Hampton Malstead

[Regularity]

Phil,

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, whether or not you have a bay is up to you, and you alone.

 

There are examples of bay platforms at many GWR termini, but these are busier stations with regular heavy passenger traffic. If you wish to create the impression of a busy station, then go ahead.

Most GWR branchline termini did not have a bay, but that doesn’t stop you having two trains, and two engines, in the station at once.

 

You keep referring to “intensive” operation, but haven’t made it clear what you mean. You may not realise it, but there are two (at least) interpretations of this.

Firstly, and what I think you mean, many trains in the station at the same time;

Secondly, and what we usually see on model railways, a regular service without the long pauses between trains that happened on the real railway.

 

If you keep asking questions you will get many responses, but they will fall into two camps: the Model Railway point of view (it’s your layout, many people do include a bay platform, go ahead) or the Model of a Railway (GWR Branch termini nor this size were unlikely to have a bay platform.

 

As I said, you take the advice and make your choice, but it seems to me that you have decided to have a bay platform, but feel slightly ill-at-ease with the decision because you are aware that the “justification” with reference to a prototype is weak.

 

Which will make you happiest and what are you trying to achieve? How far down the path of realism do you want to go? How important to you is it to create a layout plan with the highest possible degree of plausibility, compared to the operational capacity (aka “play value”) of deviating slightly against the most typical arrangement on the prototype?

Were the wagons of the partially made up goods train left in the platform, or cleared into a siding or loop before the passenger train arrived?

They were left in the platform road, blocking the engine release crossover.

[Harlequin]

If my memory can stretch back that far, the roster of locos on my first layout (my Dad's layout really) in the loft was:

• Jinty
• B12
• Brush 47

That was the classic line-up. I have vague recollections of an 0-6-0 diesel shunter on that layout and certainly lots of others followed later when we moved house and got more ambitious.

[Harlequin]

Phil,

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, whether or not you have a bay is up to you, and you alone.

 

There are examples of bay platforms at many GWR termini, but these are busier stations with regular heavy passenger traffic. If you wish to create the impression of a busy station, then go ahead.

Most GWR branchline termini did not have a bay, but that doesn’t stop you having two trains, and two engines, in the station at once.

 

You keep referring to “intensive” operation, but haven’t made it clear what you mean. You may not realise it, but there are two (at least) interpretations of this.

Firstly, and what I think you mean, many trains in the station at the same time;

Secondly, and what we usually see on model railways, a regular service without the long pauses between trains that happened on the real railway.

 

If you keep asking questions you will get many responses, but they will fall into two camps: the Model Railway point of view (it’s your layout, many people do include a bay platform, go ahead) or the Model of a Railway (GWR Branch termini nor this size were unlikely to have a bay platform.

 

As I said, you take the advice and make your choice, but it seems to me that you have decided to have a bay platform, but feel slightly ill-at-ease with the decision because you are aware that the “justification” with reference to a prototype is weak.

 

Which will make you happiest and what are you trying to achieve? How far down the path of realism do you want to go? How important to you is it to create a layout plan with the highest possible degree of plausibility, compared to the operational capacity (aka “play value”) of deviating slightly against the most typical arrangement on the prototype?

 

 

I was uneasy with the bay but only because I was unsure why such a feature might be rejected by you guys. If you were rejecting it on technical grounds then I might have abandoned it. But so far the responses seem to be simply that it was untypical - particularly on small BLTs. Fair enough this is useful info and it puts the ball back in my court, as you say.

 

Actually, I don't think I have used the term "intensive" - maybe only in the context of replies to others. I'm just aiming to have slightly more and, more interesting, operations than the "typical" small BLT would require in the real world. (In particular, more than one actor on stage at the same time.)

 

To that end I imagine that Hampton Malstead is a bigger town than Moretonhampstead. (But not as big as, say, Barnstaple or Tavistock). Thus, the station is a little more developed and generates some holiday traffic in a similar vein to Kingswear and St Ives because of it's famed moorland setting.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Harlequin

[Regularity]

Actually, I don't think I have used the term "intensive" - maybe only in the context of replies to others. I'm just aiming to have slightly more and, more interesting, operations than the "typical" small BLT would require in the real world. (In particular, more than one actor on stage at the same time.)

 

Apologies for ascribing a quote to you!

In terms of more than one actor on stage at a time, you can do that, as outlined above, without a bay platform, in fact it is more interesting without the platform.

Beyond that, you can only operate one train at a time anyway!

To that end I imagine that Hampton Malstead is a bigger town than Moretonhampstead. (But not as big as, say, Barnstaple or Tavistock). Thus, the station is a little more developed and generates some holiday traffic in a similar vein to Kingswear and St Ives because of it's famed moorland setting.

