Bradfield GS, Help requested re signalling scheme

[TheLaird]

I have reached the stage with Bradfield where I now need to install signalling. I have some ideas but would welcome the views of others who may know better!! I have drawn a track plan below to assist although it is a little blurred.

 

 

There are a lot of pictures of the layout in the thread under the layouts section of rmweb ( Bradfield GS ).

 

I intend to use semaphores as the period is 1955 to 1965 ish! I think that a lot of moves would be controlled by ground disks but I would like to use miniature arm shunt signals where possible because these are more visible to both operators and viewers. I think there should be a trap point at the exit from the centre station road. It is also worth bearing in mind that the carriage siding reception road used to be a branch line and would have been signalled, therefore the old signals may have been adapted and used. Would it be feasable for the carriage sidings to have there own ground frame??I use platforms 2 and 3 as A and B, would this require extra signalling on the visible part of the layout?? Platforms 2 and 3 are arrival whilst all three plus the centre road are used for departing. Only the odd light engine departs from the cs headshunt. The cs reception road is used as the headshunt for the station. Loco's are held on the up main just outside the tunnel before setting back onto trains in the platforms. Finally for now, what size of signal box would be required?

 

Loads of questions but are there any answers??

 

Regards, John E.

[TheLaird]

Thought these two shots of the throat may assist any budding S&T engineers!!

 

[The Stationmaster]

 

There are a lot of pictures of the layout in the thread under the layouts section of rmweb ( Bradfield GS ).

 

I intend to use semaphores as the period is 1955 to 1965 ish! I think that a lot of moves would be controlled by ground disks but I would like to use miniature arm shunt signals where possible because these are more visible to both operators and viewers. I think there should be a trap point at the exit from the centre station road. It is also worth bearing in mind that the carriage siding reception road used to be a branch line and would have been signalled, therefore the old signals may have been adapted and used. Would it be feasable for the carriage sidings to have there own ground frame??I use platforms 2 and 3 as A and B, would this require extra signalling on the visible part of the layout?? Platforms 2 and 3 are arrival whilst all three plus the centre road are used for departing. Only the odd light engine departs from the cs headshunt. The cs reception road is used as the headshunt for the station. Loco's are held on the up main just outside the tunnel before setting back onto trains in the platforms. Finally for now, what size of signal box would be required?

 

Loads of questions but are there any answers??

Regards, John E.

 

One or two answers, I hope. Fortunately the track layout is fairly simple (i.e. it is basically prototypical offering understandable moves which are relatively easy to signal - good start that). So

1. I would suggest that the Down Main Home Signal is beyond the bridge as it would be very difficult to site and sight on the 'visible layout side of the bridge.

2. You will however need ground disc with a stencil route indicator to make shunts back towards the platforms from the toe of the crossover in the Up Main - those with greater Midland/LMR expertise than me might be able to explain a miniature arm semaphore into that position but I think probably not - it has to be a disc I reckon.

3. The platform start ng signals for every platform are simple - a main running arm reading to the Up Main and below that and to its right a small semaphore arm reading to the CL Reception - the lack of space suggests a gantry spanning Platforms 1 -2 with a doll carrying two miniature arms for that centre siding (which definitely lacks a trap point - add a wide-to-gauge dummy trap for that). Gantry would best I think be LMS Pratt truss pattern but you could use a wooden Midland style instead. Straight post/bracket for platform 3.

4. From the CL Headshunt a miniature arm semaphore - 2 arms arranged one above the other. That connection needs to be protected in the opposite direction as moves are made towards it from the Carr.Sdgs - miniature arm semaphore to provide much better sighting than a ground disc.

5. Point leading towards the Carr Sdgs or CL Reception in the shunting line either a yellow arm disc, or even a yellow arm miniature semaphore or a 2 arm (red) minature semaphore.

6. Reading from CL Reception - have some fun, miniature semaphore arms on a tubular steel post replacing the old branch Home Signal - 5 arms!!

