Help required with signalling a Layout Plan (Cambrian Street)

[BobM]

Hi...

A message to update you kind guys that before 'retiring' for the night last evening, did indeed bite the confidence bullet, by lifting and removing the first of four unnecessary trap points, inserted a replacement piece of track to fill the gap created, tested and all running smoothly....also have inserted this lifted trap point into station loco head shunt...will wire up and test this evening.....

 

 

Cheers guys...

Bob

[The Stationmaster]

Hi @Mike, How's this?

CambrianSt10 extract.png

 

The slip symbols are not conventional but hopefully show the lies exactly as your sketch now.

 

Lever 21 operates a crossover as suggested even though the two affected elements are spaced out in the schematic. That's because I've straightened the curves in Bob's layout it out for the diagram. I'm sure that must happen on real-world diagrams too so hopefully this is acceptable.

 

Curves are very often straightened or 'considerably eased' on diagrams to make things clearer although there are sometimes exceptions (Severn Bridge Junction at Shrewsbury being one because of the nature of the track layout there).  I'm well used to the traditional (as in more recent traditional ) way of drawing slips on diagrams so will always find anything different, well 'different'.

 

I wonder if you might like to consider track colouring Phil - while black is undoubtedly very clear it isn't correct for WR diagrams as it was only used for track circuited sections of line.  The standard WR (and GWR) colours were pale grey for running lines and pale blue for sidings rather like the heritage railway example below (which does not have the colours absolutely right alas)

 

[Harlequin]

Curves are very often straightened or 'considerably eased' on diagrams to make things clearer although there are sometimes exceptions (Severn Bridge Junction at Shrewsbury being one because of the nature of the track layout there).  I'm well used to the traditional (as in more recent traditional ) way of drawing slips on diagrams so will always find anything different, well 'different'.

 

I wonder if you might like to consider track colouring Phil - while black is undoubtedly very clear it isn't correct for WR diagrams as it was only used for track circuited sections of line.  The standard WR (and GWR) colours were pale grey for running lines and pale blue for sidings rather like the heritage railway example below (which does not have the colours absolutely right alas)

 

IMGP7003cr.jpg

Thanks Mike,

 

Yes, I was thinking about the line colours after looking at other prototype diagrams and realising that lighter colours would help the other symbols stand out and be more readable. I will adjust them.

[BobM]

Hi..

An update to say that I have relaid the station loco headshunt and the required trap....switch wired and sll appears to be working okay....

 

 

also have removed three unnecessary traps within the goods area....will insert replacement track soon....

 

 

Regards and continued thanks

Bob

Edited May 2, 2018 by BobM

[Harlequin]

Here's version 14 of my diagram.

 

The point numbering has been revised and signalling added along the lines of flyingsignalman's design but with some differences (see below):

[Click to enlarge]

• No signalling lever numbers yet!
• Ground frames for both the loco release crossover and the spurs between P1 and P2. Not sure about this.
• No FPLs for the spurs between P1 and P2, on the grounds that if the crossover doesn't need them, neither do the spurs. Not sure about this.
• Separate FPLs everywhere rather than combined on the same lever on the basis that combined FPLs are difficult to adjust and difficult to operate. Following advice from another project.
• Track colours adjusted but track lines not as wide as prototype drawings yet. Still thinking about that.
• Stretched and shuffled things around to give better representation of the real layout and make things clearer.
• I'm still imagining a single signal box covering the whole station and approaches and so I haven't shown all of flyingsignalman's signals between the two halves.
• Slips still not shown quite conventionally but I'm still thinking about that and how to deal with it if I made the track lines wider still.

 

Is it reasonable to control the station and approaches from just one signal box in this case? (Remembering that too many signals might overpower the model.)

 

All corrections and suggestions welcome - especially any chances for simplification within Bob's 50s time period.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Harlequin

[RailWest]

>>>No FPLs for the spurs between P1 and P2, on the grounds that if the crossover doesn't need them...

 

I would disagree. IMHO the end of the crossover on P3 certainly needs a FPL if trains are going to arrive over it in a facing direction, and the same would apply for the spur connections in P1 and P2. The trailing crossover end in P4 might, or might not, have a FPL - that sort of thing seemed to vary, tho' personally I'd omit it.

