Junctionmad Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 Ah, we're back to models again. Goodo. IMG_3775.JPG Here is another Grantham signal and for once we have a simple-as-can-be solo stop signal. Or do we...? post-61441 (TW).jpg This signal guards the entrance to Peascliffe tunnel which was - and indeed still is(!) - a mile or so north of the station, in open countryside. Signals at the entrance to tunnels were / are by no means uncommon; if it were a long-ish tunnel then it made sense to make it (the tunnel) part of the block section and have boxes either side. Signalboxes in the middle of (long) tunnels were not the most practical of working arrangements. (Stands by for an avalanche of pictures of signal boxes inside tunnels...) [Photo by Tony Wright] IMG_4824.JPG This view shows the preceding signal on the down main, which has already been featured. On the model, the distant arm on this latter signal relates to the signal by the tunnel which can also be seen in the picture, about nine feet and 90deg away. Issue is, by chopping out a mile or so of prototype railway, we end up with a compromise arrangement. In reality, the distant on the signal at Grantham North related to the next box along at Barrowby road. There was then a further box at the south end of the tunnel which in reality controlled the signal by the tunnel. So I've chopped out a whole block section and two signal boxes and fused the tunnel signal to be part of the North Box level frame, even though it has a distant signal relating to it, which implies two separate boxes. Thing is, it works fine as an operational arrangement for the layout and the operation of both this (stop) signal and the related distant arm operate correctly in their own right. An acceptable compromise (typical when a modelling project tries to replicate something which is impossibly large), or too large a credibility gap? Any views of interest (although I won't be changing it anytime soon). As an historical side note, the signal by the tunnel and associated box were replaced in 1937 by a colour light signal as part of a cost saving exercise. You can see the new c/light signal (hooded) waiting to be commissioned. Lovely signalling , even If the very tall signal post looks rather strange in the context of a model viewed from above and no doubt concertinaed in length Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted November 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 9, 2017 Issue is, by chopping out a mile or so of prototype railway, we end up with a compromise arrangement. In reality, the distant on the signal at Grantham North related to the next box along at Barrowby road. There was then a further box at the south end of the tunnel which in reality controlled the signal by the tunnel. So I've chopped out a whole block section and two signal boxes and fused the tunnel signal to be part of the North Box level frame, even though it has a distant signal relating to it, which implies two separate boxes. Thing is, it works fine as an operational arrangement for the layout and the operation of both this (stop) signal and the related distant arm operate correctly in their own right. An acceptable compromise (typical when a modelling project tries to replicate something which is impossibly large), or too large a credibility gap? Any views of interest (although I won't be changing it anytime soon). As an historical side note, the signal by the tunnel and associated box were replaced in 1937 by a colour light signal as part of a cost saving exercise. You can see the new c/light signal (hooded) waiting to be commissioned. I like the way you've dealt with the compression of the distance - you've kept the key features at each location while also making them make sense as signalling for the model railway. The replacement colour light signal not yet in service is an inspired touch! I do like a good underslung signal and being somersault too just gives it so much character - as all your signals have. Glad you didn't cop out and just model the colour light signal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theakerr Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I have just finished building signals for New Waltham using Ratio parts and servo motors. With one exception I have been able to figure out what the signals should be and where they should be placed. This has been helped by the fact that the layout is based on Grimsby circa 1958. However, I am sort of stumped where the last signal should go and what type it should be. See attached sketch. Stat Sig Sexit 1.tiff Based on what I can find it should be a splitter type signal, although I am not saying that is correct, and should probably be positioned at #2 but that doesn't "look" right because it is "backwards" on the main line. Would appreciate thoughts etc. Thks Jim in the GWN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) River Bed on the Mersey was not only in a tunnel - it was under the River Mersey ! (The Mersey was mixed underground and overground but never wombling free) Hi Beast I finally found a reference to this here http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Hamilton_Square_Signalbox.html According to this it was a four lever block post called River Cabin that was open from 1886 until 1921 when it was replaced by Auto signals (Westinghouse two aspect colour light signals) It must have been a ghastly place to work - unless of course the signalmen were wombles- but so were a lot of boxes. I think most of the underground signalboxes on the London UndergrounD were at stations and you can still see them at the ends of some platforms but there must have been junctions and turnback sidings that weren't. I had a vision of what the Channel tunnel would have been like had the tunnel started in 1887 ever been completed. It would surely have needed mechanical block posts and crossing boxes but presumably there would have had to be stopping trains for the signalling staff at each shift change. An early electric late Victorian or possibly Edwardian Channel Tunnel would make for an interesting model but I don't know whether semi-automatic or automatic semaphores or early colour light signals would be more appropriate for that era. Edited April 24, 2018 by Pacific231G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 River Bed on the Mersey was not only in a tunnel - it was under the River Mersey ! (The Mersey was mixed underground and overground but never wombling free) allegedly there was a signal box hewn out of the rock in the middle of standage tunnel at the point known as the cathedral later used as a p way store would of been a hateful place to work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Edward Posted May 18, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 18, 2018 What a fascinating discussion; learned a lot and hope I remember at least some of it. Not sure though if I will find the courage to post a suggested set of signals for a fictional layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I think most of the underground signalboxes on the London UndergrounD were at stations and you can still see them at the ends of some platforms but there must have been junctions and turnback sidings that weren't. I had a vision of what the Channel tunnel would have been like had the tunnel started in 1887 ever been completed. It would surely have needed mechanical block posts and crossing boxes but presumably there would have had to be stopping trains for the signalling staff at each shift change. An early electric late Victorian or possibly Edwardian Channel Tunnel would make for an interesting model but I don't know whether semi-automatic or automatic semaphores or early colour light signals would be more appropriate for that era. The Metropolitan had one in the V of the junction at Praed Street, and for a short period, another one where the westbound curve from York Road crossed the down curve from the Widened Lines to Kings Cross (aka Hotel Curve). Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now