Starting bell signals

[Regeff]

I don't know what made me think of this but in the days when London Underground trains had guards, the guard closed the doors and gave the driver a single bell signal when it was safe to start.

On National Rail trains with a guard, the time honoured starting signal to the driver is two rings (or buzzes).

I wonder why the Underground opted for the single bell - two "dings" seems a bit safer than one as it reduces the risk of an accidental signal being given.

 

[Rescars]

Does seem strange, especially as a London Transport bus conductor used two tings to start a bus. A single ring stops a bus (usually)!

This code may have a long history. Others will know the codes which applied between the leading coach and the footplate in the steam rail motor / auto train era.

Not that it is really relevant, but in a signalling context, two beats on a block bell denotes "train entering section".

 

[snowball]

When buses had conductors, didn't one ding mean "stop at next stop" and two mean "OK to start"?

 

[Roger1973]

I wonder why the Underground opted for the single bell - two "dings" seems a bit safer than one as it reduces the risk of an accidental signal being given.

I occasionally wondered that - although I was led to believe that there was an interlock so that the bell circuit wouldn't work if the 'pilot light' (that showed on the guard's panel to show that all doors were closed) was out.

I also heard that at one time, the starting bell was wired to ring in all cabs, which led to a few 'near miss' incidents at stations where trains were close to each other, allowing the driver of one train to hear the starting bell in the rear cab of the train on the adjacent line.

It also meant that an Underground guard couldn't give a 'stop again' signal like a BR guard could - if the guard was aware that something was wrong, or the pilot light went out after the train started, their only option was to 'pull the handle down' (use the emergency brake handle.)

Does seem strange, especially as a London Transport bus conductor used two tings to start a bus. A single ring stops a bus (usually)!

When buses had conductors, didn't one ding mean "stop at next stop" and two mean "OK to start"?

yes.

one bell generally means 'stop at the next stop' (although could also be used to mean 'cancel the start signal')

two bells to start (although some conductors and their driver would get used to starting on one bell)

three bells (not all operators used this) usually meant 'start, but bus is full - don't stop at any request stops unless you get a bell from inside the bus'

four bells, or two double rings (even fewer operators used this) could mean 'a vehicle is trying to pass, pull over if possible'

four or more bells, or as the London Transport rule book put it 'rapid succession of rings' meant emergency stop.

 

[Taunton]

Ding-Ding is easily done on an electric bell. But these have come along in more recent times, the first communication bells were compressed air, where you can only get one stroke every couple of seconds, giving the push a good thwack with the palm of your hand, and waiting for the plunger to come back out again. As late as the 4-SUB units built in early BR times, many trains had no low voltage circuits at all (the SUBs were started at each station, to the end, by green flag and driver looking back). So pioneers like the Underground are as likely to have gone for the simplest code, an approach which then just sticks.

 

[Rescars]

Just spotted a list of bell codes for working dmus in the 1960 edition of the General Appendix. 1 for stop, 2 for start, 3 for set-back, etc. Others will know more, but I'd guess one of the less frequently used codes was 4 - slow down when propelling.

 

[Trackman]

four or more bells, or as the London Transport rule book put it 'rapid succession of rings' meant emergency stop.

Yes, as my friend found out and felt the wrath of the conductor!

 

[edwin_m]

Just spotted a list of bell codes for working dmus in the 1960 edition of the General Appendix. 1 for stop, 2 for start, 3 for set-back, etc. Others will know more, but I'd guess one of the less frequently used codes was 4 - slow down when propelling.

These used to be listed in a notice in the DMU cabs (and I assume also guard's compartments) too.

In 1985 I was on a DMU from Manchester Victoria to Blackpool, which for some reason had to depart eastbound then reverse outside the station to come back through on another line. This was done with the driver driving in reverse from what was initially the rear cab, with the guard at the front. I don't recall if a 4 signal was used, but that might have been a situation when it was useful. The guard would also have had access to the emergency brake valve and I think the horn would work at that end too. The driver would have known where the end of the move was, as he could see when past the signal for the move back again.

 

[Pigeon]

One buzz, sent in reply to two buzzes, to mean "We can't go yet, we haven't got the road".

One long buzz, to mean "I SAID WE HAVEN'T GOT THE ROAD YET".

Down platform at Droitwich, early/mid 80s. That was the only occasion I ever remember hearing a code other than two buzzes.

 

[Tester]

An important consideration to perhaps explain one ding on the underground versus two on buses is that on trains only the guard can give a signal, whereas bus bells are of course open to passengers.

On a different but related topic, I grew up on the Southern region and was used to starting bell signals not being acknowledged by the driver. However on other regions the signals were always acknowledged by repetition. Does anyone know the history of this?

 

[jfollows]

http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/features/buzzer.shtm is one source of information

I’ve heard 6 - draw forward - on a 6-car cross-Birmingham EMU when the driver presumably forgot and stopped at the 3-car stop board at the first stop after taking over (at Five Ways I recall).

