Up the creek
In the 1990s, a certain heritage railway found itself in hot water with officialdom (not sure whether it was RAIB or their predecessors) when the following incident happened:

A signalmen at station A extracted a token from the machine, for the section A to B, and gave it to the engine driver (his train was indeed heading for B).
The signalmen then closed the box, and drove to the box a B (a car being quicker than the 25 mph limited train), opened the box, and then accepted the (obviously, same) token.
Someone on the train reported this (he recognised that the signalman at B was the same person as the one at A), and it was seen as a serious breach of regulations.
But I'm still puzzled what was wrong with this - does anyone know? Was it something to do with boxes being closed when a train is running - but doesn't this happen sometimes?
There are a lot of things here that make me shudder, but two main points seem to be serious errors.

Firstly, the signalman should not have been able to withdraw a token at the first box without the cooperation of a signalman at the second box. To do so he or someone else, presumably, interfered with the equipment in a way that was seriously contrary to the basic rules of Token Working.

Secondly, while he was driving between the two boxes there was nobody in charge of/overseeing the running of trains.

EDIT: Closing of signal boxes. It is possible for trains to continue running after an intermediate signal box has switched out if the appropriate equipment is installed, but the actual switching out must be done when there is no train in section (or offered). For a token worked section, all tokens must be in the machines.
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,084
A signalmen at station A extracted a token from the machine, for the section A to B, and gave it to the engine driver (his train was indeed heading for B).
The signalmen then closed the box, and drove to the box a B (a car being quicker than the 25 mph limited train), opened the box, and then accepted the (obviously, same) token.
Someone on the train reported this (he recognised that the signalman at B was the same person as the one at A), and it was seen as a serious breach of regulations.
But I'm still puzzled what was wrong with this - does anyone know? Was it something to do with boxes being closed when a train is running - but doesn't this happen sometimes?
One wonders how someone actually in the train could see A being switched out and B being switched in, both being done while the train they were in was running.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,423
Location
Up the creek
One wonders how someone actually in the train could see A being switched out and B being switched in, both being done while the train they were in was running.
My interpretation of #185 was that the person in the train recognised the signalman as being the same person both at the beginning and the end of the section. It could have been theoretically possible that the signalman who oversaw the train’s departure then handed over to another signalman, travelled by road to the second signal box and took over from a signalman who had been there all the time. However, it would look odd to anyone who was interested and knowledgeable. With only one signalman it would not normally be possible to switch out, even if the boxes were so equipped.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,249
Location
Torbay
In the 1990s, a certain heritage railway found itself in hot water with officialdom (not sure whether it was RAIB or their predecessors) when the following incident happened:

A signalmen at station A extracted a token from the machine, for the section A to B, and gave it to the engine driver (his train was indeed heading for B).
The signalmen then closed the box, and drove to the box a B (a car being quicker than the 25 mph limited train), opened the box, and then accepted the (obviously, same) token.
Someone on the train reported this (he recognised that the signalman at B was the same person as the one at A), and it was seen as a serious breach of regulations.
But I'm still puzzled what was wrong with this - does anyone know? Was it something to do with boxes being closed when a train is running - but doesn't this happen sometimes?
For a normal box-to-box token section, a single line token cannot be withdrawn at A without cooperation from B, just as with a normal line clear release in a double-track Absolute Block area. There is a loophole, however. If B is closing early, a token could be cooperatively withdrawn beforehand and left out of the system for an engineering possession, or possibly a later departure as long as local rules and instructions allow the practice and everything is properly agreed and recorded in the registers of both boxes. The standard circuitry stores the block signal release state (for one pull) indefinitely, so the subsequent clearance and departure could be accomplished with only a signaller at A. For this to be allowed, the block acceptance conditions at B must be maintained and any risks at intermediate crossings properly managed. With modern mobile communications, a nominated person in charge could plausibly remain in full communication with the train for emergency purposes even while driving between such block posts. In Scotland, some token sections have remote release circuitry enabled where cooperation is not required and the dispatching box can withdraw unilaterally, if safe. This is not unlike the tokenless block method widely used north of the border, where a box normally leaves their block switch in the 'accept' state and it's a first come first served scenario. The Park signalling digital DiBloC token system is even more flexible, plausibly allowing many remote sections and instruments to be managed over the internet from a central control point. Decades-old NSTR, as employed on the Central Wales line today, already represented a significant change from the standard token block procedures and allows traincrew to remotely withdraw without an electrical release from the signaller (although verbal permission must be sought), and clearly, in any modified method, safety validated checks are always carried out automatically by the equipment to ensure that only one token for the particular section can ever be out of the particular system at once. Closing a box is not the same as switching out. Switching an intermediate block post in or out changes the extents of the blocks concerned either side so can only be carried out when there is no train in section, interestingly allowing a train to be stationary within the station yard limits of the box switching in or out though. Standard token rules and regs can and are modified for many installations on the national network and particularly on heritage lines.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,036
Location
Airedale
Thanks MarkyT for clarifying.
My memory was that the box issuing the tablet could close before the train reached the receiving box, but I thought that might have changed.

Your description of leaving a tablet out for use after the box closed matches a description of the practice on the SR North Cornwall line to save a box (Ashwater?) having to open early for one train. It is good to know that such a practice could be authorised, and wasn't simply a function of being 200+ miles from Waterloo :)

Not that this explains the heritage line case!
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,084
My interpretation of #185 was that the person in the train recognised the signalman as being the same person both at the beginning and the end of the section. It could have been theoretically possible that the signalman who oversaw the train’s departure then handed over to another signalman, travelled by road to the second signal box and took over from a signalman who had been there all the time. However, it would look odd to anyone who was interested and knowledgeable.
Tom Rolt, prominent railway author and also pioneer early 1950s manager of the Talyllyn in volunteer times and with no lineside phones, wrote that when there were issues with the one remaining serviceable locomotive he would drive along the parallel road and visit each station to check how they were getting along. He had a distinctive vintage (even then) sports car, and wrote he wondered if anyone in the train noticed the same car at each station.
 
Last edited:

Martin66

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2016
Messages
105
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
wasn't there an incident recently on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch recently where procedures were not correctly followed which nearly caused and accident.

I may be barking up the wrong tree and it was something totally different.
Summary of the incident
At around 10:37 hrs, a passenger train left Romney Sands station, Kent, on the
Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway, going towards New Romney, and entered
a single line section of track. When the train had travelled about 100 metres beyond
the station, the driver saw another train coming towards him on the single line. He
used the railway’s open channel radio system to send an emergency “stop”
message, stopping his train as he did so. The driver of the other train heard the
message and also stopped. The two trains came to a stand about 316 metres
apart. No-one was hurt.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/839320/D082019_191014_Romney_Sands.pdf
 

Nippy

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2013
Messages
648
A quick Google suggests that the South Devon and Welsh Highland both use ST working. I don't know when it disappeared on BR, but I am fairly sure I have a 50s SR Working Timetable which shows a section (goods only?) still worked that way.

Southall-Brentford still Staff and Ticket at the moment.
 

Toots

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2009
Messages
275
I thought I could see the distinct red shape of a token machine as I drove across Midge Hall crossing yesterday. Clearly I was not imagining it.
There is, that's the ETB from Midge to Rufford.From Rufford it was a staff, but it was done away with a few years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top