Hampton Malstead

[The Stationmaster]

Do you necessarily need a trap point where indicated, as there is an opposing turnout to protect the running line from the shed sidings?

 

Although there were examples on the GWR of a trap existing in exactly that sort of situation.

If you compare your trackplan with prototype locations of similar size and complexity, your signal provision is way over the top. Bracketed signals were only usually found where there were more than one passenger routes, such as entry/exit from a second platform. the only armed signals are likely to be a home signal protecting entry to the station, and a starter allowing exit.

 

Signal 1 is superfluous. Exit from the engine shed kickback is authorised by ground disk signal 5.

Signal 2 is correctly positioned, but should be a single post starter signal.

Signal 3 has no function.

Disk 4 is correctly positioned and controls exit from the loop and sidings to the running line

Disk 5 is correctly positioned and controls exit from the engine shed kickback to the running line

Signal 6 should be a ground disk

Signal 7 is correctly positioned but should be a single post home signal

Signal 8 should be a ground disk. (disks 6 and 8 could be mounted low on the home signal post. I think it may even be correct for these to be a single disk which allows the home signal to be passed at danger but allows entry into either the engine shed or RR loop)

Points 10 and 14 should be a crossover controlled by a single lever

FPL 11 - OK

Points 12 and 16 should be a crossover controlled by a single lever

FPL 13 - OK

Point 15 should be a hand operated point

GF1 is not required these points would be hand operated

GF2 is ok

 

As shunting takes place on the running line, there should be an "off stage" advanced starter

 

Signal 6 would probably be unlikely to be a ground disc by the 1930s - in fact examples of a short semaphore arm being used in exactly that sort of situation lasted until the 1970s on the WR.

 

The form of signal No.6-7-8 could be correct for the 1930s although I would consider an earlier form more likely at that time especially for arm No. 8.  (assuming that we are talking a full signalbox instead of what in reality might have been an alternative possibility - see below).

 

There is no need for a ground disc at the engine release crossover as the crossover is worked by a ground frame.

 

There is no need for an Advanced Starting Signal solely for shunting reasons - in fact such signals weren't all that common on GWR single lines until (but only in some cases) improvements and alterations took place in the 1930s.

 

The big question is what sort of signalbox?  Some GWR branch termini with this sort of layout survived until closure with a ground level lever frame and although classified as a signalbox were really somewhere between a proper signalbox and a ground frame with only a Home Signal and platform Starting Signal - this arrangement being fairly typical of branches worked by  'One Engine In Steam'  Regulations.  If however you want more than one train at a time at your station - which you might for 'fun' reasons (supported no doubt by a well reasoned back story) then go for a full on elevated lever frame signalbox and Electric Token working and signalling to your plan - as amended by this post and the one I have copied immediately above.  You would not be wrong if you did that although it might be considered slightly unusual - but, I repeat, not wrong.

[DCB]

With no real opportunity to hold two trains I would have thought the signalling would be be minimal. A home locked by the facing point locks on the approach and a few shunt signals operated by a porter/stationmaster etc from a Ground Frame, which is essentially a signal box without block instruments bells etc. I am fairly sure some signal boxes at termini were downgraded to ground frames and the block instruments and most of the signals removed when it became clear there was no requirement for more than one train in the station at one time. I'm pretty sure Ashburton was one 

Edited January 12, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the input. I'll try to put it all together into a coherent drawing(!), along with any other suggestions that might be posted.

 

I am keen to have a small signal box and since the model operations will be busier than in a real station of this size, with definitely more than "one engine in steam", I will try to invent a plausible back-story.

 

There's a photo of the equivalent crossover at the end of Moretonhampstead with ground disc, here:

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moretonhampstead/

 

And my other favourite source at the moment,

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/mortonhampstead-and-teign-valley-branch.html

shows point rodding from the "box" to the crossover (I assume).

 

(See what I mean about the train shed hiding the train...)

Edited January 12, 2018 by Harlequin

[clachnaharry]

Although there were examples on the GWR of a trap existing in exactly that sort of situation.

 

Signal 6 would probably be unlikely to be a ground disc by the 1930s - in fact examples of a short semaphore arm being used in exactly that sort of situation lasted until the 1970s on the WR.

