Talk:Home signal

Do we really need this page?

This seems to largely duplicate information in railway signal and UK railway signalling. It seems to me that this page ought to be deleted/merged. Mangoe 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article

An anonymous editor has twice attempted to make significant changes to this article in one single edit. I have reverted these edits because they introduced a large number of factual errors, in particular:

"Although the Great Western Railway and the South Western Railway used lower quadrant signals throughout their regions, the other railway companies adopted the upper quadrant variation."

• This demonstrates a real lack of knowledge on the subject. The fact is that every British railway company used lower quadrant signals originally.

That is plain incorrect. Those companies that used upper quadrant started out that way. The italisised part removed from the article is correct in every aspect. Where these companies took over track that was lower quadrant signalled, they did not change the signals as there was no justification for doing so. 62.188.132.67 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to name one British railway company that started out with upper quadrant semaphores. UQ signals weren't adopted until the 1920s. Signalhead 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is often wrongly assumed that this is for fail safe reasons where the signal would fall to the danger position if the operating cable or levers failed. This is not the case because the lower quadrant version would rise to the danger position in similar circumstances because the spectacle glass (that holds the coloured filters) was made of cast iron on these signals and the arm was pivoted such that the weight of the spectacle glass would return the signal to danger. In any event the signal posts were also provided with a weighted arm to assist in the process."

• This article specifically concerns Home signals (and there is a separate article on Distant signals too). The merits of the upper quadrant versus lower quadrant forms of signals should be discussed in the Railway signal article since this isn't specific only to Home signals and there is no point in repeating the same information in different articles.

Wrong. This article concerns 'stop' signals and (as has been pointed out) is rather misnamed. The article itself points this out. For some reason the term 'home signal' has been adopted to generically describe the red and white signal. In fact if you try to buy stop signals for a model railway, you will generally find them in the catalogue under 'home signal'. The italisised snippet has lost its context - no just refered to the previous version of the article. The italisised bit was correct in every particular. 62.188.132.67 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"An experimental system was the three-position semaphore signal."

• It is quite wrong to dismiss three-position semaphore signals as experimental. They saw far greater use in North America and Australia than they did in the UK. This article is not country specific.

I disagree. The article as written is very specific to British signalling practice, therefore your objection is invalid. That makes the italisised part entirely valid as was the paragraph from which it was removed. 62.188.132.67 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In summary, this editor would do well to follow his own advice and "suggest you find out before inserting crap". Furthermore, I would remind him that such use of the word 'crap' in an edit summary is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Signalhead 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations are now required for the questionable material. The only citation given for the whole article is specific to British signalling, therefore only British signalling is covered by the cite (and that is the only material presented anyway - there are a few references away from Britain, but only a few). Most of your claims are not supported by the references that I have available. There is certainly no evidence that I can find that says lower quadrant was universal. There would certainly be no financial justification for a wholesale change. I B Wright 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also the assertion that the lower quadrant signal was intended to be declined at 60 degrees in the 'off' position is plainly incorrect. A simple examination of the signal arm geometry shows that the blue spectacle glass will be centred over the lamp at a declination of 45 degrees (it being at 45 degrees to the pivot point when the arm is horizontal). If the signal declined to 60 degrees, the lamp would be partially obscured by the lower edge of the spectacle glass casting. I'm very sorry Signalhead but you seem to be very much in the wrong in this edit war. By the way, you seem to have reverted the article 3 times. I suggest you have a look at WP:3RR. 62.188.132.67 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made no claims as to the correct angle of the 'off' position of a lower quadrant signal arm. However I am aware, as you seem not to be, that practices differed between different companies, and there were very many patterns of signal arms in use. Some were clearly designed to work to 45 degrees; others weren't. Signalhead 12:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did more than look at WP:3RR, I actually read what it says. I suggest you do the same. There has been no breach. Signalhead 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just counted - you reverted the edit three times. I B Wright 12:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. So there was no breach. Signalhead 12:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Starting Signals

I may be wrong, however I am sure that the picture of the "signals on the Penzance Main Line" are starting signals - not Home Signals. A location would also be useful as it could be added to the relevant Cornish Branch line (and station) article. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought - that's why I changed the caption to say "stop signal". In fact, I would say that this article really ought to be named "Stop signal" rather than "Home signal". The location is St. Erth. Signalhead 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have a picture showing at least one of the arms in the 'off' position? 62.188.132.67 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)