Help please new modern image layout.

[stevie_ruc]

Hi folks.

 

So after many weeks of design I have decided on my final layout plan. Only problem is I haven't a clue about Signalling and want it to be close to the real thing. I have two station, a TMD and a contractors Yard.

 

 

Can anyone shine a light on what signals should go where...

 

Thanks

 

Stevie

[dave55uk]

You'll need to tell us which period/era/region

you're modelling - and if necessary,

do you want semaphores or colour lights (or a mixture).

[The Fatadder]

If you are looking at post privatisation, Hurst Models well a little book which explains a lot of the track details. Certainly covers the placement of the TPWS bits that go alongside (and in the approach to) signals.

[stevie_ruc]

You'll need to tell us which period/era/region

you're modelling - and if necessary,

do you want semaphores or colour lights (or a mixture).

 

Its present day, northern England. Colour lights. I should have mention the contractor yard bit is not being built for a while yet....and will probably be revised....again.

[stevie_ruc]

If you are looking at post privatisation, Hurst Models well a little book which explains a lot of the track details. Certainly covers the placement of the TPWS bits that go alongside (and in the approach to) signals.

Thanks, but its out of stock at the moment unfortunately!

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I can have a look, but need to know which lines are bi-directional and which are uni-directional? Also, what sort of movements do you need, do you need to release locos from the terminus or is it all multiple unit formations?

 

You could have the TMD on it's only internal signalling system, but it's up to you!

 

Simon

[The Fatadder]

Thanks, but its out of stock at the moment unfortunately!

Happy to help with a summary of the details when I get back to the uk, and can sort out a photo showing the (compressed) arrangement I went for on my old layout.

 

 

(excusing the plug) if Hurst are current out of stock I do have a set of the etched parts on eBay at the moment (and I have a lot more which can be recovered from the old layout...)

[stevie_ruc]

Hi,

 

I can have a look, but need to know which lines are bi-directional and which are uni-directional? Also, what sort of movements do you need, do you need to release locos from the terminus or is it all multiple unit formations?

 

You could have the TMD on it's only internal signalling system, but it's up to you!

 

Simon

 

I've updated the layout plan and simplified it in places after taking a bit of advice from a friend! 

 

ive marked the directions on the plan. it will all be multiple units with a runaround platform at Jennystown station.

 

I like the sound of the TMD having its on internal system.  

 

Thanks for your help on this.

 

Stevie

[stevie_ruc]

Happy to help with a summary of the details when I get back to the uk, and can sort out a photo showing the (compressed) arrangement I went for on my old layout.

 

 

(excusing the plug) if Hurst are current out of stock I do have a set of the etched parts on eBay at the moment (and I have a lot more which can be recovered from the old layout...)

Hurst are out of the TPWS booklet. I’m not sure what parts I need yet.

 

Thanks

[St. Simon]

Hi Steve,

 

The new diagram is useful, as is your explanation, I'll have a look over the weekend and get back to you, including TPWS.

 

Simon

[The Fatadder]

Hurst are out of the TPWS booklet. I’m not sure what parts I need yet.

 

Thanks

Will send a pm when I get home with a rough summery

 

In short each signal has a long stop grid next to it. While they also need I think 2 of the speed sensor grids in advance of the signal. That can be compressed in model form (iirc they are fairly far away) I think I went for 2ft.

[St. Simon]

Will send a pm when I get home with a rough summery

 

In short each signal has a long stop grid next to it. While they also need I think 2 of the speed sensor grids in advance of the signal. That can be compressed in model form (iirc they are fairly far away) I think I went for 2ft.

 

Not every signal * is fitted with TPWS Loops (not grids!!), in fact actually a lot signals are not fitted with TPWS. We use a special flow chart to find out whether a signal has to be fitted, and then we use a specialist excel based calculator to calculate the optimum (if any) OSS loop positions.

 

The common exceptions to TPWS fitment is any signal not capable of displaying a red aspect (this includes 'Non-Approachable Red' signals), any signal that doesn't protect a conflict within the route to the next signal or the next signals overlap and any signal that is used purely for shunting purposes**, they are other exceptions, but I haven't got the standard in front of me to check. TPWS can also be used to protect level crossings, buffer stops and permanent speed restrictions.