Hope that helps and of course I shall be at Members' Day to chat through and explain exactly this sort of thing

[TheLaird]

Well Mike, that certainly cut the discussion short. Many thanks for your comprehensive reply, most of your points correspond with comments I have received through other means. I have started a thread on the signalbox forum as well.

 

Regarding your points;-

1 - Agreed

2 - What is a stencil indicator?

3 - This is complicated by the old branch line idea and that the old signals may have been converted into shunt signals. Also, the thought seems to be that the centre road exit should be ground discs! Trap point agreed though.

4 and 5 - I need a bit of clarification on.

6 - I also thought about a mechanical theatre route indicator here, again left over from the old branch signalling. What do you think?

 

Anyway, it would be good to meet and talk through some of these points at the members day so please say hello.

 

John

[The Stationmaster]

Well Mike, that certainly cut the discussion short. Many thanks for your comprehensive reply, most of your points correspond with comments I have received through other means. I have started a thread on the signalbox forum as well.

 

Glad to have been of some help John. I don't claim to be an expert on Midland Railway into LMS into BR (NER I think?) signalling changes but gave you what I think would best suit your operational circumstances for the period you are modelling. I used to be very active on The Signalbox site but haven't visited for sometime although I'm still occasionally in touch with John Hinson. Hence I haven't got much idea about the 'modelling' section on there so I will keep my thoughts in that respect to myself (for a variety of resaons).

 

 

Regarding your points;-

1 - Agreed

2 - What is a stencil indicator?

All being well I shall be attaching a pic below showing an LM pattern stencil indicator (the little 'box' at the foot of the signal - taken, coincidentally, at Stafford) and hopefully I shall have with me at Members' Day - in some form or another - a picture of an LM stencil arrangement for serving multiple routes.

 

3 - This is complicated by the old branch line idea and that the old signals may have been converted into shunt signals. Also, the thought seems to be that the centre road exit should be ground discs! Trap point agreed though.

As mentioned above I'm not entirely familiar with what particular prototype history might have done at your location and practice did vary. I based my answer on the fact that you intend to use the centre road for departing movements - it isn't just a shunting/runround facility. Therefore it ought to have miniature semaphore arms and not discs. There was often of course a prototype difference between 'ought to have' and 'actually had' and in this respect photos of similar lines used in a similar way in the same area and with the same history of ownership are often a very good (but not necessarily definitive) guide. The good thing is whichever way you do it could be right, but equally whichever way you do it might be criticised by someone. If in trouble over it you could, I'm sure, easily write a suitable story to explain away why you have done it in the way you have.

 

 

4 and 5 - I need a bit of clarification on.

I started from the premise of what I would call 'practical railway work' taking into account how the lines involved would be used in the time leading up to the period you are modelling (and quite likely even before that). Thus I went for the point giving access to the fan of three carriage sidings being hand worked by the Shunters as it would give them maximum flexibility and not involve time shouting to & from the Signalman or involve the Signalman in extra work (= potentially cost more money because it would mean him being paid more as a result).

 

However the connection from the CL Headshunt towards the main lines obviously has to be signalled, sighting reasons clearly demand a miniature semaphore instead of discs (possibly elevated discs could be used?) and there are two obvious routes - hence two arms. There is third, now less obvious, route to the former branch avoiding the carriage sidings but I discounted it on the basis that there should be no need to start towards the branch from there for something out of the Carriage Sidings - it would have left at the direct connection onto the branch clear of the main lines. You however might w ant to provide that third route or even model the signal post with one arm taken away?

 

Going on from there you clearly need a signal to read out of the carriage sidings shunting line (as I have termed it) towards the CL Headshunt and a miniature semaphore provides the best sighting for that. What would also happen in all probablility is that the opposing interlocking would be omitted between that signal and the one reading from the CL Headshunt towards the Carriage Sidings thus leaving the Shunters and their loco to carry on to their hearts' content until it was necessary to make a move into or out of the Carriage Sidings.

