Colour Light Signalling for Model Railways (Out Now)

[DY444]

On 03/11/2019 at 13:38, St. Simon said:

 

 

Hi,

 

Thanks Mike for that explanation, that is very enlightening!

 

Splitting distants are becoming more and more popular, there's 5 on the Western between Didcot and Paddington (Hanwell, Southall West, West Drayton, Scours Lane and Tilehurst West), there's a pair on the approach to Bicester Junction on the Chiltern Lines and a quite a few elsewhere.

 

In fact, the Down Main from Southall to West Drayton is probably the only place where a drive can encounter almost all the junction signalling types. As you leave Southall on Down Main and if your next stop is West Drayton on the Down Relief, you encounter a PRI showing position '0', then you get a Combined Splitting Distant showing Double Yellow in the L/H head and Double Flashing Yellow in the R/H head, then you get a Single Flashing Yellow and finally you get the Junction Signal at SN305.

 

Simon

 

Iirc there used to be one at Ruscombe on the Up Relief. 

[royaloak]

16 hours ago, Dungrange said:

In the diagram below, I plan to run trains in the Up direction (left to right) from the branch (bottom left), which will be longer than the distance between signal LP104 and the Clearance Point of point 305A on the Up Main.  This therefore means that if the branch signal LP110 was pulled off and showed a yellow aspect (indicating that LP104 shows a red aspect), a 'long' train proceeding to cross the Down Main would end up blocking the Down Main when it has to stop at LP104 (because crossover 305 will remain locked).  Therefore for operational reasons, it would seem to make sense to hold a 'long' train at signal LP110 until the Up Main is clear as far as the end of the Overlap for Signal LP102.

 

Happened at Basingstoke where a freightliner was routed from the Down Reading onto the Down slow but the platform end signal was red, end result was the freightliner blocking all 4 lines until the signal cleared to put it across onto the Down Fast, I assume there was a fault which prevented it continuing on the Down Slow as intended.

[St. Simon]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Iirc there used to be one at Ruscombe on the Up Relief. 

 

Yes, there still is, I forgot about that one!

 

In fact if you look closely at Figure 30 in the book, you can see it.

 

Simon

[Dungrange]

11 hours ago, guzzler17 said:

However for what you're suggesting, hold at LP110, there is an example in real life and that's the exit from Angerstein Wharf.  After several derailments being caused by a departing train sitting part on and off the main line the working practice was altered so that the train only proceeded off the branch on a green signal.  I got this from an RAIB report after the second derailment.

 

This would seem to imply that there is a responsibility on the driver to drive differently (or follow different rules / procedures) depending on train length, which would presumably be part of the drivers route learning.  But maybe that's not the case...

 

7 hours ago, St. Simon said:

We never expect the driver to manage a situation like that, they don't have enough information to make that decision efficiently.

 

7 hours ago, St. Simon said:

So, we tend to control an over length train through procedure and other means.

 

I guess it's that procedure produced by the operations department that will document how the issue of over length trains will be handled on a particular route at a particular location and this will presumably be set out in the relevant Sectional Appendix.  I might see if I can find anything about Angerstein Wharf. 

 

12 hours ago, guzzler17 said:

Alternatively would it, in your world, be possible to hold the long freight at LP106 therefore completely clear of the down main?  When a suitable gap appears the freight would cross via 304 and 301 and be on its way.  If the next down service was headed for the branch it could be held at LP101 rather than at LP103 which might foul the 304 points.

 

If I add a Junction Indicator to Signal LP110, then the Down Loop would become fully bi-directional and that could be a possible solution.  However, that route may not always be available, as I added the loop primarily to facilitate shunting of the oil sidings without interrupting the flow of traffic on the Down Main and also to provide an access route for trip workings to the Up Side Yard from the Down direction.  That is, a down trip working would be routed from LP101 to LP105, where the locomotive would uncouple, run round via the Down Main, proceed from LP106 to LP102 and then set back into the Yard. 

 

8 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Of course, you might say that in those cases, you would send it along the Down Loop instead, assuming that LP105 to LP106 is the correct distance.

 

Unfortunately I'll struggle to get much more than six feet between LP105 and LP106 (I'll only have between seven and eight feet between the Clearance Points of crossovers 304 and 306).  That should be long enough to accommodate the six bogie tank wagons I hope to fit in the oil sidings or a typical trip working to the Up yard, but that is what I'm classing as a 'Short' train - something less than 150 metres.  For a 'Long' train, I'm looking at something like 13 feet or thereby (a locomotive and a dozen container flats).  In reality, a 300 metre long train is not 'Long', but it's my definition.