[flyingsignalman]

The main reason I showed a ground frame between platforms 3 & 4 and not the sidings between platforms 1 & 2 was due to visibility from the signal box.

[Grovenor]

You need to look again at the goods yard area, some of the numbered points should just be hand levers, there is no need for the signal next to the left hand 66.

The right hand 66 should be the trapping end of 55.

The poor drawing of the slips is causing confusion with the numbering. Once the slips are drawn properly nos 46, 47, 51 and 65 need to be renumbered.

Regards

[Harlequin]

For some background to help clarify the discussion, here are some of the references I'm using to create the signal box diagram:

 

It's clear that different draughtsmen had slightly different ways of doing things.

Some didn't show the default lie of points but some did and then slips are inevitably not as clear as you'd see on a signalling design drawing with just the thin lines of a drafting pen.

It's also difficult to see consistency in the colours of goods lines. Some show sidings blue and running lines orange and some vice-versa. The orange also seems to be used for general sidings.

 

The "tippex" removals and little paper shapes stuck on over the years to amend theses drawings give them great character.

 

A couple of other points:

The text in these diagrams is always uppercase but because we have such great font technology these days I'm using mixed case.

I propose not to get into locking!

Edited May 4, 2018 by Harlequin

[BobM]

Hi...

'Offending' trap points all removed and replacement track insert, we are now reconnected....

Cheers once again guys...

Regards always

Bob

[The Stationmaster]

For some background to help clarify the discussion, here are some of the references I'm using to create the signal box diagram:

MoorSt.png

 

It's clear that different draughtsmen had slightly different ways of doing things.

Some didn't show the default lie of points but some did and then slips are inevitably not as clear as you'd see on a signalling design drawing with just the thin lines of a drafting pen.

It's also difficult to see consistency in the colours of goods lines. Some show sidings blue and running lines orange and some vice-versa. The orange also seems to be used for general sidings.

 

The "tippex" removals and little paper shapes stuck on over the years to amend theses drawings give them great character.

 

A couple of other points:

The text in these diagrams is always uppercase but because we have such great font technology these days I'm using mixed case.

I propose not to get into locking!

 

They all show the normal lie of point ends but the Moor Street and Worcester Goods Yard diagrams show it by the earlier Drawing Office practice while the Pontypool Road East diagram uses the later convention.  I think the use of blue for sidings and the sandy orange colour for Goods Lines might have varied over the years but it is at least consistent between the Worcester and Pontypool Road diagrams which are drawn to two different styles.

 

The amendments were not done with Tippex (which didn't exist back then) but by gently erasing/scraping the original detail from the linen backed diagram leaving distinct white coloured patches where changes had been made.  The use of paper overlays is a far more modern idea.

[Grovenor]

 

and then slips are inevitably not as clear as you'd see on a signalling design drawing with just the thin lines of a drafting pen.

But then you have managed to draw and number slips 26/28 and 49/60 well enough, you just need to treat the other 3 the same way.

Flying signalman in post #57 already showed how they should be. Its difficult to edit your nice drawings when only the png bitmap is supplied.

for the slip 46/47 the trap 51 should be labelled 47 to work as acrossover and the trap 65 labelled as 46 to act as a crossover. the left hand 65 would be a hand point.

For the  other slip the normal lie of 53 should be reversed then 58 renumbered to 53 to act as a crossover.

Regards

Edited May 4, 2018 by Grovenor

[BobM]

Evening guys...

Just a positioning question....A or B for the starter....just prior to the slip point or slightly ahead of the signal box (the position of which can be adjusted and is ground based not on the platform as shown here).....?

 

 

Regards always....

Bob

Edited May 4, 2018 by BobM

[RailWest]

I would suggest A, given that B is too close to the pointwork for a train to stand at it without fouling the connection. Also, by the time that the bracket is set back to the left clear of the line, the sighting of the LH arm would be difficult at position B.

[Harlequin]

How's this?

 

 

[Click to enlarge]

 

• Thicker track lines with "pencil" outlines more like prototype signal box diagrams.
• Revised double slip into good yard - hopefully it's clearer now.
• Revised point numbering as per Grovenor and flying signalman (I think).
• P1/P2 spurs given FPLs, ground discs and control from signal box.
• Signal numbers yet to be added.

Please ignore the vertical line crossing the drawing near point 31 - it's just a temporary glitch.