St. Ives, like Seaton on the Southern, was interesting in that the bay platform also served as a goods road when the station was less busy. Two passenger trains present at once is most likely to occur on summer Saturdays, for which goods wagons would be put onto a single siding or even taken away to be stored at another station.

 

That provides another thought for you, and an alternative plan. A bit like Woodstowe (RM May 2012), but with the goods shed road having access to the platform rather than it being fenced off.

[The Stationmaster]

True; I was thinking of the Barnstaple layout which has a dedicated carriage siding. 

 

I'm I right in thinking that a train couldn't be accepted into the section if the road wasn't set for the arrival line (platform road), or would it be possible to accept a train and halt it at the down home?

 

 

Bodmin had a special 'calling on' arrangement for accepting a passenger train where there was already a train occupying the platform. (Bodmin didn't have a bay.)

GWR Single Line Regulations allowed trains to be accepted at a terminus if the line was clear to the point to which the train usually runs.  Basically this meant the platform line had to be clear at least part way into the platform but the remainder of the platform could be occupied (which seems to be how Bodmin was worked although it is possible the Warning Arrangement might have been authorised there although it was unusual for it to be authorised at single line termini.

 

Because the Regulations required all relevant points to be set and bolted when a train was accepted and it was not permitted to alter any points until the train had come to a stand at the Home Signal all trains would normally be accepted towards the platform and of course in virtually every single line terminus the platform line offered the longest place to run round so it use was made even more logical by that feature,  if there was any passenger stock or a passenger train at the terminus when the freight was booked to arrive it would usually be shunted aside to allow acceptance of the freight but in the case of many lines the freight arrived during a gap in the passenger service although it could/would be still there when the next passenger train arrived.

 

Ashburton is often quoted as an example but it needs to be remembered taht teh working there was somewhat unusual as it was worked in accordance with South Devon Railway Regulations well into the GWR era (and probably until the end of its days) and some strange things took place there including the arrival of a second train on what was technically a One Engine In Steam section of line.  It also needs to be remembered that various local relaxations could be given although generally with the standard acceptance at a GWR single line terminus they were hardly necessary!

 

Once the BR Regulations came in during 1960 things had to change as they required the line to be clear to the stopblocks at a single line terminus in order to accept a train under an ordinary Line Clear.

[clachnaharry]

Does this mean that the pracice sometimes seen on model railway branch line termini, where a goods train arrives into the run round loop whilst the branch passenger sits in the platform road, is technically incorrect?

Edited January 20, 2018 by clachnaharry

[Compound2632]

Does this mean that the pracice sometimes seen on model railway branch line termini, where a goods train arrives into the run round loop whilst the branch passenger sits in the platform road, is technically incorrect?

 

Our club has an exhibition layout which is roughly the mirror image of the plan under discussion, where this move (and an arrival into the bay) is made possible by a three-doll splitting inner home - a working signal (though not interlocked). As has been discussed, this extravagance is more appropriate to a much larger station but it does permit a greater density of traffic in the station in a manner which is, I think, permissible, if unlikely. It's that balance between providing entertainment in accordance with the rules and truly prototypical if dull operation. How this balance works out will be different according to whether the layout is for home use or for exhibition, as well as, of course, your personal preferences.

[Miss Prism]

Does this mean that the pracice sometimes seen on model railway branch line termini, where a goods train arrives into the run round loop whilst the branch passenger sits in the platform road, is technically incorrect?

 

Not necessarily. Taking Bodmin again as an example, goods/clays entered/exited the loop if the platform was occupied or signalled for a departure or arrival. (Bodmin is perhaps atypical though, being a busy 'several engines in steam' situation, as well as being a junction of course.)

Edited January 20, 2018 by Miss Prism

[Harlequin]

I have decided to push ahead with plan 33G as shown earlier in this thread. Nothing's ever perfect but I think it's the best compromise for me at the moment.