 

Where signal to require fitment an Arming and Trigger loop together at the signal (the TSS or Train Stop System), this can be up to 20m on approach to a signal or 2m beyond the signal, but the replacement joint or axle counter of the signal must be at least 5m signal to prevent self-reversion issues. Generally the TSS is placed adjacent to the signal, but sometimes we have to move it back to accommodate other equipment, a particular signal is SN323 at Airport Junction, where the TSS is around 5m - 6m on approach to signal so that ATP Beacons and ETCS Balises can be accomodated at the signal.

 

Once we have 'fitted' TPWS signal during design work, we use a calculator to decide if an Overspeed System (OSS) is required, this is based on the highest speed 450m on approach to the signal, worst falling gradient 400m on approach to the signal and the distance to the conflict point (or safe overrun distance). This calculator will tell us how many OSS loops should be fitted and at what distances, we then sometimes 'fiddle' with the distance to reduce the maximum overrun distance for certain trains. The closest an OSS can be to a signal is 25m and the highest is 450m, you can have multiple OSS with a minimum distance between them of 60m (if using the same frequencies) and the maximum distance of 450m. You can have up to 3 OSS', but this is quite rare. The OSS consists of an arming loop and trigger loop seperated by a minimum of 5m (when placed at 25m from a signal), with this increases as the distance from the signal increases.

 

Two common misconceptions about TPWS:

1. TPWS loops are not sensors, they are transmitters, that only transmit when a signal is at danger. It is the TPWS reader on the train that is the sensing component, and it is the on train equipment that decides to activate the brakes. 
2. TPWS is designed to stop a passenger train fitted with enhanced brakes (i.e. capable of 12%G braking) within a safe overrun distance, it is NOT designed to stop any train with an overlap. Some initial publicity material stated that TPWS should stop a train fitted with enhanced braking within an overlap, but this is not the requirement of the system, unless specifically defined in a project scope.

 Also, although not useful for model railways, the signal in rear must post prove that the TPWS of the signal it reads up to is active (if fitted) or that that signal is showing a proceed aspect, if niether is true at any time, then the signal in rear will return to danger.

 

*Modular Signalling requires that every stop signal is fitted with TPWS

**Modern practice is to fit limit of shunt signals and shunt signals that read over trap points with TPWS to prevent unauthorised bi-directional running and damage to trap points respectively

 

Hope that helps.

 

Simon

Edited November 17, 2017 by St. Simon

[JDW]

That looks an interesting plan, and I'll leave the actual signalling if it to those more experienced than I, but since you want accurate signalling I suspect you want accurate track layouts too, so hope you won't mind me suggesting:

 

- Access to the depot would be highly unlikely to be straight off the running line into the shed building, more likely a headshunt then setting back onto the depot lines for example (eg: rotate the depot plan 180 degrees)

 

- Likewise, that's quite a large yard, with no run-round facilities, so the only way in is either wrong line from the crossover by the loco depot, or by propelling in from the main line after passing through the station.  I suggest something like a loop between the station and where the loco shed currently is, which would serve as a loop for trains entering the yard, and somewhere to access the TMD from.  You could then move the facing crossover by the TMD to allow trains to access the loop as they leave the fiddle yard, and get rid of the trailing crossover.

The loop could also extend through/past the station, I'd say by converting the track that passes below the platforms (ie 5th from the top of the plan) to be a through line, and insert a left hand point where just before it joins the main line top left to continue the loop around to the TMD.  

 

I hope that makes sense!