 

At the other end of that shunting line the connection to the CL Reception was obviously once the connection into the branch line and as such would sensibly be left worked by the signalbox. It then needs a suitable signal to read towards the CL Reception and the best answetr is to provide a yellow arm disc signal, or a very very very rarely modelled yellow arm miniature semaphore as this means the connection/crossover remains normally set toward the other carriage siding and, as at the other end, the Shunters can carry on without reference to the Signalman until a movement is needed into or out of the CL Reception. You could use 'red arm signal ' here but I reckon they would have been taken away at first opportunity even if they had been there before the branch closed, after all the LMS was using yellow arms back in the 1930s.

 

6 - I also thought about a mechanical theatre route indicator here, again left over from the old branch signalling. What do you think?

You could well do so - either Midland Railway or LMS pattern (although I suspect that in reality the NERegion - if they did takeover - would have got shot of it as quickly as they could).

Anyway, it would be good to meet and talk through some of these points at the members day so please say hello.

John

 

Well I should be there ready to talk and illustrate this sort of thing with anyone who approaches my table (well I hope Andy is giving me a table).

[jamie92208]

I'm currently buiding an MR station in early LMS days but have plenty of photos of the layout at closure in the mid 60's. At least two of the places where you would expect discs there were miniature semaphores on posts that were about 8' high. I suspect this may have been so that the indication could be seen easily from the box but they were around. Also where there were two or more possible moves from a disc there were sometimes several discs stacked on top of each other (up to 3) but not always. 1 move which could either be a shunt into a bay platform or across into the goods yard. According to a retired driver one disc controlled both moves and they relied on crew knowledge to make sure they were making the right move. This was easier than you would think as one was an empty passenger move and the other goods.

 

I suppose the point that I'm making is that there are no really ahrd and fast rules and that things were adapted to local circumstances.

 

Jamie

[TheLaird]

Right, holidays and things are now over so back to the serious things in life. I have had a chance to ponder all the suggestions and do some more reading over the summer months and I now have a good idea of what I am going to do.

 

1. A channel beam gantry over the exit to P1, centre rd and P2. With starter and subsidiary for each line.

2. A single post starter with subsidiary bracket on P3.

3. Loco release crossovers operated locally by ground frame with electric release from signal box, hand signalled.

4. Setting back from up main controlled by ground disc and stencil indicator (unless someone tells me these were not around at the time!!)

5. A banner repeater at the tunnel entrance for the advanced starter at the other end.

6. Ground disc (yellow) for the release crossover from the cs headshunt in the up direction.

7. The big question is still the cs reception/departure. I still favour a shunt signal with a route indicator and a ground disc in the opposite direction from the cs.

 

So comments would be gratefully received preferably before I start building!!

 

Regards John E.

[The Stationmaster]

Right, holidays and things are now over so back to the serious things in life. I have had a chance to ponder all the suggestions and do some more reading over the summer months and I now have a good idea of what I am going to do.

 

1. A channel beam gantry over the exit to P1, centre rd and P2. With starter and subsidiary for each line.

2. A single post starter with subsidiary bracket on P3.

3. Loco release crossovers operated locally by ground frame with electric release from signal box, hand signalled.

4. Setting back from up main controlled by ground disc and stencil indicator (unless someone tells me these were not around at the time!!)

5. A banner repeater at the tunnel entrance for the advanced starter at the other end.

6. Ground disc (yellow) for the release crossover from the cs headshunt in the up direction.

7. The big question is still the cs reception/departure. I still favour a shunt signal with a route indicator and a ground disc in the opposite direction from the cs.

 

So comments would be gratefully received preferably before I start building!!

 

Regards John E.

