Help required with signalling a Layout Plan (Cambrian Street)

[imt]

My comments are on Phil's latest diagram.

 

As many of you know I am interested in how things really worked and not just the signal and points positioning and locking etc. which are of course vital - but the human element is the final aspect of safety. Please correct me if I am wrong but there are 2 sub-Empires here, the yard (the shunter's domain or was there a Yard Foreman?) and the loco shed (Shed Foreman's domain).  Moving in and out of these areas required "a clear understanding" between the signaller and the Foreman as to when something was going in and out.  I am also unclear whether a 100 lever box would have a number of signaller's (presumably traffic had a bearing) or whether indeed the earlier suggestion of a second box for shed/carriage sidings and approaches would be valid.  Certainly in real life for a single signal box a lot of this would be motors not wires/rods would it not?

 

I am confused with "telephones, gongs and plungers".  I understand that plungers (buttons) were often used for a guard (say) to indicate (for example) that a train was fully in a siding. In the case in point the #1 looks to me to be beside a telephone and that would in all probability be on the Shed Foreman's desk for communication with the signalbox?  Would plungers be used on signals 5 and 90 (I think they are the right ones for exit to the Main/Relief) to indicate loco ready to leave?  Do we need signals 6 (which reads to the head shunt only?) and 89 (which reads to the shed only?) and presumably are the Shed Foreman's domain.  Gongs as I understand it are usually operated by levers in the ground frame to allow the shunter to "talk" to the signalbox - maybe telephones by this time?

 

Should signal 7 just be a disc as per 4?  Where does signal 9 read to, and if it is into the yard how is that achieved?  Would there be a shunter's ground frame or something where there could be a telephone to communicate with the signaller?  Trains surely cannot just be stuffed into the yard?

 

Signal 82 appears to cover 2 routes, one into the shed - should there not be another sub bracketed left associated with 28 and entering the shed?  There is a problem with light engines entering the shed from the station end since entry is straight into the shed - from the country end they would go into the head shunt.

 

Some comments might help me make sure that any other silly ideas I have are corected before I comment further.

[The Stationmaster]

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?

 

Where has all this business about gongs come from?  I can't recall any instance of a gong at a GWR/WR ground frame that I have ever come across - and I've come across quite a lot of them over the years; the norma 'fit' would be a 'phone.  Occasionally shunting gongs were used on the Western but the key word is 'occasional' and then in very specific locations - usually where sighting was restricted by something.

 

As mentioned already there is no need to number a 'phone - it's a 'phone and not a signal. 

 

As far as 77 is concerned I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - what I meant was add a signal (and keep the disc) - that would then accord with normal WR practice for a line from which trains would be likely to start out onto a running line.

[Harlequin]

Where has all this business about gongs come from?  I can't recall any instance of a gong at a GWR/WR ground frame that I have ever come across - and I've come across quite a lot of them over the years; the norma 'fit' would be a 'phone.  Occasionally shunting gongs were used on the Western but the key word is 'occasional' and then in very specific locations - usually where sighting was restricted by something.

 

As mentioned already there is no need to number a 'phone - it's a 'phone and not a signal. 

 

As far as 77 is concerned I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - what I meant was add a signal (and keep the disc) - that would then accord with normal WR practice for a line from which trains would be likely to start out onto a running line.

Thanks Mike,

 

The gongs come from flyingsignalman's design back at post #73.

 

Re. 77: Thanks for the clarification.

[The Stationmaster]

My comments are on Phil's latest diagram.

 

As many of you know I am interested in how things really worked and not just the signal and points positioning and locking etc. which are of course vital - but the human element is the final aspect of safety. Please correct me if I am wrong but there are 2 sub-Empires here, the yard (the shunter's domain or was there a Yard Foreman?) and the loco shed (Shed Foreman's domain).  Moving in and out of these areas required "a clear understanding" between the signaller and the Foreman as to when something was going in and out.  I am also unclear whether a 100 lever box would have a number of signaller's (presumably traffic had a bearing) or whether indeed the earlier suggestion of a second box for shed/carriage sidings and approaches would be valid.  Certainly in real life for a single signal box a lot of this would be motors not wires/rods would it not?

 

I think we might be conflating the real world with the compression inhereent in the model railway world.  The situation in the real world was quite simple and, apart from Signalman's workload, the key deciding factor was the distance between the signalbox and any points which it operated mechanically - and by the 1930s that distance had grown to 350 yards.  Increase in the distance allowed signalboxes to be amalgamated and much of that sort of thing took place on some Railways and BR Regions.  Here it really depends on what Bob wants - I earlier recommended signalling to GWR/WR post-war standards as it would allow greater simplicity but that too is a matter of what Bob wants.  But one thing that is debatable is that one signalbox controlling a layout like this in earlier times would be unlikely - the very nature of some features of the track layout (particularly two bi-directionl lines) suggests a more modern tarck lauyout and possible combination of two 'boxes into one - but that in turn would inevitabluuy lead to power working of some points and probably the siding connections between Platform 1 & 2 being operated by ground frames.