 

You can download the PNG and scrawl on it in any painting or drawing program if you want to annotate it.

 

I will post a PDF when the drawing is finalised so that Bob can scale it for printing or zooming without loss of quality.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Harlequin

[BobM]

How's this?

 

 

CambrianSt16.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

• Thicker track lines with "pencil" outlines more like prototype signal box diagrams.
• Revised double slip into good yard - hopefully it's clearer now.
• Revised point numbering as per Grovenor and flying signalman (I think).
• P1/P2 spurs given FPLs, ground discs and control from signal box.
• Signal numbers yet to be added.

Please ignore the vertical line crossing the drawing near point 31 - it's just a temporary glitch.

 

You can download the PNG and scrawl on it in any painting or drawing program if you want to annotate it.

 

I will post a PDF when the drawing is finalised so that Bob can scale it for printing or zooming without loss of quality.

 

Hi...

This is brilliant....thank you so much....

Regards always...

Bob

[imt]

How's this?

 

 

CambrianSt16.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

• Thicker track lines with "pencil" outlines more like prototype signal box diagrams.
• Revised double slip into good yard - hopefully it's clearer now.
• Revised point numbering as per Grovenor and flying signalman (I think).
• P1/P2 spurs given FPLs, ground discs and control from signal box.
• Signal numbers yet to be added.

 

Very nice diagram Phil but I have a few issue with it, largely because I think some idea of how the whole is to operate needs to be taken into account.  This is questioning some of your colouring but also some of the suggested signal placements (mainly by others). This posting is exploratory in the hope someone will correct my misapprehensions since I am probably way out in my thoughts. I hope this isn't seen as "threadnapping" as I think it will help Bob iof this is thought through.

Earlier Bob said the old Platform 5 was to be a “goods reception” which seems a good idea to me allowing straightforward operations.  However that would mean that the point labelled 66 should be twinned with 55 and should normally lie (locked) towards the main lines (and the whole siding and half point be grey).  The signaller could then direct a train to the siding from the Relief and then switch and lock the siding to the yard allowing shunting access.

I think that there ought to be a main signal on the old platform 5 for departing goods trains - which can only go to the Relief.

On a similar vein, I think 65 and most of 46/47 would be hand operated as part of the yard.  I don’t know quite how this would be done but the double slip needs to be locked “curved” in both directions (i.e. allowing access from the Loco siding to the yard, and Relief to P3/P4 for safe operation).  I can see that the trap at 47 is essential to prevent the Pilot moving onto the main line past the signal. I think a single disc is required for that purpose since access to the yard would be under shunter control.

I cannot see a signal on the exit from the goods yard from 47 onto the Relief.  If trains are not to exit from P5/Goods exchange via 55 then there will be problems for the Shunter since he will need to clear the path through 65 (now hand controlled) and other points for that to happen.   But if it is intended that trains leave the yard in this way then there would need to be a signal? If only a disc to cover shunting onto the Relief.

Isn’t the Up signal at 45/7 simply too close to the starters?  Maybe just a disc for entry to the Pilot siding?

I would suggest that the Down signal at 58 is overkill and could be moved back to the previous signal - which I think should be before the bridge for sighting purposes - and likewise swap the Up signal currently at 30 to the station side of the bridge. The indicators would need to have a “GR” for goods reception added.   I think there would need to be some telephones/plungers about in order for the shunter/signaller/driver to communicate about entering leaving the yard and entering and leaving the goods reception/exchange siding.

[Grovenor]

Very nice diagram Phil but I have a few issue with it, largely because I think some idea of how the whole is to operate needs to be taken into account.  This is questioning some of your colouring but also some of the suggested signal placements (mainly by others). This posting is exploratory in the hope someone will correct my misapprehensions since I am probably way out in my thoughts. I hope this isn't seen as "threadnapping" as I think it will help Bob iof this is thought through.[/size]

Earlier Bob said the old Platform 5 was to be a “goods reception” which seems a good idea to me allowing straightforward operations.  However that would mean that the point labelled 66 should be twinned with 55 and should normally lie (locked) towards the main lines (and the whole siding and half point be grey).  The signaller could then direct a train to the siding from the Relief and then switch and lock the siding to the yard allowing shunting access.[/size]

It is a requirement to protect by trapping passenger lines from goods lines and sidings, hence the normal lie of 66 must be as shown. It is correct that 55 and 66 form a crossover so should both be shown with the same number. Goods trains can arrive and depart from there on shunt signals. The allocation of these two points as a crossover has been pointed out earlier.