 

John,

The only ones which concern me out of all that is No.6 and the ground disc you propose in part of No.7. Dealing with the latter first I do wonder about sighting problems if a disc signal were to be used and suspect a miniature semaphore would have been more likely for that reason.

As far as No.6 is concerned my 'concern' with using a yellow disc (which would be quite legitimate) centres solely around the way the job would be worked. A yellow arm disc implies that operationally the line it reads from (i.e. the CS Headshunt in this case) is well and truly under the control if the shunting staff on the ground and leaves them responsible for all moves over that line - which would by implication include any movement made through the release crossover from Platform 3 (for which the Signalman would have to obtain their permission and which they would have to be there to deal with as it approaches the yellow arm disc). This does put something of an onus on the Signalman as every time a loco needs to be released he needs to get hold of the Shunter to obtain his permission to use 'his' (the Shunter's) siding. This led me towards my original suggestion for signalling the up direction release crossover which put it firmly under the control of the Signalman (and opposing signals could be left 'off' for shunting) although there is then an onus on the Signalman to get the shunting off the siding if he wants it for a runround.

 

The rest of it is great in my view.

[TheLaird]

Thanks again Mike for your thoughts. I agree with your point on item 7, a miniature arm would be better. Regarding item 6 I am still mulling it over. Some time ago you mentioned that you had a picture of an LMS stencil indicator for multiple routes, it would be most helpful if I could see it!!

 

In the meantime I have been drawing up the proposed Signals and will publish them here for comments. First up is the channel beam gantry that will span P1 and the stn Loop with starters and subsidiaries signalling access to the CS Reception.

 

[beast66606]

Just (re) spotted this, I did watch the discussions here and in the other forum but kept out.

 

I'm not convinced a gantry is appropriate, imho the signal on P1 could be several feet nearer to the fouling point if it was a straight post, the centre siding is likely to be a 2-armed tall siding signal and the P2 signal would also be a straight post.- this permutation maximises the length of trains which could stand in the platforms

 

hth

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks again Mike for your thoughts. I agree with your point on item 7, a miniature arm would be better. Regarding item 6 I am still mulling it over. Some time ago you mentioned that you had a picture of an LMS stencil indicator for multiple routes, it would be most helpful if I could see it!!

Sorry John - I missed that. The electric version is exactly like the one you see above with the shunt disc only a multiple of them stacked one above the other - one for each route. I have got a pic but I haven't (still) got a scanner. I've also - if I can find it - got a pic of an early LMS mechanical one which as it was at Derby was probably either of or a close relative to a Midland Railway design. The first problem on that is running the pic or negative to earth but I will look once the weather drives me away from civil engineering in the garden.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not convinced a gantry is appropriate, imho the signal on P1 could be several feet nearer to the fouling point if it was a straight post, the centre siding is likely to be a 2-armed tall siding signal and the P2 signal would also be a straight post.- this permutation maximises the length of trains which could stand in the platforms

Dave I agree absolutely with your point about being able to move the platform starters up towards/to the Fouling Point and also your comment about the signal for the centre road (which I've an idea was as I originally suggested) but whatever happens with the signal for the centre road I'm fairly sure there's no room to erect a signal post in the 6foot either side of it so the gantry seems the only option for that whatever happens on the platform lines. And there could of course always be a Local Instruction for trains standing/starting in advance of fixed signals (and it wouldn't the first one )

[beast66606]

Dave I agree absolutely with your point about being able to move the platform starters up towards/to the Fouling Point and also your comment about the signal for the centre road (which I've an idea was as I originally suggested) but whatever happens with the signal for the centre road I'm fairly sure there's no room to erect a signal post in the 6foot either side of it so the gantry seems the only option for that whatever happens on the platform lines. And there could of course always be a Local Instruction for trains standing/starting in advance of fixed signals (and it wouldn't the first one )

 

Yes, sorry Mike I mean to add you'd already mentioned the centre road, I think I would probably use ground signals for the centre road given the lack of space - and yes, if the signals were foul they wouldn't be the first and the instructions sometimes only appeared when two trains tested clearance (New Brighton on the Wirral being an example of that)

[TheLaird]

Dave, thanks for your response, Leander said that you might be able to help out with this. Mike, I was beginning to think you had abandoned me! I suppose it is that time of year when other things intrude.