 

The form of signal No.6-7-8 could be correct for the 1930s although I would consider an earlier form more likely at that time especially for arm No. 8.  (assuming that we are talking a full signalbox instead of what in reality might have been an alternative possibility - see below).

 

There is no need for a ground disc at the engine release crossover as the crossover is worked by a ground frame.

 

There is no need for an Advanced Starting Signal solely for shunting reasons - in fact such signals weren't all that common on GWR single lines until (but only in some cases) improvements and alterations took place in the 1930s.

 

The big question is what sort of signalbox?  Some GWR branch termini with this sort of layout survived until closure with a ground level lever frame and although classified as a signalbox were really somewhere between a proper signalbox and a ground frame with only a Home Signal and platform Starting Signal - this arrangement being fairly typical of branches worked by  'One Engine In Steam'  Regulations.  If however you want more than one train at a time at your station - which you might for 'fun' reasons (supported no doubt by a well reasoned back story) then go for a full on elevated lever frame signalbox and Electric Token working and signalling to your plan - as amended by this post and the one I have copied immediately above.  You would not be wrong if you did that although it might be considered slightly unusual - but, I repeat, not wrong.

Hi Stationmaster

 

I'm struggling to think of a real life example of GWR branch line terminus where signal 6,7,8 would be a three doll bracket, but of course most diagrams and pictures are from later years. The closest I can think of is Helston with a 2 doll bracket on the starter allowing controlling access to the engine shed

 

Re the advanced starter, would there have been a limit of shunt board instead, or would the engine driver need to be in possession of the token whilst shunting on the main line, thus preventing entry of a second train into the section?

 

Some similar small termini with signalling allowing more than one train to be present:

 

Ashburton (despite no real signalbox)

Lambourn

St Ives

Helston

[Harlequin]

With no real opportunity to hold two trains I would have thought the signalling would be be minimal. A home locked by the facing point locks on the approach and a few shunt signals operated by a porter/stationmaster etc from a Ground Frame, which is essentially a signal box without block instruments bells etc.

Shunting that kick back would be a right pain. Bringing the train to a halt off scene, bringing the loco on scene and shunting the wagons from the siding to the platform or loop. fetching the empties from the gas works. pushing the wagons back into the siding Running round the empties, then you fetch the fulls pull the wagons out of the siding (again) and push them in the platform or loop again, push the fulls in the Gas works and only then can you start shunting the rest of the yard.    Life is too short.  

 

Point taken and I will think about what you've said but Iain Rice's point is that some stations really were difficult to shunt and if you make it too easy then you get much less operation taking place "on stage".

 

( I used the word "point" twice in that sentence - in a thread about points and signalling... Sorry ;-) )

[Regularity]

Re the turntable issue, they were more common than many people think when stations were originally built. But they were small.

Ashburton had one, of a format that the French call a “plaque tournant”. It could only take a small engine like a 517.

The table at Cardigan was only 22’ long, and was used to turn small tank engines, but was too small for even the 4500 prairies. It was perhaps unusual in surviving, but the route was of a reasonable length (as was Fairford) and quite hilly, so worth keeping and using, but not worth increasing in diameter - it would have required quite a lot of track realignment, too.

 

But if you have a table at one end, you also need one at the other end. So with Cardigan trains working to and from Whitland and Fairford trains to and from Oxford, then it makes sense. I am not sure if there was a table or a plate at Totnes, and once auto trains were introduced, Ashburton really had no need to turn engines. (On a side note, this is why suggestions that Bembridge and Ventnor had turntables are wrong: nothing at the other end. What they had were centre-pivoted sector plates.)

 

So, if you know enough about the prototype, it is not a case of finding an “exception to the rule”/“prototype for everything” as an excuse, but real life examples and the real justification behind the choices that were made.

 

I am not saying here that you should or shouldn’t have a turntable, nor what size. Ultimately “rule 1” applies.

 

But, if you have done your homework properly, you will know whether or not one would be needed, and be able to explain on the basis of prototype reality why you went down that route. This is important if you wish to cultivate the respect of your peers as a serious modeller*, and to create a believable layout that doesn’t require you to pull an unusual one-off example out of the hat or invoke rule 1. If that isn’t important to you, then who cares - rule 1 applies and as long as you are happy with the result, and continue not to be bothered with stretching believability to the limits, then ignore prototypical practice.

