Where to place signals?

[mattbenson93]

Hi,

 

Long time admirer, first time modeler. 

 

I am having difficulty knowing where to place signals on my layout. Unfortunately I have know experience in building a model railway and this is my first attempt. The small layout I have designed is attached below. I feel the track I have put together offers me enough running opportunity to keep things interesting in the limited space I will have available, although suggestions on improvements are welcomed from more experienced modelers! I used Hornby setrack for this and I understand most of you will be horrified at that, but I have some already and want to use it up, and as a first time modeler it seems sensible to stay away from flexi-track for now. 

 

Would anyone be able to offer any assistance on where signals would need to be placed? As this is a steam era layout, semaphore signals will need to be used rather than the modern type signals! The viewing side is not necessarily set in stone and could be moved to the other side if required. 

 

Thanks,

[mattbenson93]

I apologise in advance if this topic was posted in the wrong place!

[The Stationmaster]

When considering signalling the first thing is to know which Company/FBR Region and the era being modelled.  The reason for this is that while the basic principles were relatively standard there were numerous ways of doing various things especially in respect of shunting signals.

 

So in this case answers to the place and era question is the first step.

[mattbenson93]

When considering signalling the first thing is to know which Company/FBR Region and the era being modelled.  The reason for this is that while the basic principles were relatively standard there were numerous ways of doing various things especially in respect of shunting signals.

 

So in this case answers to the place and era question is the first step.

 

Hi,

 

I have 2 GWR Loco's so it makes sense for this layout to be a GWR Branchline terminus. Both are DCC and I have a DCC controller.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I will ignore shunt signals. You may not yet want to get into those and at a small branch terminus moves might be flagged from the signalbox.

 

I think all that you need (and Mike is much better qualified on GW signalling than me) is a starter signal at the end of each platform (most likely to be on a symmetrical bracket), a starter from the goods yard (at the toe end of the point leading to what you have marked as overflow but should be called headshunt). Coming into the station, you might have a symmetrical bracket with three signal posts (dolls): a short one for the bay platform, a taller one for the main platform, and a goods signal (arm with a round ring on it) into the goods yard. Alternative arrangement, quite common on the GW would be single signal with a route indicator on the post. That might be favourite here in view of restricted sighting for the driver due to the tunnel (not that the train would be moving fast as there would be a fixed distant beyond the other end of the tunnel), but the bracket signal looks better in many ways on a layout..

 

Edit: You have a slightly quirky layout there. You might want to swap over the loco shed and the goods area.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[mattbenson93]

I will ignore shunt signals. You may not yet want to get into those and at a small branch terminus moves might be flagged from the signalbox.

 

I think all that you need (and Mike is much better qualified on GW signalling than me) is a starter signal at the end of each platform (most likely to be on a symmetrical bracket), a starter from the goods yard (at the toe end of the point leading to what you have marked as overflow but should be called headshunt). Coming into the station, you might have a symmetrical bracket with three signal posts (dolls): a short one for the bay platform, a taller one for the main platform, and a goods signal (arm with a round ring on it) into the goods yard. Alternative arrangement, quite common on the GW would be single signal with a route indicator on the post. That might be favourite here in view of restricted sighting for the driver due to the tunnel (not that the train would be moving fast as there would be a fixed distant beyond the other end of the tunnel), but the bracket signal looks better in many ways on a layout..

 

Edit: You have a slightly quirky layout there. You might want to swap over the loco shed and the goods area.

 

Thanks for your info, very useful. I will look into more material on GWR signalling. Upon looking at the layout I did question my own design with the locations of the goods area and the shed, and will swap them over! 

[mattbenson93]

I have relayed the track and added the signals at the places that I think you have said. If this is wrong, please don't hesitate to correct it!

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have relayed the track and added the signals at the places that I think you have said. If this is wrong, please don't hesitate to correct it!

 

The one coming out of the goods yard wants to be further left (beyond the pointblades) and on the left-hand side of the track.

 

You have not marked the incoming signal which wants to be as close as possible to the first turnout (roughly where the v shaped symbol is).

 

While redesigning, if track is not fixed down permanently, you might want to change the arrangement of the run round loop so that it is a bit longer. Many termini had a siding off the run round loop for a loading dock opposite the buffers end of the platform. You might want to take a look at www.old-maps.co.uk which has 1:2500 maps of stations back in the steam era. Particular suggestions would be Abingdon, Calne.and Uxbridge Vine St.