 

What you describe as Lime Street Controls is the 'something' that I was thinking may be the technological solution, However..

 

8 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Most of the time, it would be managed by providing a suitable path that meant LP104 would be 'OFF' when the long train needed to come off the branch, this could either be done by the timetabling people when creating the path or by the signaller 'manually' holding it on the branch until a suitable opportunity.

 

This may just have to be my solution for my two or three 'Long' trains.  So that Signal LP104 is effectively 'parallel' with Signal LP106, crossovers 301 and 302 will both lie within the 180 m Overlap distance in advance of LP104, so it won't be possible for LP110 to be pulled Off if a route is set from either the Up Yard or the Down Loop.  Therefore the only circumstance where LP110 could be pulled Off and LP104 would be On is where a train is either waiting in rear of LP102 (because it's On) or an Up train is still within the Overlap in advance of LP102, in which case LP104 could presumably be pulled Off fairly quickly (assuming the Up train is moving).

[guzzler17]

10 hours ago, Dungrange said:

This would seem to imply that there is a responsibility on the driver to drive differently (or follow different rules / procedures) depending on train length, which would presumably be part of the drivers route learning.  But maybe that's not the case...

 

 

For completeness here is the relevant paragraph from the report I mentioned

 

"116 - After the derailment, Network Rail introduced an operational restriction to prevent unladen trains departing from Angerstein Wharf sidings onto the North Kent lines unless the second signal (L429) was showing a proceed aspect (indicated by a green aspect at signal L425 - figure 3). The intention of this restriction is to reduce the probability of departing trains having to brake while the rear wagons are still on the unchecked curve through the trap points 851A (paragraph 83)."

 

How the "operational restriction" works and whether it applies to all trains is not specified but somehow the starter at the top of the branch goes red to green, at least that's how it reads to me.

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, guzzler17 said:

How the "operational restriction" works and whether it applies to all trains is not specified but somehow the starter at the top of the branch goes red to green, at least that's how it reads to me.

 

If the signal L425 can only show red and green aspects, then this fits with the driver not having responsibility for implementing the "operational restriction".  The word 'restriction' rather than 'procedure' would in my opinion also seem to imply that the responsibility lies either with the signaller or is included within the interlocking by the designer.

 

Anyway, I have a few of other questions on the details in Simon's book.

 

Figure 135 (page 99) shows access to a yard and the Yard / Depot and Headhunt lines both have a symbol that looks like the letter F across the track.  What does this signify? 

 

Also, shown in the same figure is what looks to be a Stop board (Signal number 2) at the entrance to the Yard / Depot.  Does this Stop board need to be located a train length away from the Clearance Point of the access crossover, since if it's not and all trains entering the yard have to stop and await instructions from the Shunter, then the incoming train may foul the Up Main?   I'm assuming that this Stop board can be dispensed with entirely if there is a fully tack circuited line that arriving trains can be signalled into, which has been proved clear.

 

Also, Table 3 (page 54) covers the use of Position Light Signals.  I note that 'Limit of Shunt' signals are not to be used on true bi-directional lines.  I'm assuming that means on a bidirectional line the 'Limit of Shunt' signal would be replaced with a 'Normal Position Light Signal' such that this would normally show two red lights (as per a 'Limit of Shunt' signal), but that it would be 'preset' to Off by the Main Aspect Signal that authorises movement in the direction in which it would be seen. 

 

Finally, Table 3 also states that 'Normal Position Light Signals', 'Yellow Position Light Signals' and 'Limit of Shunt' signals are not for use on a 'Passenger carrying route'.  Does this mean that these signals cannot be installed on a line that passenger trains operate over, or does it just mean that they cannot be used to authorise the movement of passenger carrying trains?  That is, they can be installed on routes over which passenger trains operate, but they would always be 'preset' to Off by the Main Aspect Signals that the driver of a passenger train will be obeying?

[St. Simon]

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Figure 135 (page 99) shows access to a yard and the Yard / Depot and Headhunt lines both have a symbol that looks like the letter F across the track.  What does this signify? 

 

Hi,

 

That's the 'end of Track Circuit', it signifies that there are no track circuits to the left of the joint in the diagram.