When I commuted to school (south Manchester, London Midland Region) in the 1970s the driver almost never repeated the code back to the guard.

 

[edwin_m]

One buzz, sent in reply to two buzzes, to mean "We can't go yet, we haven't got the road".

One long buzz, to mean "I SAID WE HAVEN'T GOT THE ROAD YET".

Down platform at Droitwich, early/mid 80s. That was the only occasion I ever remember hearing a code other than two buzzes.

I've heard one long buzz as the train starts, telling the driver to stop immediately - I think there was a door still open.

 

[Rescars]

An important consideration to perhaps explain one ding on the underground versus two on buses is that on trains only the guard can give a signal, whereas bus bells are of course open to passengers.

On a different but related topic, I grew up on the Southern region and was used to starting bell signals not being acknowledged by the driver. However on other regions the signals were always acknowledged by repetition. Does anyone know the history of this?

1960 General Appendix for dmu working again: "These bell signals must be acknowledged by repetition." The General Appendix appears to apply to all regions - published by the Railway Clearing House by order of the General Managers.

Does anyone recall hearing a 7 - "correct vacuum indicated in rear guard's compartment during tests"?

 

[jfollows]

On a different but related topic, I grew up on the Southern region and was used to starting bell signals not being acknowledged by the driver. However on other regions the signals were always acknowledged by repetition. Does anyone know the history of this?

Not true, as in my post subsequent to yours (LM Region 1970s).

 

[Tester]

Not true, as in my post subsequent to yours (LM Region 1970s).

Out of interest was that EMU?

I'm thinking that might have made a difference (albeit no repetition on SR DMUs).

 

[jfollows]

Out of interest was that EMU?

I'm thinking that might have made a difference (albeit no repetition on SR DMUs).

Was definitely EMU but although I travelled less frequently on DMU (Buxton sets) I believe it was the same with the buzzer on these, that's to say no repetition by the driver.

 

[Tester]

Was definitely EMU but although I travelled less frequently on DMU (Buxton sets) I believe it was the same with the buzzer on these, that's to say no repetition by the driver.

Many thanks.

It will be interesting to hear from other parts of the country.

 

[Trackman]

I've heard one long buzz as the train starts, telling the driver to stop immediately - I think there was a door still open.

The only times I have heard it is when someone, say at a small station, is running to catch the train.

 

[Roger1973]

Ding-Ding is easily done on an electric bell. But these have come along in more recent times, the first communication bells were compressed air, where you can only get one stroke every couple of seconds, giving the push a good thwack with the palm of your hand, and waiting for the plunger to come back out again

I hadn't thought of that.

I have enountered (preserved) trams with air bell systems - but would that have worked in a multi-carriage underground train?

Or in the days of multiple train crew (before automatic doors, hence gate-men on each carriage) was the start signal given by the man at the rear of the front carriage?

As an aside, I've also read somewhere that at one time, the Metropolitan Railway had a metal cap on the (flag) end of the guards' green flags, and the guard (at some stations at least) would touch this against two wires (presume low voltage) which would give some sort of light signal to the driver.

On a different but related topic, I grew up on the Southern region and was used to starting bell signals not being acknowledged by the driver. However on other regions the signals were always acknowledged by repetition. Does anyone know the history of this?

It's a while since I travelled on slam door trains on the southern (I started my working days commuting on what's now south eastern), but I have an idea that the starting signal was repeated by the driver using the driver - guard communication system (loudaphone?) rather than the same bell system the guard used.

I also remember the occasional journey where the driver gave a single 'honk' just before starting from a station - not sure if this would have been an old rule book way of doing it, or to deal with the communication system being faulty, ot just an odd habit of one or two drivers.

 

[Taunton]

The Swindon-built cross-country dmus used on the single line from Aberdeen to Inverness were fitted, like steam locomotives before them, with Manson's Automatic Tablet Exchange Apparatus, for exchanging at speed. On locos this had been swung out and retrieved by the fireman, but the dmu driver could not readily do this from their seat, so the guard's compartment doors were fitted with it. There were some unique bell codes devised for communicating "tablet exchanged", and even "Stop - tablet exchange failed", which were posted inside the guard's door, a peculiar interest for some when the cars were used elsewhere in Scotland.

The tablet exchange apparatus is shown (retracted) here on the railcar.co.uk website:

Class 120 DMU at Inverness

The history of Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs / railcars) in Britain.

www.railcar.co.uk

 

[Regeff]

An important consideration to perhaps explain one ding on the underground versus two on buses is that on trains only the guard can give a signal, whereas bus bells are of course open to passengers.

On a different but related topic, I grew up on the Southern region and was used to starting bell signals not being acknowledged by the driver. However on other regions the signals were always acknowledged by repetition. Does anyone know the history of this?

Some SR drivers acknowledged the guard's signal by repeating it and others simply didn't bother. I'm certain it was supposed to be nationwide practise.