 

* There is nothing wrong, or indeed snobbish, about this. It’s just a question of what you want from your hobby. I have seen plenty of 00 layouts which were much better in this respect than some EM or P4 layouts. I would much rather see a well researched, well executed thoughtful layout using good old code 100 Peco Streamline than a thoughtless P4 concoction bearing little semblance to reality. Indeed, I would class the former as being more “finescale” than the latter. As the S4 Society used to say in its adverts, it’s not just about wheels and track.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Regularity

[Harlequin]

This is a slight digression from the discussion but if you could advise on where you picked up the signalling you've shown that would be great - I think I have a basic knowledge of the broad types, but as it comes to multi-arm signals/etc. it's all a bit of a mystery.

 

Hi "Lacath" (any chance of sharing your "real-world" name?),

 

I have been reading "Model Railway Signalling" by CJF and "Railway Signalling and Track Plans" by Bob Essery.

 

I also found some wonderful signal box diagrams on Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=signalling+diagrams+uk&chips=q:signalling+diagrams+uk,online_chips:box+diagram&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie6LnvidDYAhWMVhQKHSQ6CvIQ4lYILygH&biw=2566&bih=1312&dpr=1.5#imgrc=_

[Rivercider]

Thanks for the input. I'll try to put it all together into a coherent drawing(!), along with any other suggestions that might be posted.

 

I am keen to have a small signal box and since the model operations will be busier than in a real station of this size, with definitely more than "one engine in steam", I will try to invent a plausible back-story.

 

 

Since you are taking inspiration from Moretonhampstead I expect you have 'The Newton Abbot to Moretonhampstead Railway' by Kingdom and Lang?

 

By the 1930s the GWR was actively promoting tourist traffic, often with connecting road motors onto Dartmoor.

I was surprised to read how busy the branch was by the mid 1930s with eleven trains on weekdays, some of them through workings from Paignton or Kingswear, (and an additional seven auto-trains that terminated at Bovey Tracey).

There had also been a lot of mineral extraction in the general area and although it had declined by the coming of the railways there was still some sent by rail including shiny ore from Lustleigh which might justify some additional freight traffic at HM even if it was loaded further down the branch only arriving to run-round and return to the junction.

 

Of course Hampton Malstead might be inspired by nearby Chagford for which a branch line was proposed, but never built.

 

cheers

Edited January 12, 2018 by Rivercider

[Lacathedrale]

Hi "Lacath" (any chance of sharing your "real-world" name?),

 

I have been reading "Model Railway Signalling" by CJF and "Railway Signalling and Track Plans" by Bob Essery.

 

I also found some wonderful signal box diagrams on Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=signalling+diagrams+uk&chips=q:signalling+diagrams+uk,online_chips:box+diagram&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie6LnvidDYAhWMVhQKHSQ6CvIQ4lYILygH&biw=2566&bih=1312&dpr=1.5#imgrc=_

 

Signature added just for you Thanks for the recommendation. I can only agree with Regularity - plausibility and internal consistency combined with a frank appraisal of real world examples (As opposed to what one THINKS are real world examples) is key for me personally (someone who considers themselves very middle of the road when it comes to this stuff).

 

I can only ec

[Compound2632]

Enjoying seeing how this has developed. I realise the turntable has gone but I'm puzzled by the statement that a 45' one would be too small for tender engines. On the one hand, it should accommodate 0-6-0 goods engines and probably the smaller 4-4-0s; though I see the 4300 Class 2-6-0s had a rather extravagant 48'6" overall wheelbase. On the other hand, why would non-tender engines need to be turned (at least at this location)?

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the input. I'll try to put it all together into a coherent drawing(!), along with any other suggestions that might be posted.

 

I am keen to have a small signal box and since the model operations will be busier than in a real station of this size, with definitely more than "one engine in steam", I will try to invent a plausible back-story.

 

There's a photo of the equivalent crossover at the end of Moretonhampstead with ground disc, here:

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moretonhampstead/

 

And my other favourite source at the moment,

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/mortonhampstead-and-teign-valley-branch.html

shows point rodding from the "box" to the crossover (I assume).

 

(See what I mean about the train shed hiding the train...)