 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Also, shown in the same figure is what looks to be a Stop board (Signal number 2) at the entrance to the Yard / Depot.  Does this Stop board need to be located a train length away from the Clearance Point of the access crossover, since if it's not and all trains entering the yard have to stop and await instructions from the Shunter, then the incoming train may foul the Up Main?   I'm assuming that this Stop board can be dispensed with entirely if there is a fully tack circuited line that arriving trains can be signalled into, which has been proved clear.

 

Yes, it is a stop board, and ideally it (or a fixed signal) should be positioned train length from the clearance point of the access crossover, to prevent fouling of the main line as you say. If you couldn't position, then you would have some form of acceptance arrangement that allows a train to enter without stopping.

 

The stop board, or a fixed signal equivalent, would only really be dispensed with if the there were no track circuits beyond those covering the access points. So in the drawing, the Stop Board and the Blue version of Signal 4 would be seen together, where as if you only had the black version of signal 4, then the Stop Board wouldn't be there.  

 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Also, Table 3 (page 54) covers the use of Position Light Signals.  I note that 'Limit of Shunt' signals are not to be used on true bi-directional lines.  I'm assuming that means on a bidirectional line the 'Limit of Shunt' signal would be replaced with a 'Normal Position Light Signal' such that this would normally show two red lights (as per a 'Limit of Shunt' signal), but that it would be 'preset' to Off by the Main Aspect Signal that authorises movement in the direction in which it would be seen. 

 

99% of the time you wouldn't have a separate preset shunt to act as a 'limit of shunt' as you'd just set the main route up to the next main signal, but if there's some reason you needed to shunt whilst something was running ahead, then you could have what you describe.

 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Finally, Table 3 also states that 'Normal Position Light Signals', 'Yellow Position Light Signals' and 'Limit of Shunt' signals are not for use on a 'Passenger carrying route'.  Does this mean that these signals cannot be installed on a line that passenger trains operate over, or does it just mean that they cannot be used to authorise the movement of passenger carrying trains?  That is, they can be installed on routes over which passenger trains operate, but they would always be 'preset' to Off by the Main Aspect Signals that the driver of a passenger train will be obeying?

 

Your last statement is correct, they are not be used to signal trains that are carrying passengers unless they are preset by a main aspect move or used for a call-on move into a platform.

 

Simon

[Dungrange]

27 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

If you couldn't position, then you would have some form of acceptance arrangement that allows a train to enter without stopping.

 

The stop board, or a fixed signal equivalent, would only really be dispensed with if the there were no track circuits beyond those covering the access points. So in the drawing, the Stop Board and the Blue version of Signal 4 would be seen together, where as if you only had the black version of signal 4, then the Stop Board wouldn't be there.  

 

Thanks - that makes sense - I hadn't realised that colour of Stop Board meant it was only required with the blue version of Signal 4, although it's reasonably obvious when you point it out!!  I'm assuming that the Shunter's Acceptance is the mechanism by which the local Shunter communicates with the signalman that the Yard is able to accommodate a train without the need to stop.

 

27 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

99% of the time you wouldn't have a separate preset shunt to act as a 'limit of shunt' as you'd just set the main route up to the next main signal, but if there's some reason you needed to shunt whilst something was running ahead, then you could have what you describe.

 

Okay, the scenario that I'm thinking about is in the bottom left of the diagram below.  A locomotive sitting at LP105 waiting to run round it's train, would, I assume, be signalled to draw forward by a Subsidiary Signal (not shown yet) mounted below LP105.  However, I'm assuming that it's desirable that the locomotive can't proceed into the Overlap in advance of LP112.  That is, it would be desirable to be able to allow an Up train on the branch to proceed towards LP112 (which would obviously be On) whilst the run round move is being undertaken.

 

 

I'm assuming for the same reason that there would be a similar 'Limit of Shunt' signal facing wrong way on the Down Line near point 301A to stop a locomotive running round it's train in the Down Loop from entering the Overlap in advance of Signal LP101.  That is, again it would be desirable to be able to accept a Down train to approach LP101 (which would obviously be On) whilst the run round movement is completed.  However, in this case, since the Limit of Shunt signal would only be visible to a driver wrong line running, it wouldn't need to show anything other than two red lights. 