There was a derailment during a shunting move at (I think) Guildford many years ago and the accident report drew attention to the fact that, contrary to the Rules, the signal to start hadn't been repeated back.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Travelled today on a guarded 387,I was pleasantly surprised to hear a bell instead of a buzzer used for driver/guard communication.

 

[43096]

Some SR drivers acknowledged the guard's signal by repeating it and others simply didn't bother. I'm certain it was supposed to be nationwide practise.

There was a derailment during a shunting move at (I think) Guildford many years ago and the accident report drew attention to the fact that, contrary to the Rules, the signal to start hadn't been repeated back.

Then there was FGW's instruction on (at least) HSTs of guard giving 2 on the buzzer, driver replying with 2 and guard then sending 2 again (presumably to confirm). All well and good (if rather un-neccessary) until you remember there is a 3-3 buzzer code for guard wants to speak with driver. So one day an HST sat at Reading and guard needs to speak to driver, so buzzes 3-3. Guard hears the first two, replies with two (over the middle two of 3-3) and then hears the final two of the 3-3 and assumes it is the 2 back. So he goes. With the doors wide open.

 

[jfollows]

Then there was FGW's instruction on (at least) HSTs of guard giving 2 on the buzzer, driver replying with 2 and guard then sending 2 again (presumably to confirm). All well and good (if rather un-neccessary) until you remember there is a 3-3 buzzer code for guard wants to speak with driver. So one day an HST sat at Reading and guard needs to speak to driver, so buzzes 3-3. Driver hears the first two, replies with two (over the middle two of 3-3) and then hears the final two of the 3-3 and assumes it is the 2 back. So he goes. With the doors wide open.

Good story, unintended consequences but entirely predictable with hindsight ..... I think you meant "Driver" in the antepenultimate sentence didn't you?

 

[43096]

I think you meant "Driver" in the antepenultimate sentence didn't you?

I did!

 

[Ashley Hill]

Then there was FGW's instruction on (at least) HSTs of guard giving 2 on the buzzer, driver replying with 2 and guard then sending 2 again (presumably to confirm).

That was because of an issue with drivers receiving mystery beeps from the buzzer. The guard giving 2 buzzes again confirmed they were genuine. Once the issue was dealt with that instruction was withdrawn.

 

[matchmaker]

On the Aberdeen - Inverness cross country DMUs fitted with Mansons automatic token exchange apparatus:

2-2 Correct token received
2-2-2 Approaching token exchange point

 

[Roger1973]

Some SR drivers acknowledged the guard's signal by repeating it and others simply didn't bother. I'm certain it was supposed to be nationwide practise.

That must have been interesting for guards - unless they regularly worked with the same driver and got used to how they did things (I'm not sure if railway rostering worked / works like that - on the buses, I gather it varied by operator whether a crew worked together on a regular basis or not.)

What was the guard supposed to do if the bell signal was not repeated?

 

[Regeff]

That must have been interesting for guards - unless they regularly worked with the same driver and got used to how they did things (I'm not sure if railway rostering worked / works like that - on the buses, I gather it varied by operator whether a crew worked together on a regular basis or not.)

What was the guard supposed to do if the bell signal was not repeated?

Good question! I never worked on the railway but I guess that if the train started when it shouldn't have, the guard should have "dinged" once to signal to the driver to stop. If it was a legitimate start, the guard didn't do anything (at least I never saw one react to an unacknowledged "two dings"). It would be a brave guard who challenged a driver for routinely not acknowledging a bell signal.

The report into the accident I mentioned in my earlier post states that the guard should have reacted to his unacknowledged signal (the guard said he hadn't meant for the train to start but was only trying to speak to the driver) - had he done so, the collision which caused the derailment probably would not have occurred. In that incident, the guard didn't know who the driver of the train was and vice-versa.

 

[Tester]

Good question! I never worked on the railway but I guess that if the train started when it shouldn't have, the guard should have "dinged" once to signal to the driver to stop. If it was a legitimate start, the guard didn't do anything (at least I never saw one react to an unacknowledged "two dings"). It would be a brave guard who challenged a driver for routinely not acknowledging a bell signal.

The report into the accident I mentioned in my earlier post states that the guard should have reacted to his unacknowledged signal (the guard said he hadn't meant for the train to start but was only trying to speak to the driver) - had he done so, the collision which caused the derailment probably would not have occurred. In that incident, the guard didn't know who the driver of the train was and vice-versa.

Something doesn't add up here!

I did a lot of travelling on SR EMUs and cannot recall an occurrence of repetition. If I had it would have seemed most strange. A 'some drivers did and some didn't' culture seems implausible.

In particular, had the accident in question occurred on the Southern, it's hard to imagine things not changing quickly as a direct result. Is it possible that it actually occurred elsewhere?

Are there any ex-SR drivers or guards on here who can shed any light?