Echini

As I work in 00 gauge, I am quite jealous of those who work in 0 gauge! However, even with a 0.2mm nozzle, 3D printing in 4mm works very well for things like wooden poles and bases although I have had to use Wizard for semaphore arms and balance arms. It is even possible to print the poles with a 2mm hole up the middle for the wires for the signal lamp. I have also 3D printed ground disc signals just 10mm high with working balance arm and light.

I bought a small 3D printer from Amazon and made my own bases and signal poles. I then used Wizard parts for things like the semaphore arms and balance arms. See details under "Signals". I agree that Wizard don't always have photos but I did find that they were very helpful when I phoned them to try to find what I was looking for. While my signals are 00 gauge, one of the nice things about 3D printing is that you can scale it in "Cura", 3D slicing program. Happy to share the files for the wooden single signal or the wooden junction signal. Regards Robin

Been working on designing and 3D printing the Signal Box lever chassis. Each lever has its own chassis, which holds the lever, link and micro switch. Each chassis takes over two hours to print, so printing ten of them has taken a while. For the time being, the lever is unlocked by lifting it and locked by dropping it into the groove at either end of its travel.. The resulting set of levers correctly reflects the Hayling Island Signal Box and their interlocking. As each lever has a micro switch, all the signals can be driven from the levers. The two points can switch the Cobalt IP Digital points using the left/common/right terminals on the micro switch. As the two FPL levers must be used to release the points to change, their micro switches will interrupt the common of the appropriate point switch so that there is always a gap between the change from one side to the other as seen by the IP Digital Motor. Been giving some thought to how best to mount the levers on the layout. Luckily, there is a place where a control panel used to be, before I made a new one for the whole layout, and it overlooks the points and signals controlled by the diminutive Hayling Signal Box. So, I think that it will work well built in to that space. Tried it and it fits perfectly. The signals here are the old "dumb£ ones from Hornby, soon to be replaced by working signals. Clearly, I will need to do something cosmetic to hide the woodwork but the position is perfect for controlling the station and its approaches. The levers are wired to two Megapoints servo boards, which provides "bounce" for the signals. The points will be wired directly to terminals 7, 8 & 9 of the Cobalt IP Digital motors - with the FPL levers providing an interrupt between changes. I understand from DCC Concepts that it is not a problem for the 7/8 or 8/9 switching to be constant (rather than momentary) so long as the change from one side to the other is not instantaneous. Using the FPL (which must be reversed before the point can be changed) to interrupt the "common", will ensure that there is always a gap between the change from one side to the other. The down home junction signal for Hayling, the two up starting signals and the advanced starter signal are coming on but in the last week I have been concentrating on the two ground signals. I acquired a copy of "The Pictorial Record of Southern Signals" by G. Pryor, published by Oxford Press. The book is a great source of information including many photographs, diagrams and specifications. They also do a similar book on the LNER, not sure if they do other areas I copied the diagram of a typical Southern ground signal from the book and scaled it to be exactly ten times 1/76th scale - so that 1 cm on the diagram equals 1mm for the model. Wow! It is small! After about ten versions produced on the 3D printer, trying to get the angles, sizes and internal passages right, I finally produced something that seems to work. As with the other signals that I am building, all the bearings are 1mm OD tube with an 0.5mm ID and with 0.4mm rod running inside. This gives quite a stable axel despite the fact that some of the bearings are only 2.5mm long. The light is a DCC Concepts engine lamp mounted in the top of the signal. The plate and arm are Wizard etched brass and the base is a standard base that I have created for all the signals that will fit flush into a 25mm hole in the baseboard. The base contains the servo, it can also house two servos for a junction signal. While the hole in the baseboard is quite large, it does mean that the whole unit can be dropped in from above without having to hook up servos or anything else (apart from long cables) underneath the baseboard afterwards. Finally, this morning, I managed to get one up and running. Lever 7 on the signal box is a push/pull that controls two ground signals, so I hooked the new ground signal up to lever 7 pull and it worked fine. I did make a video, but it was too large to upload, so this is a still of the signal. The signal is just 10mm high. The servo works brilliantly with a pause as the lever is pulled and a bounce as the lever is returned. Regards Echini

HI Bill, I have a similar problem in that I am trying to model several specific signals and, although the Dapol ones are brilliant, they are not the ones that I want. The cost is also a factor. So, I am building my own with the help of a small 3D printer. They include a wooden junction signal, but in my case in 00 gauge. I found great detail in a book by Oxford Press - "A Pictorial Record of Souther Signals" by G. Pryor (available on Amazon). Along with a wealth of detail, this book included two photographs of the actual junction signal at Hayling Island that I am modelling! I know that they do a version for LNER Signals, not sure if they do one specifically for the GWR - but I would thoroughly recommend these books for their great detail, photos and diagrams. I envy you working in 0 gauge, I am also building working ground signals, which are only 10mm high! Good luck Robin