 

 

I am confused with "telephones, gongs and plungers".  I understand that plungers (buttons) were often used for a guard (say) to indicate (for example) that a train was fully in a siding. In the case in point the #1 looks to me to be beside a telephone and that would in all probability be on the Shed Foreman's desk for communication with the signalbox?  Would plungers be used on signals 5 and 90 (I think they are the right ones for exit to the Main/Relief) to indicate loco ready to leave?  Do we need signals 6 (which reads to the head shunt only?) and 89 (which reads to the shed only?) and presumably are the Shed Foreman's domain.  Gongs as I understand it are usually operated by levers in the ground frame to allow the shunter to "talk" to the signalbox - maybe telephones by this time?

 

I'm equally confused.  As mentioned in a couple of posts made since the latest plan was published gongs at ground frames were not a feature of Western practice - ground frames were linked by telephone to the signalbox if any sort of communication beyond a key release instrument was provided.  Similarly train crew/ground staff operated plungers were far from common and the only place they were usually found was as 'train arrived complete' plungers for Guards to operate when arriving in a loop from a non-track circuited line although from the 1970s/80s onwards what were known as 'acceptance plungers' were provided in a few places to allow yard staff to 'accept' a train into a yard but they too were hardly a common event.  For example I was writing operational specs and agreeing signalling plans for those sort of places in the 1980s without any need whatsoever to provide acceptance plungers - it was all down to who controlled the line in question and acceptance plungers worked by yard staff had a habit of causing delays.  Such things definitely wouldn't appear in this layout/. So 'phones yes, including loudaphone type installations or tannoys .  A 'phone to 'ring off' from the shed area and possibly similar anywhere else not under the Signalman's immediate view or where he couldn't see a handsignal.

 

 

Should signal 7 just be a disc as per 4?  Where does signal 9 read to, and if it is into the yard how is that achieved?  Would there be a shunter's ground frame or something where there could be a telephone to communicate with the signaller?  Trains surely cannot just be stuffed into the yard?

 

Signalman contacts yard staff and asjks if he can let a train in, or yard staff contact Signalman and tell him he can let a train in - simples

 

Signal 82 appears to cover 2 routes, one into the shed - should there not be another sub bracketed left associated with 28 and entering the shed?  There is a problem with light engines entering the shed from the station end since entry is straight into the shed - from the country end they would go into the head shunt.

 

Again a matter of communication - there would be a clearly understood method of working about who was allowed to do what without contacting someone else to ask permission to do something or make a particular movement.  On Plan Vers,17 signal 82 reads to signal 84.

 

 

Some comments might help me make sure that any other silly ideas I have are corected before I comment further.

Edited May 8, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[imt]

 

My comments are on Phil's latest diagram.

 

As many of you know I am interested in how things really worked and not just the signal and points positioning and locking etc. which are of course vital - but the human element is the final aspect of safety. Please correct me if I am wrong but there are 2 sub-Empires here, the yard (the shunter's domain or was there a Yard Foreman?) and the loco shed (Shed Foreman's domain).  Moving in and out of these areas required "a clear understanding" between the signaller and the Foreman as to when something was going in and out.  I am also unclear whether a 100 lever box would have a number of signaller's (presumably traffic had a bearing) or whether indeed the earlier suggestion of a second box for shed/carriage sidings and approaches would be valid.  Certainly in real life for a single signal box a lot of this would be motors not wires/rods would it not?

 

I think we might be conflating the real world with the compression inhereent in the model railway world.  The situation in the real world was quite simple and, apart from Signalman's workload, the key deciding factor was the distance between the signalbox and any points which it operated mechanically - and by the 1930s that distance had grown to 350 yards.  Increase in the distance allowed signalboxes to be amalgamated and much of that sort of thing took place on some Railways and BR Regions.  Here it really depends on what Bob wants - I earlier recommended signalling to GWR/WR post-war standards as it would allow greater simplicity but that too is a matter of what Bob wants.  But one thing that is debatable is that one signalbox controlling a layout like this in earlier times would be unlikely - the very nature of some features of the track layout (particularly two bi-directionl lines) suggests a more modern tarck lauyout and possible combination of two 'boxes into one - but that in turn would inevitabluuy lead to power working of some points and probably the siding connections between Platform 1 & 2 being operated by ground frames.

 

 

I am confused with "telephones, gongs and plungers".  I understand that plungers (buttons) were often used for a guard (say) to indicate (for example) that a train was fully in a siding. In the case in point the #1 looks to me to be beside a telephone and that would in all probability be on the Shed Foreman's desk for communication with the signalbox?  Would plungers be used on signals 5 and 90 (I think they are the right ones for exit to the Main/Relief) to indicate loco ready to leave?  Do we need signals 6 (which reads to the head shunt only?) and 89 (which reads to the shed only?) and presumably are the Shed Foreman's domain.  Gongs as I understand it are usually operated by levers in the ground frame to allow the shunter to "talk" to the signalbox - maybe telephones by this time?