[stevie_ruc]

That looks an interesting plan, and I'll leave the actual signalling if it to those more experienced than I, but since you want accurate signalling I suspect you want accurate track layouts too, so hope you won't mind me suggesting:

 

- Access to the depot would be highly unlikely to be straight off the running line into the shed building, more likely a headshunt then setting back onto the depot lines for example (eg: rotate the depot plan 180 degrees)

 

- Likewise, that's quite a large yard, with no run-round facilities, so the only way in is either wrong line from the crossover by the loco depot, or by propelling in from the main line after passing through the station.  I suggest something like a loop between the station and where the loco shed currently is, which would serve as a loop for trains entering the yard, and somewhere to access the TMD from.  You could then move the facing crossover by the TMD to allow trains to access the loop as they leave the fiddle yard, and get rid of the trailing crossover.

The loop could also extend through/past the station, I'd say by converting the track that passes below the platforms (ie 5th from the top of the plan) to be a through line, and insert a left hand point where just before it joins the main line top left to continue the loop around to the TMD.  

 

I hope that makes sense!

 

Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I had wondered about that entry point. Ill take on board what you have said and revise accordingly!

 

Thanks again

 

Stevie

 

 

Edit:

 

I had a quick play with the layout and have come up with this....Hope its what your suggesting.

 

Stevie

Edited November 18, 2017 by stevie_ruc

[JDW]

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I was suggesting, well done for interpreting my ramblings!  The only thing I'd say is that the siding that ends in the two trees/tanks (round green things) bottom left seems a bit on its own, without much purpose - you can't use it as part of the depot without blocking the loop.  I'd suggest connecting it to the other one next to it at the bottom, with a loco-length headshunt next to the two green tanks.

 

 

I'd be tempted not to have the three sidings next to the station all nicely parallel to the board edge too if you can avoid it, it all looks very square otherwise.  Maybe introduce a gentle curve?

[imt]

I would suggest that you need to think about the operation of this railway you are building.  What traffic flow are there and where to/from.  You seem to have introduced a branch line in your last update, why?  What length do you want your trains to be and do they fit your fiddle yard?

 

Can I suggest that you probably have too many platforms and hence have a lot of track in a small space.  I can see the need for the through ones (obviously) and a bay platform could work for a shuttle to the other station.  What purposes do the other platforms have.  You might want/need them all, but do think about the purpose of things.  You might like to consider carriage/DMU sidings in the main station area.  You now have a nice release loop for locos to get to the TMD which means that you can stop trains to change locos etc.

 

If you want more space at your station throat you might like to consider having only half a platform showing.  This is a trick I have seen used successfully on other layouts.  Use the space on the yellow board as if it were part of the station, as this is clear of your fiddle yard, then (for example) half the train peeps out and the rest follows when it moves from right to left.  This might already be your idea for the bottom station.

 

You do need also to think about your fiddle yard.  How big are the trains to be, is it a ladder of points, a traverser some cassettes or what?  It already seems to me that your platforms are longer than the distance between the ends of the two curves.  This could seriously affect the way you can do things.  My advice is to tackle that whole area pretty quickly as part of your layout as a whole.  Fiddle yards are a pain but if you get them wrong then great disappointment ensues.  In the end you may need to sacrifice the second station to get the needed space.

 

I think your TMD is much improved.  I think the siding leading up to the 2 round things is for tankers?  Maybe it doesn't need to be that long? Do you have enough room for refuelling and for a loco to enter/leave the TMD (the right hand siding).  You may like to think around how the loco refuel/service etc. process might work in your TMD, and change things a bit to ensure you can make those movements without interfering with each other.

 

I do hope that was helpful.  It might seem negative in places but it isn't meant to be.  You have a nice space for a layout there and a pretty good plan.

[JDW]

Following on from my last post, I agree with imt's ideas.  The lower of the two bay platforms could become the through line/freight line/loop, so you could get rid of the lower platform area, leaving you a bit more space for scenery - a modern station car park and footbridge to the platforms, maybe?  I'd probably also delete the spur parallel to the platforms and just have the sidings curving off to the freight yard, it gets rid of another straight piece of track on that board which makes everything look contrived, and also makes the curve flow better and look less obvious, especially if its a sharp one.

[stevie_ruc]

I would suggest that you need to think about the operation of this railway you are building.  What traffic flow are there and where to/from.  You seem to have introduced a branch line in your last update, why?  What length do you want your trains to be and do they fit your fiddle yard?