 

Regarding the gantry, there are three factors that made me go for it:-

1. The fouling points for all three lines are at the same point. It's not obvious from the plan but P1 and Centre road foul each other at the same point and P2 fouls the exit from P3 at this point also.

2. The clearance between P1, centre rd and P2 lines are too tight for post signals. I am pushing it even for the gantry support. As centre rd is used for departing trains, I thought I needed a proper starter.

3. The gantry seemed to provide the best sighting option. I kept the dolls as short as poss to bring the arms as near to drivers eye view as poss. Putting the P2 signals on the gantry saved the cost of erecting a post.

 

From a modelling point of view, making the gantry operate is not the easy option but at least it will be visible to full size drivers and viewers alike.

 

That concludes the case for the defence, I await the verdict!!!

 

John E.

[beast66606]

Dave, thanks for your response, Leander said that you might be able to help out with this. Mike, I was beginning to think you had abandoned me! I suppose it is that time of year when other things intrude.

 

I tend to adopt the policy that if someone who knows what they are talking about is helping, there is no point in me simply adding "indeed" type comments, and StationMaster is very well versed in signalling and operation.

 

Regarding the gantry, there are three factors that made me go for it:-

1. The fouling points for all three lines are at the same point. It's not obvious from the plan but P1 and Centre road foul each other at the same point and P2 fouls the exit from P3 at this point also.

 

Ok, no problem, I was looking at your photos rather than the plan, I probably should have discussed this at members day but I was on our layout all day.

 

2. The clearance between P1, centre rd and P2 lines are too tight for post signals. I am pushing it even for the gantry support. As centre rd is used for departing trains, I thought I needed a proper starter.

 

The departures are not passenger so a miniature arm would suffice, a main arm would not be wrong (signalling, apart from blatant silliness, doesn't have many wrongs, there were some very peculiar signalling installations out there on the big railway which justify lots of things BUT, like modelling a leaning signal, it tends to look "silly" when modelled that way, as it's not the norm, and if the model is fictitious its better to keep with the local trends, saying that I haven;t looked at the signalling around the MR lines at Bradford, I probably should !)

 

3. The gantry seemed to provide the best sighting option. I kept the dolls as short as poss to bring the arms as near to drivers eye view as poss. Putting the P2 signals on the gantry saved the cost of erecting a post.

 

Sighting would not be a major issue when starting from terminal platforms, the speeds are low and the drivers know each line has a starter.

 

You could use a straight post for P1 and a left hand bracket for the siding / P2, two dolls, same height, main and shunt on each (or two shunts on the left hand doll if you go with the siding signal approach)

 

From a modelling point of view, making the gantry operate is not the easy option but at least it will be visible to full size drivers and viewers alike.

 

But worth it in the end ..

 

That concludes the case for the defence, I await the verdict!!!

 

John E.

 

Guilty

 

My gut feeling is the gantry is not suitable BUT it nots a definite "No" so go with it, you have to build it

[TheLaird]

Thanks Dave, I am just preparing for the exhibition this weekend so hopefully we can carry on with this thread next week.

 

John E.

[The Stationmaster]

Dave, thanks for your response, Leander said that you might be able to help out with this. Mike, I was beginning to think you had abandoned me! I suppose it is that time of year when other things intrude.

 

Regarding the gantry, there are three factors that made me go for it:-

1. The fouling points for all three lines are at the same point. It's not obvious from the plan but P1 and Centre road foul each other at the same point and P2 fouls the exit from P3 at this point also.