 

I think that there ought to be a main signal on the old platform 5 for departing goods trains - which can only go to the Relief.[/size]

A shunt signal is fine here as this is not the section signal, it leads up to the starter.

On a similar vein, I think 65 and most of 46/47 would be hand operated as part of the yard.  I don’t know quite how this would be done but the double slip needs to be locked “curved” in both directions (i.e. allowing access from the Loco siding to the yard, and Relief to P3/P4 for safe operation).  I can see that the trap at 47 is essential to prevent the Pilot moving onto the main line past the signal. I think a single disc is required for that purpose since access to the yard would be under shunter control.[/size]

Yes 65 should be a hand lever as part of the yard, pointed out earier. 46 and 47 are correct as they form two crossovers providing trapping protection to the relief line. Exit from the pilot siding can be by single disc or double disc, just a matter of preference really, but it can't be an unsignalled move as it runs over the relief line for a short distance. The colour change from beige to blue should be moved back into the yard clear of the releif line.

 

I cannot see a signal on the exit from the goods yard from 47 onto the Relief.  If trains are not to exit from P5/Goods exchange via 55 then there will be problems for the Shunter since he will need to clear the path through 65 (now hand controlled) and other points for that to happen.   But if it is intended that trains leave the yard in this way then there would need to be a signal? If only a disc to cover shunting onto the Relief.[/size]

The exit from yard to relief is via 46 not 47 and the exit signal is shown. However as mentioned earlier 65 should ba a hand point and the label for 46 should be where the 65 label is. If the slips were drawn better these would be more obvious.

Isn’t the Up signal at 45/7 simply too close to the starters?  Maybe just a disc for entry to the Pilot siding?[/size]

 

I would suggest that the Down signal at 58 is overkill and could be moved back to the previous signal - which I think should be before the bridge for sighting purposes - and likewise swap the Up signal currently at 30 to the station side of the bridge. The indicators would need to have a “GR” for goods reception added.   I think there would need to be some telephones/plungers about in order for the shunter/signaller/driver to communicate about entering leaving the yard and entering and leaving the goods reception/exchange siding.[/size]

The left hand end of 58 crossover is still shown set normal right when it should be left. I don't see the need for a main aspect and route indicator to the goods line, theshunt provided is adequate. You could delete it and move the route indicator to the previous signal with a minor loss of flexibility. The signal at 30 could be moved as you suggest for sighting purposes but bearing in mind this is just a schematic that may not be appropriate on the actual layout.

The sketches by flying signalman in post #73 are better for the signalling details.

Regards

Edited May 7, 2018 by Grovenor

[The Stationmaster]

Very nice diagram Phil but I have a few issue with it, largely because I think some idea of how the whole is to operate needs to be taken into account.  This is questioning some of your colouring but also some of the suggested signal placements (mainly by others). This posting is exploratory in the hope someone will correct my misapprehensions since I am probably way out in my thoughts. I hope this isn't seen as "threadnapping" as I think it will help Bob iof this is thought through.

Earlier Bob said the old Platform 5 was to be a “goods reception” which seems a good idea to me allowing straightforward operations.  However that would mean that the point labelled 66 should be twinned with 55 and should normally lie (locked) towards the main lines (and the whole siding and half point be grey).  The signaller could then direct a train to the siding from the Relief and then switch and lock the siding to the yard allowing shunting access.

 

No - it's correctly arranged as drawn because it's basically a sifding and its 'goods' status so needs to be trapped against the passenger running lines which is how it's drawn

I think that there ought to be a main signal on the old platform 5 for departing goods trains - which can only go to the Relief.

 

Ideally yes if it is going to be used for freight train departures but equally that signal could be at 77 disc and would probably be more useful in that location.

On a similar vein, I think 65 and most of 46/47 would be hand operated as part of the yard.  I don’t know quite how this would be done but the double slip needs to be locked “curved” in both directions (i.e. allowing access from the Loco siding to the yard, and Relief to P3/P4 for safe operation).  I can see that the trap at 47 is essential to prevent the Pilot moving onto the main line past the signal. I think a single disc is required for that purpose since access to the yard would be under shunter control.