[The Pilotman]

Speaking as an ex-panel box signalman, knowing what train lengths will fit in the various bits of your control area was part of learning the job. I doubt anyone envisaged class 59s hauling fifty bogie aggregate wagons when the MAS was originally designed for Reading.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Western Aviator

[St. Simon]

On ‎01‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 15:05, Dungrange said:

 

I'm assuming that the Shunter's Acceptance is the mechanism by which the local Shunter communicates with the signalman that the Yard is able to accommodate a train without the need to stop.

 

Hi,

 

Yes it is, a Shunters Acceptance is generally a plunger that has to be pushed to allow the signal to clear, but it can be as simple as just the signalling telephoning and asking the shunter if they can accept a train and it can be as complex as a proper slot for the route.

 

On ‎01‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 15:05, Dungrange said:

Okay, the scenario that I'm thinking about is in the bottom left of the diagram below.  A locomotive sitting at LP105 waiting to run round it's train, would, I assume, be signalled to draw forward by a Subsidiary Signal (not shown yet) mounted below LP105.  However, I'm assuming that it's desirable that the locomotive can't proceed into the Overlap in advance of LP112.  That is, it would be desirable to be able to allow an Up train on the branch to proceed towards LP112 (which would obviously be On) whilst the run round move is being undertaken.

 

 

I'm assuming for the same reason that there would be a similar 'Limit of Shunt' signal facing wrong way on the Down Line near point 301A to stop a locomotive running round it's train in the Down Loop from entering the Overlap in advance of Signal LP101.  That is, again it would be desirable to be able to accept a Down train to approach LP101 (which would obviously be On) whilst the run round movement is completed.  However, in this case, since the Limit of Shunt signal would only be visible to a driver wrong line running, it wouldn't need to show anything other than two red lights. 

 

Yes, that's all correct, except that the Down Main Limit of Shunt I would expect to be to the right of LP101 and use LP101 for loco running round to enter the loop. You could provide a LOS where you say, but we don't tend to like locos being left in the middle of a junction like that, particularly for running round, it would also require a GPL at the toes of 304A points to allow access into the loop, which would be preset by both routes from LP101.

 

Simon

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, St. Simon said:

Yes, that's all correct, except that the Down Main Limit of Shunt I would expect to be to the right of LP101 and use LP101 for loco running round to enter the loop. You could provide a LOS where you say, but we don't tend to like locos being left in the middle of a junction like that, particularly for running round, it would also require a GPL at the toes of 304A points to allow access into the loop, which would be preset by both routes from LP101.

 

Thanks Simon,

 

Rather than clog this thread up any more - I've started a separate thread to discuss my plan - 

 

 

The issue of not leaving a locomotive in the junction during the run round has been highlighted to me by others, as has the more likely scenario of running round on the Up Main rather than the Down Main, which would remove the need for the Limit of Shunt suggested.  I therefore have a few changes to make to my current plan before I start thinking about Track Circuits and Interlocking. 

[St. Simon]

Hi All,

 

Just wanted to say that I got the first set of sales figures through last week and I'm quite amazed at the response, I'm afraid that I can't go into details (well, I'm not sure whether I can release the information), but I'm really happy with the way the book has sold.

 

I'm also really happy with the reviews the book has got, I know it has been reviewed in Model Rail, Hornby Magazine and the Gauge O Guild Magazine and they have all given glowing reviews of it! If you have seen any other reviews, please yet me know!

 

Of course, now is the time to buy a copy and learn about signalling to delay the onset of boredom at home!

 

Simon

[Bucoops]

Congratulations

[Andrew Dobie]

I've just ordered it Simon, looking forward to its arrival.

 

As a signalling novice (as well as building my first real layout) I find the subject quite daunting - hopefully no more!

[St. Simon]

5 hours ago, Andrew Dobie said:

I've just ordered it Simon, looking forward to its arrival.

 

As a signalling novice (as well as building my first real layout) I find the subject quite daunting - hopefully no more!

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Thank you for buying the book, I hope that you find it interesting and makes it a little less daunting.

 

Please let me know how you find it!

 

Simon

[ruggedpeak]

Added a minor signalling query on my micro layout thread here if anyone has any thoughts.

 

 

[St. Simon]

11 hours ago, Eddie R v2.0 said:

Book arrived earlier in the week and have been picking certain chapters to look at rather than the book as a whole (at the moment anyway) It’s a great resource, I just need to remember it’s a modelling book rather than the Rule Book! 
 