 

Can I suggest that you probably have too many platforms and hence have a lot of track in a small space.  I can see the need for the through ones (obviously) and a bay platform could work for a shuttle to the other station.  What purposes do the other platforms have.  You might want/need them all, but do think about the purpose of things.  You might like to consider carriage/DMU sidings in the main station area.  You now have a nice release loop for locos to get to the TMD which means that you can stop trains to change locos etc.

 

If you want more space at your station throat you might like to consider having only half a platform showing.  This is a trick I have seen used successfully on other layouts.  Use the space on the yellow board as if it were part of the station, as this is clear of your fiddle yard, then (for example) half the train peeps out and the rest follows when it moves from right to left.  This might already be your idea for the bottom station.

 

You do need also to think about your fiddle yard.  How big are the trains to be, is it a ladder of points, a traverser some cassettes or what?  It already seems to me that your platforms are longer than the distance between the ends of the two curves.  This could seriously affect the way you can do things.  My advice is to tackle that whole area pretty quickly as part of your layout as a whole.  Fiddle yards are a pain but if you get them wrong then great disappointment ensues.  In the end you may need to sacrifice the second station to get the needed space.

 

I think your TMD is much improved.  I think the siding leading up to the 2 round things is for tankers?  Maybe it doesn't need to be that long? Do you have enough room for refuelling and for a loco to enter/leave the TMD (the right hand siding).  You may like to think around how the loco refuel/service etc. process might work in your TMD, and change things a bit to ensure you can make those movements without interfering with each other.

 

I do hope that was helpful.  It might seem negative in places but it isn't meant to be.  You have a nice space for a layout there and a pretty good plan.

 

Great advice there. I have thought of one or two of the things you have suggested... was hoping to leave scale drawing for the fiddle yard to the end but I can see now it should be part of the design process. Ill work on that tonight and take onboard all your suggestions.

 

Thanks again for your help. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by stevie_ruc

[imt]

I am pleased that you see it as help. Be aware that you might go through a rethink and still come up with close to what you have now BUT you will have a better idea of WHY things are where they are and how they work together.

 

Railways are there to serve a purpose and you might find more enjoyment if you assign a purpose and then design platforms sidings etc to meet it.

 

You started asking questions about signalling.  You should keep in mind that signals (real ones and models) are expensive so they shouldn't be scattered everywhere.  What designers look for is the moves that need to be made and to signal those, not just signal all the moves that might be made.  I know you are wanting a modern image layout, and so some of these restrictions are different.  In earlier years, with signal boxes rather than signal control centres, a lot of local within station limits signalling could be done by the signalman leaning out of a window with a flag!

 

In a modern image layout your traffic will tend to be multiple unit trains with power cars/driving facilities at both ends.  So what's the big TMD for?  Is this for the fan of sidings labelled "contractors yard" - is that PWay contractors?  Maybe thinking of some kind of industry which could use loco hauled block trains would be better - cement works, containerised traffic or the like.  Again, trackwork tends to be sparse in modern times, fans of sidings for sorting goods traffic made up of small wagons and vans are long gone.

 

Anyway, enough interfering.  Remember Rule 1: its my railway and I do what I want.  Have fun.

[stevie_ruc]

Following on from my last post, I agree with imt's ideas.  The lower of the two bay platforms could become the through line/freight line/loop, so you could get rid of the lower platform area, leaving you a bit more space for scenery - a modern station car park and footbridge to the platforms, maybe?  I'd probably also delete the spur parallel to the platforms and just have the sidings curving off to the freight yard, it gets rid of another straight piece of track on that board which makes everything look contrived, and also makes the curve flow better and look less obvious, especially if its a sharp one.

 

Ok folks made a few more changes, larger radius curves etc.

Big change was I removed the second station and introduced a larger fiddle yard. I intend to run full length trains, HST, Class 90's, Caledonian sleeper etc, so I need the long fiddle yard track length. I also have included a Small industry ( ideas please) in place of the contractors yard which I have moved adjacent to the station. TMD remains largely unchanged but I have a refuelling spur. I assume the TMD, Yard, and industry don't require Signalling? Feedback is always welcomed.