2. The clearance between P1, centre rd and P2 lines are too tight for post signals. I am pushing it even for the gantry support. As centre rd is used for departing trains, I thought I needed a proper starter.

3. The gantry seemed to provide the best sighting option. I kept the dolls as short as poss to bring the arms as near to drivers eye view as poss. Putting the P2 signals on the gantry saved the cost of erecting a post.

 

From a modelling point of view, making the gantry operate is not the easy option but at least it will be visible to full size drivers and viewers alike.

 

That concludes the case for the defence, I await the verdict!!!

 

John E.

I still prefer two miniature arms for the centre road - but that is my preference and I obviously don't have any knowledge of the original site so starange things could happen (and often did). As far as the gantry is concerned my view is that it fits well with the atmosphere you are seeking to create so I go along with it on that basis if no other (and I think it could well have been exactly like that at a similar prototype). When applying signalling to a layout I think the modeller has several things he should be aiming for - firstly to try to do it correctly (in so far as scalling and selective compression allow) and without any stupid errors, secondly to use credible signal forms in credible locations, and thirdly to use signalling whenever possible to give a sense of place and atmosphere/era. Thus there will inevitably be some bending of prototypical purity (whatever that might be in the semaphore era) to achieve all those aims in the space modellers have available and allowing them some artistry.

[TheLaird]

Having got a few minor distractions out of the way, such as a bathroom to fit, hot weather, an exhibition to attend and a small article to write for a new e-mag, I have re energised the S&T Team. I obviously misunderstood Mikes original comments about the exit from the centre road and have now amended the drawing. I think I will stick with the gantry idea as it seems no more complicated than building two brackets. It may also be a bit stronger. So below is hopefully the final design. I await comments with baited breath!!

 

[The Stationmaster]

Having got a few minor distractions out of the way, such as a bathroom to fit, hot weather, an exhibition to attend and a small article to write for a new e-mag, I have re energised the S&T Team. I obviously misunderstood Mikes original comments about the exit from the centre road and have now amended the drawing. I think I will stick with the gantry idea as it seems no more complicated than building two brackets. It may also be a bit stronger. So below is hopefully the final design. I await comments with baited breath!!

John, I like it (very much ), and sorry if I did not make things clearer in an earlier post.

[beast66606]

Works Ok, but *personally* I think two straight posts (main + sub), one on each of the platforms and a double armed tall siding signal where the right hand leg of the gantry is positioned, ie to the right of the relevant line, would be provided but nothing wrong with this solution.

 

Good luck with the build.

[TheLaird]

Hi Dave, is this what you had in mind?

[beast66606]

Hi Dave, is this what you had in mind?

 

Indeed

[TheLaird]

Can you explain why it is ok for the signals to be on the right? I thought they had to be on the left!!

 

Also, why the subsidiaries don't need bracketing out to the right?

 

And why does every answer generate more questions !!!!!!!!!!!

[beast66606]

Can you explain why it is ok for the signals to be on the right? I thought they had to be on the left!!

 

It's quite common for terminal stations to have the platform starters actually on the platform to which they refer. Plenty of signals weren't on the left, sometimes they were bracketed to bring them "more" to the left but sometimes they were simple straight post signals on the wrong side of the line, on a left hand bend for example.

 

Also, why the subsidiaries don't need bracketing out to the right?

 

Not all subs are bracketed, space considerations, for example - on a platform the bracket would be more for passengers to "play" with, as drawn they are simple wires to the arms.

 

And why does every answer generate more questions !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Shall I stop answering then ? oops that's another question

[Trevellan]

I don't wish to derail the very interesting signalling debate, but I'd just like to say how much I like this layout. I missed the earlier posts and pictures, but it has a really good feel to it. The scissors crossover with double slip entries is a very brave move!

 

I'm pleased to see Beast is on the ball. At least you know you're getting sound advice. Rumour has it that he has mechanical interlocking on his fridge door...