• Hampton Malstead is slightly more developed than Moretonhampstead and similar small branch terminii, and has a busier station.
• The mileage siding is part of that development. I agree there's a danger it could make things look cluttered but it makes operational sense. So it's in but under review.
• I've looked at many other station plans but this design allows me to keep centre stage clear of major buildings, except the station building, which will be one of the main actors. When combined with various other tricks and techniques, I hope this will give the model a sense of spaciousness (er, well at least more spacious than the 8ft by 2ft box it will actually be in!).
• The two goods sidings are nicely prototypical now that they are longer and smoother and, with the back siding against the yard fence, the yard is less cramped than before.
• The east end of the run round loop still has a short blind siding as a trap. If I made it into a longer siding then you would see two lines apparently disappearing out of the station so I'm not going to do that because it suggests double track beyond the station for some unknown distance. That would make the whole concept of the model more vague so I prefer to see a definite single line entry/exit.
• The Bay platform will allow small local trains to be dispatched without having to clear the main platform.
• Engine shed access will be from the bay for practical modelling reasons and because the two things won't seriously interfere with each other.
• The Bay platform is long enough for an autotrain or small mixed goods and easily accommodates a railcar. (Suggestions were made above to both lengthen it and shorten it ;-) (Why doesn't RMWeb expand the international standard "winky" emoticon?)

Interestingly, my research suggests that this station probably would have had a small turntable (~23ft?) in it's early broad gauge days and this may have been retained if there was still a reason to turn small locos, e.g. for snow clearance. So that idea is hovering around.

 

OK, so now to update the signalling...

Edited January 21, 2018 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here is my revised signalling diagram:

 

And lever allocations:

 

My research suggested that point indicators would probably have been replaced by independent ground discs by the time of this layout so I have made that change.

 

I've added an advanced starter (off-stage) to protect shunting movements.

 

I have a couple of questions for the experts (Mike!):

1. Do you think that the routes into the goods yard and the mileage siding need any more signalling than the small centre-pivot bracketed siding signal (4)? More discs?
2. Do you think that the route out of the run round loop and the goods sidings to the main line needs it's own starter signal?

Edit: Edited to fix some mistakes in the drawings

Edited January 21, 2018 by Harlequin

[Junctionmad]

I still don't quite get the purpose of disc 16 ,?, surely a disc between points 6 & 12 would be more appropriate, personally I'd have put a post with a ringed arm there as it's the main exit to the running lines

 

It's worth noting , your evil nemisis twin layout Ruxley has one just there

 

And is it not the case that the order of priority is wrong on the dollys 4,2,3 , surely the main platform is the primary route and would have the most prominent dolly

 

Doh , sorry bout that it's quite correct. Just me having a brain fart moment

Edited January 21, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Harlequin]

I still don't quite get the purpose of disc 16 ,?, surely a disc between points 6 & 12 would be more appropriate, personally I'd have put a post with a ringed arm there as it's the main exit to the running lines

 

It's worth noting , your evil nemisis twin layout Ruxley has one just there

 

 

My understanding is that Disc 16 says that points 12 and 13 are set correctly for a loco running up the run round loop. Hence the question of whether a separate signal is needed to allow traffic from the loop, through the loop crossover, onto the main line (with a ringed arm, as you say).

 

I'll have a look at my evil anti-twin... (If they were connected back to back would they annihilate each other in a huge steamy explosion?)

Edited January 21, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Here is my revised signalling diagram.

Hampton Malstead 37 signalling.png

 

And lever allocations:

Hampton Malstead 37 levers.png

(Whoops! Lever 20 is the engine house entry signal. Lever 22 is supposed to be for the engine house siding exit ground disc.)

 

My research suggested that point indicators would probably have been replaced by independent ground discs by the time of this layout so I have made that change.

 

I've added an advanced starter (off-stage) to protect shunting movements.

 

I have a couple of questions for the experts (Mike!):

1. Do you think that the routes into the goods yard and the mileage siding need any more signalling than the small centre-pivot bracketed siding signal (4)? More discs?
2. Do you think that the route out of the run round loop and the goods sidings to the main line needs it's own starter signal?

[Edit: I'm just going to edit a couple if mistakes ad re-post.]

 

1. Is no problem as it stands (there was at least one prototype where the arm equivalent to No. 4 read to two routes.

2. In reality I think it's more likely that 12 & 13 would have been handpoints and there would be a single exit signal at the toe of No 6 (sidings end) which could be either a disc or you could have a Goods Line/Siding signal if you wanted to have one (i.er the sort with a ring on the arm.  IF you decided to keep 12 & 13 worked from the signalbox it would not be unreasonable to use a single disc applying to both lines instead of 16/17 but handpoints would be far more likely as they would make it far easier to shunt the yard - signalbox worked points are a darned nuisance in that sort of situation.

 

Occasional examples of point indicators on release crossovers definitely lasted until c.1960 although many must have gone when many places had signal alterations and lever frame renewal carried out in the 1930s.  But the main reason for installing them in the first place was to save levers so that might not appeal to you.