 

Thanks Stevie

[JDW]

That looks good, I like the new "industry" sidings (steel came to mind when I looked, but could easily be anything) and the TMD.  The P/Way yard looks ideal for posing things like tampers, an MPV, etc.  Just make sure there's enough room for a loco to get between the depot buildings and the fuel spur without having to go onto the running lines!  

 

Experience with my own fiddle yard says you might fins a couple of crossovers mid-way along useful.  Most of my sidings can hold between one and 3 2-car DMUs, but being end to end one tended to block in another, so crossovers half way down some of the longer sidings allow things in and out easier.  That empty space at the bottom might be good for a few short sidings too, for locos, DMUs, etc.

 

If I were you I'd keep the programming track completely separate from the layout rather than have it connected to the fiddle yard, to prevent embarrassing mistakes that I've never made such as accidentally reprogramming multiple decoders at the same time...  I do quite like your fiddle yard design, it is unusual and presents certain limitations on trains not being able to pass on their way in and out at the same time if using certain roads, but gives more flexibility with modern double ended trains than the traditional separate "up" and "down" yards.

[imt]

Well, you've thought about the greater things so we should move onto the nitty gritty.

 

I am concerned about clearances - both track and buildings.  You need to look at the separation in the loop below the main station - it looks too narrow.  It may be my failing old eyesight but it looks narrower than the gap for the main running lines.Your diddy signal box needs removing because firstly there is no clearance there and secondly this lot will be controlled by a remote signalling control centre by signallers who sit looking at screens all day.  By all means have a boarded up, lets all cry about the awful changes, ruined signal box somewhere - but it does need some clearance round it.

 

I would advise that you put a wall on the lower platform and simply use the third and fourth lines as a freight loop and run round.  It will make operating easier. See more below.  I am not sure what purpose the crossover from the bi-directional freight loop and the inner passenger line serves?  A connection does exist further round and this may complicate signalling.  Keep it if you see a need - but think about it.  I think you have taken the advice about having a freight loop BUT you still need to isolate it from passenger lines so you need a point into a sand drag off the freight loop above the refuelling depot.

 

Your loco sheds in the TMD are also impractical, locos need space around them - all around them in order to drop wheel sets get at all sides, etc.  So fewer lines in a larger shed?  You could just have one workshop and a couple of spurs for parking.  The same goes for your industry - not enough room for two lines in that apparently nice big shed - honest guv.  The contractors area needs 2 not three sidings, they need to get lorries and cranes in between to lift things on and off the stock, and maybe have a silo full of ballast over the track etc. etc.  An overhead crane for lifting things might make a good model here.  Less is more.

 

You still have some operational problems.  I am assuming that the diamond near the refuelling depot is a single slip, if it isn't it needs to be since otherwise the loop cannot access the inner track.  This planning software is all the same - you cannot see the differences between diamonds, single and double slips at this size.   I expect that the two in the fiddle yard are double slips.  Have you played with this on paper.  There is plenty of length and things can go in and come out the same end, but does this fit your vision of your operating timetable?

 

How do you intend to shunt the contractors sidings?  Which way is the train coming in, is the run round long enough.  Can you pull back far enough without fouling the points on the right hand end - I think you may have problems, but maybe you envision splitting up and building trains using the loop.  You can obviously build a train in the freight line and pull it into the loop to put the loco at the other end.  You could put a double slip at the right hand end under the station building to give a bit of extra head shunt there (and incidentally isolate the freight from the passenger lines - hardly necessary here since it's out of sight, but even so it is safer. Shunting for the industry will be much easier because it has the whole freight loop to serve as a head shunt.

 

For "Elfin Safety" I'd also put a right hand point by the refuelling point so the head shunt goes off at 45 degrees and the tanks can be neatly put in the middle of the triangle away from the flying trains.

 

Gosh I'd better let you think about some of that!  RULE 1 APPLIES this is just comment to help you think things through - do it the way YOU like!