 

There was a disc on the release crossover at Moretonhampstead because it was worked from the signalbox.  You could of course have it worked by your signalbox if you are going down the full job signalbox route and you could save a lever by using a point indicator (rotating lamp worked off the point front stretcher bar) instead of having separate disc - the choice is yours.

Hi Stationmaster

 

I'm struggling to think of a real life example of GWR branch line terminus where signal 6,7,8 would be a three doll bracket, but of course most diagrams and pictures are from later years. The closest I can think of is Helston with a 2 doll bracket on the starter allowing controlling access to the engine shed

 

Re the advanced starter, would there have been a limit of shunt board instead, or would the engine driver need to be in possession of the token whilst shunting on the main line, thus preventing entry of a second train into the section?

 

Some similar small termini with signalling allowing more than one train to be present:

 

Ashburton (despite no real signalbox)

Lambourn

St Ives

Helston

 

Depends entirely on the track layout and when it was signalled although in some cases when signals were renewed they copied the form of the signal they were replacing (e.g.  Branch Inner Home at Twyford) unless that form was obsolescent - although there are even odd examples of obsolescent forms being copied in signal renewals which took place more than 30 years after a particular form became obsolescent (e.g the Windsor Branch Home at Slough Middle).  In general the signalling will reflect track layout and, of course, the standards in force at the time the signal was erected and at a place which hadn't changed much it was not at all unusual for signals to be 30 or more years and I know of one example which was around 70 years old at the time it was replaced by a colour light.

 

There is more than one way of skinning the cat when it comes to some GWR signals thus if the signal form fits the period in which the layout is set that is what matters more than what came along subsequently.

 

You cannot have a Limit Of Shunt board which is facing to trains running in the normal direction - they can only be used where a movement is setting back towards them in the wrong direction.  The Regulations for Electric Token working were perfectly clear in that it was permissible to make shunting moves into a single line section at the same time from both ends so obviously it would then be impossible for both shunt moves to have a token, in fact it was quite legitimate (where Shunting tokens weren't used and a token could not necessarily be withdrawn) to shunt without a token being drawn relying solely on the protection of block bell signals and Train Register Book entries.  In fact in some places there were even Shunt ahead subsidiary signals reading into single line sections where there was neither an Advanced Starting Signal or an additional Home Signal (e.g, Chipping Norton).

[Edwardian]

Enjoying seeing how this has developed. I realise the turntable has gone but I'm puzzled by the statement that a 45' one would be too small for tender engines. On the one hand, it should accommodate 0-6-0 goods engines and probably the smaller 4-4-0s; though I see the 4300 Class 2-6-0s had a rather extravagant 48'6" overall wheelbase. On the other hand, why would non-tender engines need to be turned (at least at this location)?

 

46' and a Johnson 4-4-0 could visit, or so I have been told!

[Harlequin]

Here's a revised signalling diagram. How am I doing?

[Click to enlarge]

 

I have decided that the spur above the platform may be used as a passenger bay occasionally, as well as giving access to the engine house (as I like to call it). This adds a bit of operational flexibility and in fact makes the station throat a little narrower so the culvert is shorter again and there a bit more room for something scenic behind. I have lengthened the new bay very slightly so that it can accommodate an auto train. I realise this may mean some of the advice suggested above may need to be revised.

• There will be more than one engine in steam in the station.
• Thus there will be a proper signal box.
• The engine release crossover is controlled from the box.
• The ground disc signalling the engine release crossover is slaved to the front point stretcher bar (is that the same as a "point indicator"?)
• The various crossovers are all connected to shared levers.
• The goods siding points are hand operated, but...
• The point leading into the goods yard is controlled from the box (lever 13) because it affects whether the run round loop can be used by passenger or other visiting traffic and I think the signalman needs to be in control of that.
• I have tentatively suggested that arriving access to the bay platform is signalled by a small armed siding signal on a bracket (lever 6). This is a bit of a stab in the dark! Suggestions welcome.

[Edit: I realise there would be interlocks between points and signals but I don't think I need to address that now, and possibly never, depending on how the layout is operated.)

Edited January 13, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Here's a revised signalling diagram. How am I doing?

Hampton Malstead 30 signalling.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

I have decided that the spur above the platform may be used as a passenger bay occasionally, as well as giving access to the engine house (as I like to call it). This adds a bit of operational flexibility and in fact makes the station throat a little narrower so the culvert is shorter again and there a bit more room for something scenic behind. I have lengthened the new bay very slightly so that it can accommodate an auto train. I realise this may mean some of the advice suggested above may need to be revised.