[mattbenson93]

Thanks for your reply,

 

I have attempted to move the signals to the positions you have suggested but I may have misunderstood what you meant. I have also increased the length of platform 1. The runaround loop currently allows a tender-loco to disconnect from it's train and run back round to the front of it's 2-carriage train, and as I am limited on space I cannot really increase the size of this an maintain the functionality for tender loco's.

 

I hope that my goods area is suitable for shunting. 

 

 

 

[RailWest]

>>>>I think all that you need (and Mike is much better qualified on GW signalling than me) is a starter signal at the end of each platform (most likely to be on a symmetrical bracket), a starter from the goods yard (at the toe end of the point leading to what you have marked as overflow but should be called headshunt). Coming into the station, you might have a symmetrical bracket with three signal posts (dolls): a short one for the bay platform, a taller one for the main platform, and a goods signal (arm with a round ring on it) into the goods yard. Alternative arrangement, quite common on the GW would be single signal with a route indicator on the post. That might be favourite here in view of restricted sighting for the driver due to the tunnel (not that the train would be moving fast as there would be a fixed distant beyond the other end of the tunnel), but the bracket signal looks better in many ways on a layout..

 

I was hoping that Mike would be here by now, but.....

 

1. For a layout of this relative complexity (noting the separate entrance in to the goods yard) then I would suggest that an Up Advanced Starting would be a must.

2. Both starters on a 2-doll bracket smacks of the SR to my mind <g>, IMHO more likely to be separate posts especially as their fouling points with adjacent lines are different, so you do not want to restrict you bay line space unnecessarily

3. NO ring on the arm on the home leading into the goods yard - only on the signal at the exit from the yard. But the imagined era of initial signalling etc would determine whether you have  3-doll home or just a straight post with shunt discs.

4. I would very much doubt a route indicator at such a station at all, and certainly on approach signal for down trains.

5. You will need shunt discs at the RH exit from the run-round loop and goods connection, also in both (probably) directions over the connection at the LH end.

6. Trap points would be needed at both ends of the run-round loop.

Edited December 20, 2015 by RailWest

[The Stationmaster]

>>>>I think all that you need (and Mike is much better qualified on GW signalling than me) is a starter signal at the end of each platform (most likely to be on a symmetrical bracket), a starter from the goods yard (at the toe end of the point leading to what you have marked as overflow but should be called headshunt). Coming into the station, you might have a symmetrical bracket with three signal posts (dolls): a short one for the bay platform, a taller one for the main platform, and a goods signal (arm with a round ring on it) into the goods yard. Alternative arrangement, quite common on the GW would be single signal with a route indicator on the post. That might be favourite here in view of restricted sighting for the driver due to the tunnel (not that the train would be moving fast as there would be a fixed distant beyond the other end of the tunnel), but the bracket signal looks better in many ways on a layout..

 

I was hoping that Mike would be here by now, but.....

 

1. For a layout of this relative complexity (noting the separate entrance in to the goods yard) then I would suggest that an Up Advanced Starting would be a must.

2. Both starters on a 2-doll bracket smacks of the SR to my mind <g>, IMHO more likely to be separate posts especially as their fouling points with adjacent lines are different, so you do not want to restrict you bay line space unnecessarily

3. NO ring on the arm on the home leading into the goods yard - only on the signal at the exit from the yard. But the imagined era of initial signalling etc would determine whether you have  3-doll home or just a straight post with shunt discs.

4. I would very much doubt a route indicator at such a station at all, and certainly on approach signal for down trains.

5. You will need shunt discs at the RH exit from the run-round loop and goods connection, also in both (probably) directions over the connection at the LH end.

6. Trap points would be needed at both ends of the run-round loop.

I'm back - sorry about the delay but some housework and garden clearance came first.

 

As Chris has kindly numbered some items I'll use the same numbering.

 

1. Probably - although such signals were not de rigeur at GWR branch termini providing one here, at the tunnel mouth, would make a lot of sense.

2. Symmetrical brackets were far from common fare on the GWR once the Railway got into the 20th century and the platform starters here would inevitably be separate straight post signals (cheaper and much simpler to erect - brackets needed a crane to erect, small straight post signals didn't).