Hayling Island Signals. Continuing my work on Hayling Island signals, I wanted to see if I could build an effective interlocking system that could operate the signals in a realistic way based upon the 1957 plan. The first thing that I did was to create a simple Excel spreadsheet to simulate the interlocking for the ten levers. Initially I needed six cross bars but gradually managed to get that down to only four bars. The next problem was to work out how to build the physical interlocking system. After a lot of research, I decided that the best solution was 3D printing and acquired a Monoprice Select Mini V2 3D printer. It can print up to a 120mm cube, so only relatively small parts, but certainly enough for my needs. It was also not expensive. Creating each part is a three step process. The first step is to design the part in 3D. I used FreeCAD, a 3D CAD system that is free to download and quite easy to use for the simple kind of parts that I needed. The final design has to be exported to a special .stl file, which is then opened in a “slicing” program that creates a further .gcode file that tells the printer how to print the part. Cura is another free to download program that seems to be the most popular “slicing” program, which is very intuitive to use. After reading the manual, watching several YouTube videos, and carefully levelling the base plate, I designed and printed the base of the interlocking system. Because of the size of the base, I printed it in two pieces that would interlock together. The print process is very precise and also takes quite a lot of time. The base part took over three hours. With a second part created, the two could be fitted together to make a base for ten levers and four bars. The next step was to design and print the lever tappets with notches in the appropriate places. Finally the four cross bars were designed and printed. The parts could then be assembled and tested. Of course, it was never as simple as that as the first test highlighted a couple of issues where the interlocking was not correct. This illustrated the strength of 3D printing as all I had to do was redesign the specific incorrect part and re-print it. I also found that Home signals could still be set if point 6 was set against them, this was solved by adding a second layer (under the square block) providing an interlock between levers 6 and 7. While this may not be the simplest interlocking possible, it does work and provides all the interlocking protection required and indicated in the 1957 plan. Previous discussion on this forum indicated that levers 1 and 4 provided direction control for up or down trains. My reading of the plan is that levers 1 and 4 lock points 5 and 6 both as normal and reversed and so they are symmetrical. The only lever that is clearly directional is lever 7 where 7 pull provides for down trains and 7 mid for up trains. 7 push requires point 6 to be reversed and logically requires that all other signals are off. The next step was to start work on a design for the lever chassis and the levers themselves to include micro switches so that the unit can drive the actual signals and points. The easiest design was to create ten individual modules so that levers, switches and links can be installed as you go and then the ten units bolted together. This was the first attempt and I have just redesigned it to give the microswitch sufficient clearance and one or two other minor adjustments. Unfortunately I am away from home for a few days – so it will be a week or so before I can re-print it along with a prototype lever! More to come. All the best, Echini.

Does anyone have any reference manuals/books that refer to the manufacturer or type of interlocking frame at Hayling? The space would have been very limited for the interlocking frame. Would there be a frame interlocking or Dog chart anywhere on record?

Thanks for the reply Railwest. Unfortunately three levers for 7Pull would not work as the "routes" in the simulation are based upon the signals, not the levers. That doesn't particularly worry me because with the interlocking as per the simulation, 7Pull will only be at "Stop" if 7Push is reversed or signal 8 the Up Advanced Starter is reversed - in all other situations 7Pull can be reversed - or at "safe to proceed" (except technically if all ten levers are normal). So, in looking at building a working lever set, rather then complicate the physical interlocking, which is difficult enough anyway, it seems easier to control 7Pull electrically and to stick with lever 7 controlling 7Push. The general idea is to build a control box with a working set of levers and interlocking, which provides an electrical output that, in turn, works servos under the model signal box to move the levers in the box and work the signals and points through wires and rodding. Quite a challenge! In looking at the multiple routes for 7Pull, I was more concerned with how it actually worked in practice - it would have required a "conversation" between the engine driver and the signalman on each occasion to make sure that the engine ended up in the right place. Although I am sure that the "conversation" would have been no more that a gesture over time!