• There will be more than one engine in steam in the station.
• Thus there will be a proper signal box.
• The engine release crossover is controlled from the box.
• The ground disc signalling the engine release crossover is slaved to the front point stretcher bar (is that the same as a "point indicator"?)
• The various crossovers are all connected to shared levers.
• The goods siding points are hand operated, but...
• The point leading into the goods yard is controlled from the box (lever 13) because it affects whether the run round loop can be used by passenger or other visiting traffic and I think the signalman needs to be in control of that.
• I have tentatively suggested that arriving access to the bay platform is signalled by a small armed siding signal on a bracket (lever 6). This is a bit of a stab in the dark! Suggestions welcome.

[Edit: I realise there would be interlocks between points and signals but I don't think I need to address that now, and possibly never, depending on how the layout is operated.)

 

Point No.13 can quite happily be operated by hand lever if you wish - plenty of places where its equivalent was so worked.  BUT if you decide to have it worked from the 'box (and there are prototype examples to match that too of course) you need to set back disc No. 2 so that it applies to the run round loop protecting No.13 points and provide another disc reading from the yard sidings (it could still be worked by lever No.2 but selected by the points although that would be unusual for a GWR trailing point I believe).

 

Re No.14 I can't think of anywhere on the Western where there was a ground disc driven off a point stretcher bar - in the examples I know of it was always a point indicator because it rotates rather than requiring. balance weight to be lifted and a disc to revolve in a different plane from the drive - but someone might know of an example possibly?

 

The $64,000 question comes with the bay - if you upgrade it to a passenger line you will need to provide the correct sort of signal arm reading into and it would be on a doll on the main platform of the signal of course; the point leading from the bay would require a facing point lock (FPL), the engine house siding would need a trap point and suitable ground signal, and signal  No,3 would become a full size semaphore arm to read to the 'main line' plus some sort of reduced size arm to read into your engine house.  Have a look at the third picture down in post No.78 in this thread - obsolescent by the mod 1920s but that photo was taken in the 1960s

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/page-4

[Harlequin]

Excellent! Thanks Mike, you truly are "The Stationmaster".

 

Hopefully my next post will nail it...

[Harlequin]

Here's revision 32:

[Click to enlarge]

• Bay signalling and trackwork upgraded for passenger working.
• Better points symbols showing normal positions.
• Point indicators for engine release (14) and engine house siding trap (15). I had to make up a symbol for a point indicator.
• Small arms on brackets, possibly centre pivoted, reading from down main into goods yard (8) and bay platform into engine house (5).

Edit: If something like this drawing were to be used as the signal box diagram it would have to be rotated by 180 degrees, of course. But I can't face that right now!

Edited January 14, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Great Bear]

Looks good and hope it comes to fruition. Whilst the bay being for passenger use may add operational interest, would a small branch terminus really warrant it? I can't think of anything similar off hand but my knowledge is far from encyclopedic... (Also more signals you need to make etc)

 

All the best

 

Jon

[Regularity]

Edit: If something like this drawing were to be used as the signal box diagram it would have to be rotated by 180 degrees, of course. But I can't face that that right now!

It would also be numbered differently... ...but I think it better that you number and order the levers as per how you will operate it.

 

If you intend to fully detail the signal box interior, you will need to make a few alterations to the lever colours in the frame. The most obvious change would be in the location of the facing point lock (blue) levers.

[The Stationmaster]

Here's revision 32:

Hampton Malstead 32 signalling.png

[Click to enlarge]

• Bay signalling and trackwork upgraded for passenger working.
• Better points symbols showing normal positions.
• Point indicators for engine release (14) and engine house siding trap (15). I had to make up a symbol for a point indicator.
• Small arms on brackets, possibly centre pivoted, reading from down main into goods yard (8) and bay platform into engine house (5).

Edit: If something like this drawing were to be used as the signal box diagram it would have to be rotated by 180 degrees, of course. But I can't face that that right now!

