Dale

Nice idea but my partner in crime wants to be able to use that crossover for an engine to run around its coaching stock whilst a second engine can continue to shunt the yard. Goods trains arrive on the platform road. The train engine shunts the brake van out of the way, into the cattle dock or engine release if using the first crossover, or any siding it likes if using the second. It can then propel the goods train into any of the goods sidings by using the outer crossover. And thus the platform is quickly cleared for passenger action.

Thanks for all the input folks and I can certainly appreciate the comments about the middle cross over but the track is already laid as per my initial drawing. This is an existing layout to which I am trying to add as prototypical signalling as both the plan and the operational intent will allow for. I am sure modellers licence will need to be applied in spades but such is life, i'm OK with that. D.

Is this looking any better then? I admit i remain confused. Should there be a shunt signal at all three points of a turnout? Edit: 1930's LNER, ex NER So the signal at the far right of the headshunt should be a small-arm semaphore being painted yellow with a black stripe? That allows you to pass either to that stub siding or out onto the main running line?

Hi folks, Would any of the fine folk of RM Web be able to offer me some guidance on where the ground signals should be placed on the attached layout plan. The semaphore's seem straight forward - each platform has a starter and out to the right is a home for the main platform and a bracket with the home for the bay road. Its the pesky ground signals that is confusing me. I am also unsure how they work, The bracket home makes sense. Its either all stop, proceed ahead or proceed left to the bay road, but the NER ground signals I have to control shunting are either stop or go... so how do you know which way on a crossing your being routed? I have already spotted a place where there should be a ground signal - coming off the loco shed. Confused.com... Cheers, D.

How about this for a development? This put's the TT in the same orientation as Nailsworth. That sits well with me, as the plan is to be a taste of the area, not a faithful copy of Dursley. This plan puts the TT area into local context at least. Thoughts? D

Thanks Stephen, That link opened up a whole world of fun. Certainly food for thought. My TT is 50', the London Road Models kit so not prototypical but it's what i have. I can also turn 2MT moguls with it which is a boon. I was tempted to sit my Metalsmiths 65' Cowans in as its already made but thats stretching believability a touch too far.... When I have some time I will review the TT based on Nailsworth and see if there are any advantages in design to be gained. D.

I have been trying to upload a couple of images over the last few days and neither the old or advanced uploader allows me to complete the upload. Both types seem to stream the image to you but then hang at the end. Odd. Any thoughts?

A wise man once told me that having a direct line onto the turntable was a bit of a No No, I imagine from a safety point of view? So I have set the little headshunt and kick back point to the TT to avoid the runaway troublesome trucks ending up in the well. I am only as clever as my last instructions so in any plans I play with I have always avoided direct TT access. I think it's really starting to look like a nice little train set. I have been playing around with the semi Dursley layout for years now and even cut timber, only to send it to my mate's log burner. I think this looks like a good mix of play, fealty to the prototype and scenic setting. Just need to get off this bl00dy rig, get my chunky self back home and make a start! D.

Thanks for your response and help folks, it's greatly appreciated. D.

Bump

Another question has wriggled it's way to the fore front of my mind - the second goods shed.... now Listers had it's own sidings a little further down the line from our scene, where I would imagine raw materials and finished items were handled, so what was going on at the second shed toward the rear of the layout? For my purposes, this shed could be for 'Listers goods', as it offers a diverse range of stock and the ability to reach in from the back scene to load/unload wagons, but I do wonder what happened at the real site? Perhaps the Mawdsley's traffic went through one shed and Listers through the other? D.

Solid point Quentin. Does this seem better? I certainly think so. Its not really much of a step away from the real location but the headshunt and TT add a lot of play value. Who is to say, if Listers had grown more, that it may not have been a viable option so 4F's etc could be turned when running in from Gloucester... Close to the real thing but a few little addition's makes it Dursley Mills and not Dursley. D.

Taking on board the comments so far, I have come up with this development. personally i like it, it looks natural and breathes more than some of the previous efforts but as always, i welcome and comments. D.

Dursley had a ground frame, one engine in steam stuff. There is no need for a signal box in this version sadly. I do think a signal box and some working signals adds a lot but it was ground frame and token on the real thing. I am not sure if there could even be a signal box here if 'modellers licence' was introduced. With a 2 1/2 mile branchline with only one engine on it, putting a signal box in and staffing it would clearly be job creation for the boys... the station masters nephew wasn't the sharpest tool in the box but he needed a job, now his sister was expecting their first... Bet they wished they had stayed in the FofD

looking at the plan, it would make more sense to reverse the Quag Bridge scene to put the houses at the front of the track. A mill (version of Woodman's mill?) could be used to scene block the exit to the fiddle yard?