I found some very interesting free software called SigScribe4 at Modratec.com, which allows you to build a layout with signals, points and FPLs and then allocate levers in a signal frame to each. You then allocate routes for each signal and the software will calculate the resulting locking. You can then run simulations tyo check that the locking is as expected. Within this software, I built the Hayling Island signal plan with the ten levers from the small signal box. The result was as follows: This illustrates the position of the levers for the No. 2 Road Down Home. The "L" and "F" below the levers indicates if they are Locked or Free. Lever 7 controls the 7Push ground signal, but the system does not allow for a Push/Pull lever. That was not a problem as I just used Lever No. 11 for 7Pull. However, that would not work because the simulation will only allow one route based on any one signal. 7Pull is reversed for both No. 1 Road Down Home and No. 2 Road Down Home according to the Hayling mechanical locking chart. In addition, if the siding points and catch point No. 6 is reversed, then logically 7Pull and 7Push will be free to be able to indicate if the engine is either cleared to leave the sidings (7Push into the frame) or to go into the sidings (7Pull out of the frame). That means that for 7Pull out of the frame at "Safe to proceed", there are no less than three possible routes behind the signal. When running round the carriages, the engine would go past 7Push (into the frame), over the points at 6 reversed and then stop before going back past 7Pull (out of the frame) over points at 6 normal onto No.2 Road to reconnect to the carriages. The bracket signals carrying the two Down Home signals is 118 yards beyond the 7Pull ground signal and they certainly never went that far. So, there would be nothing (other than routine) indicating to the driver which of the three possible routes was being cleared by 7Pull. Bearing in mind that on occasion, in addition to going onto the No. 2 Road to reconnect to the carriages, the engine might go back into the sidings to pick up trucks or it might shunt the whole train back into No.1 Road and the bay platform to await the arrival of the next train from Havant. That seems to be unusual and it does not seem surprising that the Modratec software would not allow it. Other that that, the simulation works correctly and it is capable of simulating very much larger and complex layouts. It also appears that Modratec will build the required levers and locking for you for a price!

It appears that originally the two starters were both lower quadrant. The change to upper quadrant seems to have been made in December 1959 (per Railwest on this forum).

Just found this picture of the two Down Home signals and the Up Advanced Starter taken in 1963 just before the closure. Regards Echini

Hi Martin, When they were busy, the Hayling Branch ran two trains in each direction per hour using three engines. A train would be waiting in the Bay platform at Hayling as another train arrived from Havant with the staff. The train in the Bay platform would take the staff and leave immediately for Havant. The engine at Hayling would run round its coaches and pick up coal from the coal stand, then it would shunt its carriages into the Bay platform. Meanwhile the train that arrived at Havant would disconnect from its coaches and pull forward to the water point. A third engine would have been waiting on the run around loop and it would pull forward and pick up the coaches from the Havant platform along with the staff and head off to Hayling, where the whole process was repeated. This was how they managed two trips each way in an hour with a single journey time of 13 to 14 minutes! They only stopped at the intermediate stations every other trip. So, in normal operations, they would not have needed to use tickets. However, at the start and end of the day, tickets would have been needed. On busy days, they would typically arrive at Havant from Fratton with three engines and the coaches that they needed but, because of weight restrictions, they could not take two engines across the bridge so, to get both trains to Hayling to start the sequence, they would have had to use the ticket system. This is a picture of two engines arriving at Havant from Fratton with the coaches for the day. Similarly, at the end of the day, they would have needed a ticket to get both trains back to Havant. Three engines were only used if they were really busy, but two was quite normal. They sometimes ran as many as four coaches, the maximum that the bay platform could accomodate, but they more usually ran with two coaches on each train. Any reminiscenses by Hayling drivers and fireman always remark that after a day on the Hayling run you knew that you had done a day's work! Regards Echini

Just checked and found that this photograph shows the No 2 Road Down Home, No 1 Road Down Home and the Up Advanced Starting in the background. The photograph is undated but appears to have been taken after the line was closed as the rails are quite rusty. The signals are just in this one too.

Thanks Railwest. Interesting that the change of the No 2 Road Up Starting was as late as 16th December 1959, just four years before the line closed. I guess that the frequent comments about the "unusual" configuration with one starter being upper quadrant and the other lower results from the huge increase in photographs, films and interest in the last year or so of operation. Echini, the OP, lived on Hayling Island close to the station and spent a happy summer aged eight breaking large BR coal with a sledge hammer on the Hayling coal stage so that it would fit into the Terriers' small fireboxes. I went home dirty but happy every evening having often been given a ride on the engine as a reward, generally as the engine returned to pick up its coaches and, if they were running two trains, shunting the coaches into the bay platform. If I am faithful to that date, then both starters would be lower quadrant, it was 1955. We shall see. Regards Echini

Thank you to everyone for such a wealth of information and detail. Just brilliant! I am still a bit confused on one point: The "Locking" requirements of levers 7, 8, 9 and 10 seem to confirm that the FPL on 1 and 4 are both "Locked" when In the Frame (which Railwest said is unusual). However, when wanting to pull lever 5 or lever 6 Out of the Frame, there is no mention of Levers 1 or 4 in the "Release" section. Would you not have to pull Lever 1 Out of the Frame to unlock the FPL before pulling Lever 6 Out of the Frame? Same with levers 4 and 5. Or am I missing something in the sequence? I can see that you have to return Levers 1 and 4 In to the Frame before the signals can be released, but there is no mention of pulling Levers 1 or 4 Out of the Frame. Thanks again, Echini.