 

Incidentally No.1 is incorrectly numbered - signals applying in the same direction would be numbered together (to save walking up & down the frame) so it would have a number in the series around 18-20 or thereabouts.  simple answer would be to make No1. a spare (having previously worked the Distant Signal in the days before it was fixed at caution and if you convert 12 &13 to handpoints you only have to renumber above there. ideally you should try to group levers when numbering through points for shunt etc moves altthough taht isn't always possible because of running line signal numbering sequences.

 

 Thus for example - and trying to minimise changes, and bearing the alteration of 12 & 13 to hand points, an example would be like this

1 goes spare or space,

2 - 11 are unchanged

22 becomes 12,

20 becomes 13

14 & 15 are unchanged

New signal at 6 becomes 16

21 becomes 17

19 becomes 18

1 becomes 19

 

This leaves you scope - if you so wish - to adda a logically numbered (20) Shunt ahead arm below 19 although they were rare in older layouts at single line termini but they can look quite attractive so it almost becomes a case of doing something which does look prototypical but its actually added for 'appearance' reasons.  

Equally you could go really mad and use Lever No1 for a well offstage (outermost) Home Signal - which would be very unusual on an older GWR single lime terminus layout and serve absolutely no operational purpose whatsoever (I did say 'mad').  Adding the Shunt Ahead is just about explainable with a bit of mind stretching.

[Regularity]

Points 12 and 13 would be worked by hand, and you therefore don’t need discs 16,17 and 18, but one of the latter would be used to signal exits from the loop to the main, placed close to the loop end of crossover no 6. Or that could be a ringed arm, which on my understanding would be used for departures from the loop, absent no 1, the advance started - but I am not a GWR modeller (and gave always tried to do right and be good do that I won’t become one*).

 

I am not sure about the order of lever numbering. Also, you have a dot in the signal cabin to correctly denote it being worked by one signalman, but you haven’t drawn a bar to represent which side of the cabin is the frame.

 

I will leave all the questions to Mike!

 

* I quote Mark Twain, although he was referring to newspaper editors.

 

Edit: cross-posted with Mike, but he made much the same points.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Regularity

[The Stationmaster]

Does this mean that the pracice sometimes seen on model railway branch line termini, where a goods train arrives into the run round loop whilst the branch passenger sits in the platform road, is technically incorrect?

Very often it is incorrect.  Bodmin, mentioned by Miss P, was one exception which proved the rule and Fowey (although actually a through station of course) was another but generally it would have been contrary to the Regulations to accept a freight train towards a single line terminus with the points not set towards the principal platform line.  What could be done to get round that was to bring the arriving freight to a stand at the Home Signal and then change the points but in most cases that was a daft idea because the platform line provided the longest run round and it was the line from which the signalling was arranged to allow run round moves.

 

Rather different if a full on goods reception line was provided but they were only ever likely at stations with a lot of freight or mineral traffic and definitely not at the average country branch line terminus.

[Harlequin]

Thanks both. Yes I can see that points 12 and 13 should be handpoints now that part of the loop is effectively part of the goods yard (because of adding the mileage siding). I will revise.

[sigtech]

Hello Phil, I have been watching this little station develop, and it is increasingly resembling my own terminus 'Sproston'. I've included both my signalling diagram and its track layout for a comparison.( Both are drawn using "ANYRAIL" - so nowhere near as neat or professional as your versions ). The signalling design arrived at with the knowledgeable help and experience of Mike (Stationmaster).

My layout is 00 gauge BR WR/LMR 1956-1964 'somewhere' in Cheshire, but compressed further than yours due to available space.I decided to have a turntable as almost half my locos are small tender engines. The main "raison d'etre" for the layout is the creamery, dispatching two loaded milk tanks twice a day to the capital.

I have a blog on here if you're interested - click the link at the bottom to view it.

Finally I have a selfish request - as you have produced such marvellous drawings, is there any chance you could perhaps redraw my signalling and layout plans for me, - the present versions are very 'chunky' and clumsy,( obviously there's no hurry, as and when time and circumstances permit it)..if not then just say no.

 

Regards

(SIGTECH)

Steve,.

Edited January 21, 2018 by sigtech

[Harlequin]

OK, 'Yer 'Tiz: The absolutely final, definitive signalling diagram for Hampton Malstead station...

 

And lever allocations:

 

I didn't arrange things quite as Mike suggested but this looks and feels right now - much quieter than before!

 

[Harlequin]

Hello Phil, I have been watching this little station develop, and it is increasingly resembling my own terminus 'Sproston'. I've included both my signalling diagram and its track layout for a comparison.( Both are drawn using "ANYRAIL" - so nowhere near as neat or professional as your versions ). The signalling design arrived at with the knowledgeable help and experience of Mike (Stationmaster).