[St. Simon]

Hi Stevie,

 

I'm drawing up a signalling plan based on your new design, will hopefully have it ready this evening!

 

Simon

[stevie_ruc]

Hi Stevie,

 

I'm drawing up a signalling plan based on your new design, will hopefully have it ready this evening!

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon I appreciate your time and effort on this. As you have problem read I received a lot of feed back to get to this point. Looking forward to see what you come up with.

 

Stevie

[stevie_ruc]

Well, you've thought about the greater things so we should move onto the nitty gritty.

 

I am concerned about clearances - both track and buildings.  You need to look at the separation in the loop below the main station - it looks too narrow.  It may be my failing old eyesight but it looks narrower than the gap for the main running lines.Your diddy signal box needs removing because firstly there is no clearance there and secondly this lot will be controlled by a remote signalling control centre by signallers who sit looking at screens all day.  By all means have a boarded up, lets all cry about the awful changes, ruined signal box somewhere - but it does need some clearance round it.

 

I would advise that you put a wall on the lower platform and simply use the third and fourth lines as a freight loop and run round.  It will make operating easier. See more below.  I am not sure what purpose the crossover from the bi-directional freight loop and the inner passenger line serves?  A connection does exist further round and this may complicate signalling.  Keep it if you see a need - but think about it.  I think you have taken the advice about having a freight loop BUT you still need to isolate it from passenger lines so you need a point into a sand drag off the freight loop above the refuelling depot.

 

Your loco sheds in the TMD are also impractical, locos need space around them - all around them in order to drop wheel sets get at all sides, etc.  So fewer lines in a larger shed?  You could just have one workshop and a couple of spurs for parking.  The same goes for your industry - not enough room for two lines in that apparently nice big shed - honest guv.  The contractors area needs 2 not three sidings, they need to get lorries and cranes in between to lift things on and off the stock, and maybe have a silo full of ballast over the track etc. etc.  An overhead crane for lifting things might make a good model here.  Less is more.

 

You still have some operational problems.  I am assuming that the diamond near the refuelling depot is a single slip, if it isn't it needs to be since otherwise the loop cannot access the inner track.  This planning software is all the same - you cannot see the differences between diamonds, single and double slips at this size.   I expect that the two in the fiddle yard are double slips.  Have you played with this on paper.  There is plenty of length and things can go in and come out the same end, but does this fit your vision of your operating timetable?

 

How do you intend to shunt the contractors sidings?  Which way is the train coming in, is the run round long enough.  Can you pull back far enough without fouling the points on the right hand end - I think you may have problems, but maybe you envision splitting up and building trains using the loop.  You can obviously build a train in the freight line and pull it into the loop to put the loco at the other end.  You could put a double slip at the right hand end under the station building to give a bit of extra head shunt there (and incidentally isolate the freight from the passenger lines - hardly necessary here since it's out of sight, but even so it is safer. Shunting for the industry will be much easier because it has the whole freight loop to serve as a head shunt.

 

For "Elfin Safety" I'd also put a right hand point by the refuelling point so the head shunt goes off at 45 degrees and the tanks can be neatly put in the middle of the triangle away from the flying trains.

 

Gosh I'd better let you think about some of that!  RULE 1 APPLIES this is just comment to help you think things through - do it the way YOU like

So I took on board your comments but don't see any real requirement to change the plan. You have reinforced a lot of things I had thought about while planning. The wall on the platform and the Double slip. You have obviously studied the plan in great detail which I really thank you for. I live in Northern Ireland so its Magazines and Youtube for me,as the only way to see the real thing.! Glad it has taken shape with help from the members on here. Will have to post updates as I go. I have the bases installed already and just need to put down the remaining baseboards. Incidentally the baseboard are sitting on Kitchen units, Good stable platform to work on plus all the storage you could want , I'm surprised more people don't use them

 

Incidentally I've scoured the internet for pictures of ballast wagons being loaded as you suggested for the engineers yard, do you know of anywhere I would see some?

 

Thanks again for taking time to come up with all your feedback.

 

Stevie