 

Couple of Several points (sorry) -

 

1.  Everything now correct for your latest ideas on what you want to do with the layout and how you will use things for various types of train.  The only thing which needs altering in the respect is the FPL numbering as working both ends of a crossover (which is what it amounts to) off the same FPL lever was a pig to adjust so wasn't looked on with much favour and could be a right barsteward to work so was looked on with even less favour.  Two successive points with the same FPL lever was also a bit on the heavy side but it was easier to adjust and if they were close to the 'box and off the same rodding line a lot easier to work - so it sometimes happened.  so you can guess what to do if you don't want any more levers

 

2.  Numbering and layout of levers - the usual thing (and Can't think of coming across any exceptions on Western frames) was to have signals at each end and points in the middle - this usually saved on locking work and saved money plus it was a lot more convenient for the Signalman.

 

3, Now we're there with the content of the diagram and the signals I think might  soon  be the time to turn the diagram round or bear in mid what will happen when you do turn it round because then signals to the left will be the lowest numbers (in many cases and those to the right will be higher numbers - thus, for example,  6, 7, & 8 will become 1, 2, & 3.  and in some cases a signal lever might be next to a directly relevant point lever.  have a look at a few real world diagrams on the 'net to see how it was usually.  There's nothing wrong with your numbering but if you want to go for a more prototypical feel that would be how numbering was done - up to you if you're happy with what you've got or want to change it.

 

4.  Don't forget that when you do your final diagram down in one corner will be the draughtsman's (or draughtswoman's initial and the date shown numerically.  Here's an example for you although the date is not drawn in proper GWR style although all the colours are correct for a Reading style diagram (click on the image to enlarge it).

 

 

PS Just in case somebody says that No.8 potentially reading to two different lines is wrong I can quote at least one GWR example straightaway

[Regularity]

Looks good and hope it comes to fruition. Whilst the bay being for passenger use may add operational interest, would a small branch terminus really warrant it? I can't think of anything similar off hand but my knowledge is far from encyclopedic... (Also more signals you need to make etc)

 

All the best

 

Jon

Agree on all points. (Pun unintended!)

Personally, I would put the cattle dock there, with a section of “open” dock for horses, and an end-loading dock.

You could then slew the goods shed road parallel with the loop, which would open out the yard more - you could even, if you wished, replace the toe-to-toe turnouts in the yard with a double slip.

[Regularity]

PS Ultimately, it’s your layout and only you can choose how it is configured, but there comes a point where you have to decide where to put the balance point between “maximum play value*” and fidelity to prototype**.

 

* People who take themselves too seriously get upset with this, and prefer “operational scope”.

** “The art of the typical is the art that convinces”*** - The late Bob Barlow, per Iain Rice, MRJ 19.

*** Model the rule, not the exceptions, unless it be a real place you are copying.****

**** Sometimes, exactly modelling the prototype can be easier than creating a hypothetical.

[Harlequin]

Thanks for your thoughts and advice everyone.

 

I will rotate the diagram at some stage, adjust the lever numbering and see what I can do about the FPLs on the bay crossover. Luckily I have one spare lever!

 

I haven't yet devised a full back-story or thought about exactly what facilities lie further up the line (down the valley). When I do, things in the station might have to be tweaked but the basic idea for now is that Hampton Malstead is a thriving moorland town that serves villages for many miles around. Some of the ideas from earlier in the thread will be applied to justify the level of development at the station:

• The surrounding countryside is renowned for its beauty and variety and so has become a tourist attraction. (Maybe I should create a publicity poster...)
• There is a quarry a few miles down the valley that occasionally makes use of the station facilities because its own infrastructure is pretty basic.
• Point-to-point races are held nearby that regularly draw entrants and crowds from across the county. (So yes, I should give more thought to horse loading and unloading.)

The toe-to-toe turnouts in the goods yard straddle a baseboard join and so cannot be easily combined. Also, the trackwork is all rendered in Peco Streamline Bullhead so I'm restricted to using their large radius straight left/right geometries at the moment. Even the trap point will be a cut down large radius Streamline bullhead point. (I'm not ready to start building my own track yet.)