My layout is 00 gauge BR WR/LMR 1956-1964 'somewhere' in Cheshire, but compressed further than yours due to available space.I decided to have a turntable as almost half my locos are small tender engines. The main "raison d'etre" for the layout is the creamery, dispatching two loaded milk tanks twice a day to the capital.

I have a blog on here if you're interested - click the link at the bottom to view it.

Finally I have a selfish request - as you have produced such marvellous drawings, is there any chance you could perhaps redraw my signalling and layout plans for me, - the present versions are very 'chunky' and clumsy,( obviously there's no hurry, as and when time and circumstances permit it)..if not then just say no.

 

Regards

(SIGTECH)

Steve,.

 

Hi Steve,

 

In principle, yes, I'd be happy to have a go at a signalling diagram for you, time allowing. I'm not sure what I could add to your layout plans, though, because they very clearly show the basic design already. We could talk about them later, perhaps.

 

I'd need up to date info in some form. (The jpgs above might be enough but the more detail the better.) I have got a trial version of AnyRail installed but not sure how long it will last or what the restrictions are. If AnyRail outputs PDFs they would be useful.

 

I guess I'd do it in pseudo GWR signal box diagram form, like Hampton Malstead above, unless you want different. And I'd be able to give you PNG or JPEG at whatever size you want and a PDF version of the drawing.

 

We should either talk more offline or move this discussion to its own thread, or your layout thread or maybe my other thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

[clachnaharry]

Should the functions of levers 9 and 10 not be performed by a single lever as per lever 7?

[Harlequin]

Should the functions of levers 9 and 10 not be performed by a single lever as per lever 7?

The StationMaster says that each FPL should ideally have it's own lever because two FPLs on the same linkage was hard to keep adjusted.

 

Lever 7 only locks the facing point on the loop crossover because that's the only direction passenger traffic encounters it. The other end is not locked. The bay crossover has FPLs at both ends because passenger traffic encounters it in both directions.

[sigtech]

Hi Steve,

 

In principle, yes, I'd be happy to have a go at a signalling diagram for you, time allowing. I'm not sure what I could add to your layout plans, though, because they very clearly show the basic design already. We could talk about them later, perhaps.

 

I'd need up to date info in some form. (The jpgs above might be enough but the more detail the better.) I have got a trial version of AnyRail installed but not sure how long it will last or what the restrictions are. If AnyRail outputs PDFs they would be useful.

 

I guess I'd do it in pseudo GWR signal box diagram form, like Hampton Malstead above, unless you want different. And I'd be able to give you PNG or JPEG at whatever size you want and a PDF version of the drawing.

 

We should either talk more offline or move this discussion to its own thread, or your layout thread or maybe my other thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

Hello again Phil - That's all fine by me, The layout of Sproston was deliberately designed to use no more than 50 separate pieces of trackwork - which is the limit for the free downloadable versions of 'ANYRAIL'(I think I used Anyrail version 7 for the design),suggest moving this to your:  layout-design-in-illustration-software thread.

and a GWR style signalbox diagram is fine (just out of interest, is it possible to download this software for free? - to enable a design to be altered in the future to allow for later changes i'e renumbering of signals/ moving or replacing a doll on a bracket with a ground signal/replacing a straight post signal with a ground disc, etc? only asking as the signalling at Sproston is more what is available RTR rather that what is totally desirable with a combination of 7 Ratio ground signals,5 Dapol LQ and 3 Hornby UQ semaphores, meant to be a temporary measure (It achieves the result but is not 100% correct...)

Thank You for all your help, Regards

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

Edited January 22, 2018 by sigtech

[The Stationmaster]

Should the functions of levers 9 and 10 not be performed by a single lever as per lever 7?

 

Ideally not.  First they were a nuisance to adjust correctly but far more importantly it was far safer to use separate levers especially when any points or locking happened to be disconnected because it still allowed one end to be bolted properly if the other end was disconnected.  And the latter was the main reason why Reading Drawing Office staff were told not to do it although in later years there were occasional instances of it happening in order to minimise locking alterations when layouts were rationalised.

[Harlequin]

I'm not sure if the station building will be of independent origin or GWR yet but it's fun to doodle:

 

[sigtech]

Hello Phil - that's looking nice

 

- you obviously have a bit more room to play with than me for your 'edifice' - mine is the Peco 'Manyways' station and stationmasters house.

I like the idea of a 'tearoom'  did that come from Helston by any chance?

I have spent a fair bit of time recently studying 1950/60 photos of the terminus, especially its signalling, such a shame it was all closed. 

 

In case you were wondering, my username on here is a contraction of "Signalling Technician" my previous employment before retiring...

Regards,

(SIGTECH)

Steve..