Started with the RETB chapter as it’s one of our main signalling systems up here in the Highlands. I would liked to have seen mention of how the junctions work -obviously I am extremely familiar with it but feel that a short explanation of how a route is selected and the Point Set Indicators work and their interaction with the TPWS equipment would be a benefit. One other small point, we are now on to RETB Next Gen which auto selects the channels and no longer relies on NRN for its signals. That said, I’m looking at it with my drivers hat on rather than a modellers one! 
 

Apart from my OCD with regards to RETB, it’s a very well written and clear book. Highly recommended! 
 

 

 

Hi Eddie,

 

Thank you for the comments, you are right, I should have includes something about junctions in RETB, I'll add it to the list of things for the next edition (hopefully there will be one!).

 

I hope you enjoy the book!

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Recently, I have been asked if I would consider writing a Semaphore version of my book. Up until now, I have been resistant to the idea for two reasons:

 

1. To go into detail on Semaphore signalling, it would be better as several thick books to fully cover all the regions.

2. My expertise is in Colour Light Signalling, so I'm not all that familiar with Semaphore.

 

However, I have been thinking about what I could do. I have been thinking that if I were to do the signalling layout principles in the same way that I have done for colour lights, but then take a broad base case for each region, then it might be okay. However, I don't know whether this would be too little as there is a huge amount to cover!

 

I have now been nominated as the Trainee Mechanical Locking Designer for Western & Wales, so my knowledge on Semaphore has increased quite a bit (although not to the same extent as a lot of people on here), and equally I don't want to tread on other peoples toes who might know far more about Semaphore practice than I do.

 

If I could have peoples initially thoughts as to whether this would be a good idea to pursue or whether it would be the tricky 'second album' for me. Once I have initially thoughts, I'll look at setting up a new thread about it.

 

I would also be interested in any ideas for any other books that people may be interested in and that I might be able to write (ideally anything about the Modern Railway). I really enjoyed the process of writing this book and I would like to do it again!

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

My draft on semaphore signalling aimed specifically at modellers runs to just over 100,000 words - after a lot of editing down.  I wrote it back in the 1990s and to update it with what I have learnt since (e'g the origins of GWR 1890s white light signals) that would probably add another 10 - 20,000 words.  But I do have all the photos I took specially in order to illustrate it plus the sketches.  It also covers some of 'the real w railway got it wrong' examples where things were installed which contravened their own official practice!  The big problem with semaphore is recognising that even the basics varied between BR Regional drawing offices until the 1980s, if not a little later and there was of course even larger variation Pre-Nationalisation and then Pre-Grouping so trying to take a reasonably comprehensive view which suits all copmpanies/Regions from, say, the 1930s onwards makes it a large task and it really h needs some knowledge of teh relevant Rules & Regulations to explain what did what and why.

 

Incidentally it does cover basic interlocking rules plus a few notes about differences in company/BR Regional locking dersign practice which relate partially to signal placement as well

[PaulRhB]

Knowing more and actually writing it down are different things so I wouldn’t worry about stepping on toes. I would think a general guide with maybe a test case with the same plan signalled with regional differences? If someone is freelancing they just want the main points covered and within each region there were location specific differences so as long as they are acknowledged it would work. If someone is closely following a prototype then a glossary of useful region specific sites and books is probably just as helpful. 
A test case could be posted and developed on here open to comment from those in the know on each regional variation, as long as people know it’s for publication if they offer information free and there’s a general credit to the topic in your book it covers accreditation. 
It also means you can cover the various token and staff working principles with examples of the interface with absolute block signalling. 

[PaulRhB]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

My draft on semaphore signalling aimed specifically at modellers runs to just over 100,000 words

 

Maybe a joint venture if yours has sat around that long?  

[TheSignalEngineer]

58 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

I have now been nominated as the Trainee Mechanical Locking Designer for Western & Wales

Interesting. My departure from signalling design was accelerated by a falling out with a former Chief S&T Engineer when I was staff rep for Management grades. He was intent on removing all specialists in traditional signalling, including locking designers, fitters and testers. I upset him during a reorganisation by producing a graphic which predicted that at the rate of progress in nearly 40 years since nationalisation some mechanical signalling would be around for a similar length of time. ln the big railway I predicted the last box closure to come c2030.  I am wondering now if I was a bit short in my timescale. 