 

46 & 47 are points in a running line so will inevitably be controlled by the signalbox, the correct arrangement of the point ends was shown in 'Flying Signalman's' drawing where they lie normal for the running line

I cannot see a signal on the exit from the goods yard from 47 onto the Relief.  If trains are not to exit from P5/Goods exchange via 55 then there will be problems for the Shunter since he will need to clear the path through 65 (now hand controlled) and other points for that to happen.   But if it is intended that trains leave the yard in this way then there would need to be a signal? If only a disc to cover shunting onto the Relief.

 

See comment above re a signal at 77

Isn’t the Up signal at 45/7 simply too close to the starters?  Maybe just a disc for entry to the Pilot siding?

 

Not necessarily - certainly the positioning is correct.  Whether it is a small arm or a disc depends entirely on period.

I would suggest that the Down signal at 58 is overkill and could be moved back to the previous signal - which I think should be before the bridge for sighting purposes - and likewise swap the Up signal currently at 30 to the station side of the bridge. The indicators would need to have a “GR” for goods reception added.   I think there would need to be some telephones/plungers about in order for the shunter/signaller/driver to communicate about entering leaving the yard and entering and leaving the goods reception/exchange siding.

 

As with have various drawings with different numbers I'm not sure which signal you mean but the Inner Homes are correctly sited.  The Relief Line Home signal would be subject to sighting and might indeed be in rear ogff the overbridge for that reason.  Same with the Up direction signal

[Harlequin]

Updated signal box diagram, Version 17:

 

• All signals numbered (and by sheer good luck I was able to assign number 77 to the disc the StationMaster referred to, which was previously marked "??")
• Fixed lie of point 58left so it correctly forms the intended crossover
• 55-66 combined as crossover 55
• 77 disc replaced by signal
• Double slip in goods yard redrawn more conventionally
• Route indicators described more fully
• "Pencil" outlines strengthened
• Signals 8/9 and 82/83 moved in rear of bridge for better sighting
• Lots of small tweaks

Also: Removed the signal box control of the right hand end of the goods yard double slip, previously labelled 65. This now differs from the FlyingSignalman's original design... I suspect this area is still not right. It would really help if the signalling experts could agree how those two double slips should be arranged.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Harlequin

[Grovenor]

Slips look OK now except that the label for the goods yard end of 46 needs to move to the box controlled end of the slip.

Making 77 a full signal is a problem as it has to be passed in shunting within the yard, this is better as a disc, see post #73 first sketch.

Note the previous 65 has been shown as an unnumbered hand point on all of the flying signalman's sketches.

Rgds

Edited May 8, 2018 by Grovenor

[RailWest]

What is the '#1' against the gong (?) in the shed road meant to mean please?

[Harlequin]

What is the '#1' against the gong (?) in the shed road meant to mean please?

The "#1" indicates a telephone line into the signal box and I thought the symbol was a telephone symbol? Is that wrong? I will add a note about the phone line to the diagram.

 

I see I missed a "gong" at the P3/P4 crossover ground frame. Should I just assign a "lever" number to it? Is there a standard gong symbol?

[Harlequin]

Slips look OK now except that the label for the goods yard end of 46 needs to move to the box controlled end of the slip.

Making 77 a full signal is a problem as it has to be passed in shunting within the yard, this is better as a disc, see post #73 first sketch.

Note the previous 65 has been shown as an unnumbered hand point on all of the flying signalman's sketches.

Rgds

 

I thought Mike The StationMaster was suggesting replacing disc 77 with a signal - or was the idea to retain the disc and add a signal at that location?

 

Re. 46 and 65: Do you mean it should be like this:? (Sorry, the positions of flyingsignalman's numbers are not clear to me.)

[RailWest]

The "#1" indicates a telephone line into the signal box and I thought the symbol was a telephone symbol? Is that wrong? I will add a note about the phone line to the diagram.

 

I see I missed a "gong" at the P3/P4 crossover ground frame. Should I just assign a "lever" number to it? Is there a standard gong symbol?

I need better glasses :-)

 

If that is a telephone, then I see no need for any further annotation - the presumption would always be that it connects to the SB unless otherwise stated.

 

I don't see any need either for a gong at the GF, not a normal GWR provision AFAIK.