3.  Agree - this seems to be a common error on Western layouts;  repeat after me - The GWR did not put rings on signal arms which read into goods lines  (even if one signal gang got it wrong at one place!).

 

4. The form of the Home Signal could vary quite considerably depending very much on when it was installed but we also need to think about the sighting for the Driver of a train emerging from the tunnel.  In my view a bracket structure with full size brackets would be unlikely.  The earlier structure would have been a single post with small brackets carrying centre pivot arms reading to the bay and the yard.  The almost inevitable modernisation of that - again considering the matter of sighting - would have been a single arm with a route indicator (standard GWR mechanical stencil type) and probably a co-located ground disc to read into the goods yard.  A bracket structure with separate arms for the main platform and bay is a possibility and should not be discounted but the question of sighting would have considerable influence on the form of signal actually used.

 

5. Shunt discs as follows (reading from the left hand end of the drawing) -

a. At the toe of the point to the run-round loop although this could equally be a point disc surviving from the past

b. At the exit from the run-round loop to the platform line.

c At the toe of the point leading from the goods yard sidings to the platform line via the end of the run round loop.

It was unusual in GWR practice (but there were occasional examples) to have a shunt disc reading from the run-round loop towards the platform line stop block. 

 

I think also in view of the slightly unusual track layout there would be a shunt signal at the toe of the point where the run-round loop joins the platform line for reasons explained in more detail below.

 

6.  Yes - dummy single tongue (i.e. a blade on one rail only) would be quite ok.

 

Now coming back to Item No.5 we need to consider how trains would be worked - particularly freight trains.  The GWR Regulations would normally have required all points to be set towards the main platform line in order to accept a train and those points could not be moved until the arriving train had either arrived in the platform or stopped at the Home Signal.  Thus any freight trains would perforce have been accepted towards the main  platform line and it is most likely that they would in fact have run to that line in order to run round.  There are now two routes to shunt to the goods yard hence a  disc at the toe of the run-round connection to allow moves to be made through that point towards the yard.

 

Hope that all makes sense and if in any doubt please ask.

[mattbenson93]

Thanks for your replies, it has all got rather complicated for a novice such as I.

 

I think it needs to be considered that this is the first model railway I have ever attempted, and therefore absolute historical accuracy will not be necessary. I understand what trap points are but I think for this I will not be adding them, and although I would like to add disc-signals in the goods yard in the future, for now I would like to concentrate on the semaphore signals controlling the platforms and the mainline. 

 

It's beginning to dawn on me that I have much to learn about many different era's, styles and particular the 'jargon' used! 

 

Would the semaphore signals shown in post 9 be correct enough to not raise any major concerns?

[RailWest]

>>> 3. Agree - this seems to be a common error on Western layouts.......

See page 40 of the Jan 2016 Railway Modeller for a typical example of what not to do :-(

 

 - The GWR did not put rings on signal arms which read into goods lines....

..unless, of course, the signal was itself on a goods line :-)

[phil-b259]

I feel the track I have put together offers me enough running opportunity to keep things interesting in the limited space I will have available, although suggestions on improvements are welcomed from more experienced modelers

 

I can't help feeling that the run round loop might be better joining the goods yard in the manor shown below. Whether it is GWR ish I have no idea though.

[RailWest]

I thought the previous plan was a little more unusual/interesting, but....

 

What really concerned me with it was the amount of shunting necessary to get from the run-round loop to the engine-shed. If you look at many GWR BLT layouts, one thing which seemed quite commonplace to me was that the engine of an arriving train could come off the end of the train, draw ahead to platform stop-block, then move onto the run-round loop and get direct to the engine-shed (for water, coal or whatever) even if sometimes that was by way of a diamond across the running line (eg Brixham, or Helston originally IIRC).

[mattbenson93]

Thanks for all the comments/suggestions. A re-design has taken place and I hope this is now more realistic and will improve running options while trying to keep it within some historical limits! I have tried to move any signals as required but once again, I am not sure if they are located correctly. 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

That's a much better plan  - more railwaylike than your original and no need for any trap points.

 

As far as your question in Post No.12 is concerned I think you could run with this (but the platform starters on separate posts - not a bracket) because while it is not absolutely correct it is not disastrously wrong and gives a reasonable impression of looking right.