 

@Regularity: For me at least, part of the satisfaction of the layout will come from knowing that other people also find it satisfying. So I am listening intently to what everyone's saying! I hope that I haven't yet strayed into the realms of the unconvincing and I think I can justify my choices so far:

1. Exactly modelling the prototype requires a lot of space, as I found when attempting to compress Moretonhampstead, hence the fictional location.
2. I'm doing my best to obey the rules, not make exceptions, within the constraints of compression and the need to create something that is artistically pleasing (e.g. follow GWR signalling practice). 
3. I hope I'm stitching together typical features in a concentrated but realistic way.
4. For me, the operational possibilities also need to be concentrated. A beautifully convincing model that only received a prototypical one train a day would be wholly unsatisfying to me. Hence, more than one engine in steam, the bay platform and the backstory.

If I ever "Jump the Shark" everyone should please shout at me!

Edited January 14, 2018 by Harlequin

[Regularity]

Thanks for your thoughts and advice everyone.

@Regularity: For me at least, part of the satisfaction of the layout will come from knowing that other people also find it satisfying. So I am listening intently to what eveyone's saying! I hope that I haven't yet strayed into the realms of the unconvincing

 

I don’t think you have: there are good reasons for your choices.

If at this point in time, alternatives are put to you, then you will know that your choices were informed and the right ones for you: if you had built this, then I wouldn’t suggest them. And they are just suggestions of what I would probably do.

For me, the operational possibilities also need to be concentrated. A beautifully convincing model that only received a prototypical one train a day would be wholly unsatisfying to me. Hence, more than one engine in steam, the bay platform and the backstory.

 

Respectfully (which always means, “Please bear with me whilst I am rude and/or outrageous”!) I say that you are thinking like a Railway Modeller.

What you describe is not only possible with a single platform face, but also happened regularly on the prototype.

My recommendation is that before you finally commit track to baseboard is that you read up on the Cardigan Branch, where all sorts of weird and wonderful things happened, including a freight train and a passenger train in the platform on a daily basis, with two engines present. (Also suggests that DCC is a good idea even on simple layouts! You can then divorce the roles of driver and signaller completely, and drive according to the instructions from the bobby in the box. And if you don’t, you may end up in the ballast.)

 

PM me your email address: I have some links and materials I can send to you.

[Harlequin]

Hampton Malstead

 

<Imagine beautiful stylised design of trees, valleys, distant purple moortops, blue sky and, amongst it all, a small green loco pulling chocolate and cream coaches>

 

Gateway to Eden

 

[Regularity]

If you don’t mind, I downloaded your sketch and made some very coarse freehand alterations.

My suggestion with this is that you can re-locate the turnout for accessing the goods shed, creating a more spacious feel, and move the dock to the bay - this could happen whether or not it remained as a bay, although I have opted for not having one.

 

I have also “removed” some levers from the frame, (3, 4 and 13) and allocated to them some white levers (unused on the prototype, although you could paint them black on your frame) used to operate the goods yard, as numbers 3,4,5 with the dolly number 2 moved up to turnout 9 - could this be a ringed signal, Mike? 13 is now 7, operating a ground signal for access from the bay/dock to the main. I don’t know if there would be a three-armed signal on approaching the station, and gave sketched a two-arm (for main and loop) with a disc at the base. Mike can tell you (us) if that is the most likely scenario.

 

Now the interesting bit, to which I don’t know the answer for your modelling period, but Mike does. If we are to have a train arriving into an occupied platform road, then we need to draw the arriving train to a stop, and allow it to draw forward slowly. I think this is a calling-on rather than a warning signal, but I am unsure as to how it would be signaled.

Would it be signaled with a flag? In which case, yellow or green - and you could allocate lever 13 to drive a servo to put signalman holding a flag out of an open window.

Would it have an extra, subsidiary arm below the home, again, lever 13. If so, when were these introduced?

 

However, I have always understood that that the levers running from the right most side are used to protect the section, so on a through station we might see 16 - distant, 15 - outer home, 14 - home, and so on. This suggests to me that on your layout, 16 might have once been the distant, and 15 the home. At some point, it became the norm for terminal stations to have a fixed distant on the approach, and for the lever to become spare. However, if this change coincided with the introduction of a calling-on signal, then maybe 16 became the home and 15 the calling-on?

 

I honestly don’t know enough to comment, but it raises the possibility of a really interesting and different to most operating pattern, and unless you have a penchant for bay platforms, one I think worth considering, even if you have to renumber most of the levers to accommodate it!

 

Hope the suggestions are not too presumptuous!