[The Stationmaster]

24 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Interesting. My departure from signalling design was accelerated by a falling out with a former Chief S&T Engineer when I was staff rep for Management grades. He was intent on removing all specialists in traditional signalling, including locking designers, fitters and testers. I upset him during a reorganisation by producing a graphic which predicted that at the rate of progress in nearly 40 years since nationalisation some mechanical signalling would be around for a similar length of time. ln the big railway I predicted the last box closure to come c2030.  I am wondering now if I was a bit short in my timescale. 

I know the office where Simon works has had some mechanical locking work in recent years with only a very small number of people capable of doing it and I think one of them has now retired.  Not quite like the days when I worked there (before NR took it over) when there were several people able to do mechanical locking design although a couple of them were over 70

[St. Simon]

On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2020 at 11:57, The Stationmaster said:

I know the office where Simon works has had some mechanical locking work in recent years with only a very small number of people capable of doing it and I think one of them has now retired.  Not quite like the days when I worked there (before NR took it over) when there were several people able to do mechanical locking design although a couple of them were over 70

 

Hi Mike,

 

We still have 3 experts in the field, technically they are all retired I think, but they still come in!

 

The Reading office has started a national initiative within design for Mechanical Locking, so every region (except the Southern) does now have 'young' Mechanical Locking Designers to call on, simply because Mechanical Signalling needs to be maintained for a little while yet!

 

On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2020 at 11:05, The Stationmaster said:

My draft on semaphore signalling aimed specifically at modellers runs to just over 100,000 words - after a lot of editing down.  I wrote it back in the 1990s and to update it with what I have learnt since (e'g the origins of GWR 1890s white light signals) that would probably add another 10 - 20,000 words.  But I do have all the photos I took specially in order to illustrate it plus the sketches.  It also covers some of 'the real w railway got it wrong' examples where things were installed which contravened their own official practice!  The big problem with semaphore is recognising that even the basics varied between BR Regional drawing offices until the 1980s, if not a little later and there was of course even larger variation Pre-Nationalisation and then Pre-Grouping so trying to take a reasonably comprehensive view which suits all copmpanies/Regions from, say, the 1930s onwards makes it a large task and it really h needs some knowledge of teh relevant Rules & Regulations to explain what did what and why.

 

Incidentally it does cover basic interlocking rules plus a few notes about differences in company/BR Regional locking dersign practice which relate partially to signal placement as well

 

Yes, your draft was ringing in my ears when I thought about a Semaphore book, I would have to cram it all into 50,000 tops or separate it out into lots of books (which I don't have the time or stamina for!). Thinking about, it is such a minefield and so variable, I think I should leave it to someone who really knows what they are talking about!

 

Any other book ideas  

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi Mike,

 

We still have 3 experts in the field, technically they are all retired I think, but they still come in!

 

The Reading office has started a national initiative within design for Mechanical Locking, so every region (except the Southern) does now have 'young' Mechanical Locking Designers to call on, simply because Mechanical Signalling needs to be maintained for a little while yet!

 

 

Yes, your draft was ringing in my ears when I thought about a Semaphore book, I would have to cram it all into 50,000 tops or separate it out into lots of books (which I don't have the time or stamina for!). Thinking about, it is such a minefield and so variable, I think I should leave it to someone who really knows what they are talking about!

 

Any other book ideas  

 

Simon

I know that Mike was doing some a year or two back because he had a chat with me about a job he was doing on the North & West Line but I think he too is now retired.

 

I wonder - although it's a lot of work - if you could do a back date on colour light signalling?   Heck of a lot of differences there but with a few notable, worthy,  exceptions at least running signal aspect sequences were more or less standardised (the main oddity being repetitive double yellows) but there were a lot of Company/Regional differences in respect of subs and ground signals but a lot of that could be reduced to tabular format provided they're illustrated (I've got photos of quite a lot of them).  Regional Drawing Office instructions obviously varied - even after standard Signalling Principles were issued and of course they changed to but i think there is a lot of material thereto give a working basis.  

 

The only really awkward areas are in respect of subs changing over the years but I think you can get round that fairly easily  in tabular form.  The other one is route indication and junction signalling methods which might consume a bit of space but is not over difficult to précis.

 

The big commercial advantage of such a book is that it takes you back to the steam age but even more so the seemingly still popular eras of late steam/green diesels and also banger blue diesels so theoretically it should have a lot of appeal to modellers.