[mattbenson93]

Thank you, your knowledge/support has been invaluable. As a newcomer to the model railway scene, I feel like I will spend many productive years here as everyone seems very friendly and willing to selflessly share knowledge. I hope it's not long before I can start contributing knowledge to other peoples problems!

[Junctionmad]

I don't quite understand that layout. It will require all goods to use the platform to run around to free the loco. If you have a passanger train standing in that platform , how will goods trains access the goods sidings. ? It will require the head shunt to have a pilot loco there to free the engine

 

At least the original layout while slightly over complex didn't suffer from this

Edited December 21, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Grovenor]

It's a small Branch terminal, the goods won't normally be scheduled to arrive when a passenger is present.

If it does it can run round, shunt etc. after the passenger has left.

See post #11

Regards

[mattbenson93]

I don't quite understand that layout. It will require all goods to use the platform to run around to free the loco. If you have a passanger train standing in that platform , how will goods trains access the goods sidings. ? It will require the head shunt to have a pilot loco there to free the engine

 

At least the original layout while slightly over complex didn't suffer from this

 

This did cross my mind, what would happen if a goods train was to arrive at the same time as a passenger train was already in the station. How would you suggest rectifying this issue?

[mattbenson93]

OK so, I have once again been back to the drawing board. Which design is better? The first design is from post 9 and the other is the re-design of that.

 

 

 

[RailWest]

With respect, I think you are trying to make what is essence is a modest BLT into something far too complicated. Of the two layouts, in the preceding post, ditch the lower one and keep the upper one.
 
Do not forget that on the prototype trains do not just "happen" to turn up :-) Branch goods would be scheduled to avoid the passenger trains. If the schedule required the goods to arrive while there was a passenger train still in the main platform, then it would simply be run straight into the run-round loop. It could then be run-round from there after the passenger train has left. Alternatively, the passenger train could be run-round after arrival and then shunted into the bay, leaving the main platform free for the goods to arrive (bearing in mind that the goods could not be accepted from the next signal-box until after the shunting had been completed).

 

Pilot engines at such location would be very unlikely IMHO. Even headshunts were not that common - life moved at a leisurely pace in the country <g> and stopping any shunting out onto the single-line to allow a train to arrive would have not been a great worry.

[imt]

I would suggest the upper one is the way to go.  I don't see the problem.  The branch would have a Working Timetable which would schedule goods and passenger services so they wouldn't clash.  In this case if they did you could, for example receive the goods into the run round and set it back out of the way into the head shunt whilst a passenger engine ran round its train. As the Traffic Superintendent of the line you would have to specifically cause the problem to arise - which you may want to do for fun.

 

Were you to want to use the lower one you would need a trap point on the end of the head shunt so as to prevent any stray goods wagon running onto the passenger line. Best simply not to connect the two.

 

Chris got there first and more authoritatively!

Edited December 21, 2015 by imt

[The Stationmaster]

>>> 3. Agree - this seems to be a common error on Western layouts.......

See page 40 of the Jan 2016 Railway Modeller for a typical example of what not to do :-(

 

 

And pages 10 & 12 of the January 2016 issue of 'Model Rail' - seems there's a fashion for it.

With respect, I think you are trying to make what is essence is a modest BLT into something far too complicated. Of the two layouts, in the preceding post, ditch the lower one and keep the upper one.

 

Do not forget that on the prototype trains do not just "happen" to turn up :-) Branch goods would be scheduled to avoid the passenger trains. If the schedule required the goods to arrive while there was a passenger train still in the main platform, then it would simply be run straight into the run-round loop. It could then be run-round from there after the passenger train has left. Alternatively, the passenger train could be run-round after arrival and then shunted into the bay, leaving the main platform free for the goods to arrive (bearing in mind that the goods could not be accepted from the next signal-box until after the shunting had been completed).

 

Pilot engines at such location would be very unlikely IMHO. Even headshunts were not that common - life moved at a leisurely pace in the country <g> and stopping any shunting out onto the single-line to allow a train to arrive would have not been a great worry.

 

Technically the GWR Block Regulations would not allow a freight train to be accepted with a passenger train standing in the main platform,  But of course the pasenger train could be shunted into the bay to allow the freight to be accepted.

 

The upper layout is by far the better of the two - the lower one is needlessly complicated, don't forget this is a single track branchline.