 

I'm equally confused.  As mentioned in a couple of posts made since the latest plan was published gongs at ground frames were not a feature of Western practice - ground frames were linked by telephone to the signalbox if any sort of communication beyond a key release instrument was provided.  Similarly train crew/ground staff operated plungers were far from common and the only place they were usually found was as 'train arrived complete' plungers for Guards to operate when arriving in a loop from a non-track circuited line although from the 1970s/80s onwards what were known as 'acceptance plungers' were provided in a few places to allow yard staff to 'accept' a train into a yard but they too were hardly a common event.  For example I was writing operational specs and agreeing signalling plans for those sort of places in the 1980s without any need whatsoever to provide acceptance plungers - it was all down to who controlled the line in question and acceptance plungers worked by yard staff had a habit of causing delays.  Such things definitely wouldn't appear in this layout/. So 'phones yes, including loudaphone type installations or tannoys .  A 'phone to 'ring off' from the shed area and possibly similar anywhere else not under the Signalman's immediate view or where he couldn't see a handsignal.

 

 

Should signal 7 just be a disc as per 4?  Where does signal 9 read to, and if it is into the yard how is that achieved?  Would there be a shunter's ground frame or something where there could be a telephone to communicate with the signaller?  Trains surely cannot just be stuffed into the yard?

 

Signalman contacts yard staff and asjks if he can let a train in, or yard staff contact Signalman and tell him he can let a train in - simples

 

Signal 82 appears to cover 2 routes, one into the shed - should there not be another sub bracketed left associated with 28 and entering the shed?  There is a problem with light engines entering the shed from the station end since entry is straight into the shed - from the country end they would go into the head shunt.

 

Again a matter of communication - there would be a clearly understood method of working about who was allowed to do what without contacting someone else to ask permission to do something or make a particular movement.  On Plan Vers,17 signal 82 reads to signal 84.

 

 

Some comments might help me make sure that any other silly ideas I have are corected before I comment further.

 

Thanks for all of that Mike and the time you took over doing it.  It is so interesting to understand how these things really worked, rather than just what signals were where.  Thanks again for your time.

[DCB]

I am a bit bemused by this thread.   Lots of talk about signalling what is really a quite improbable scenario.  The idea of separate goods and passenger lines is very unusual though I believe not unknown Stourport? on the GWR  but usually the double track would be up and down.   I know the rationale is running down the station but the track layout does not look much like a double track terminus simplified, indeed it would have needed extensive resignalling for the simplification for which cash was tight early 60s ish.  

I suspect the object of the plan is to provide a headshunt for the sidings to allow shunting independent of main line services, however most prototype stations used the outgoing main line as a shunting neck as the staff knew when trains were due, and they were quite rare  by late steam days.

I think some redesign of The trackPlan, to a straightforward double track terminus would be a good move.  Replacing siding point control with hand levers is more likely than providing ground frames for that purpose.

[imt]

I am a bit bemused by this thread.   Lots of talk about signalling what is really a quite improbable scenario.  The idea of separate goods and passenger lines is very unusual though I believe not unknown Stourport? on the GWR  but usually the double track would be up and down.   I know the rationale is running down the station but the track layout does not look much like a double track terminus simplified, indeed it would have needed extensive resignalling for the simplification for which cash was tight early 60s ish.  

I suspect the object of the plan is to provide a headshunt for the sidings to allow shunting independent of main line services, however most prototype stations used the outgoing main line as a shunting neck as the staff knew when trains were due, and they were quite rare  by late steam days.

I think some redesign of The trackPlan, to a straightforward double track terminus would be a good move.  Replacing siding point control with hand levers is more likely than providing ground frames for that purpose.

 

I think we were all presented with a layout that existed and were asked to comment and design signalling etc.  I would agree that I wouldn't have started from here - and the OP (Bob) has done some minor rearrangements - especially moving trap points.  I don't think he wants to do more changes.  This is what he has come up with as a starter arrangement - he says he will be building something more traditional in due course.

 

Personally I'd do some tidying up:

1)remove the cross over with single slip direct into the shed area (if there was room making it into the right hand end of the head shunt to have an easy entry/exit - or remove altogether as unnecessary);

2 remove the link between the lower carriage siding line and the Relief line

3)remove/redesign the strange double slip entry into the yard conflated with the Pilot siding which is over complicated and causes signalling/operational problems.

 

But there you are - probably others would disagree.

[Harlequin]

I am a bit bemused by this thread.   Lots of talk about signalling what is really a quite improbable scenario.  The idea of separate goods and passenger lines is very unusual though I believe not unknown Stourport? on the GWR  but usually the double track would be up and down.   I know the rationale is running down the station but the track layout does not look much like a double track terminus simplified, indeed it would have needed extensive resignalling for the simplification for which cash was tight early 60s ish.  

I suspect the object of the plan is to provide a headshunt for the sidings to allow shunting independent of main line services, however most prototype stations used the outgoing main line as a shunting neck as the staff knew when trains were due, and they were quite rare  by late steam days.

I think some redesign of The trackPlan, to a straightforward double track terminus would be a good move.  Replacing siding point control with hand levers is more likely than providing ground frames for that purpose.

See post #1

 

[Edit] To expand a bit:

 

I'm sure we can all see potential improvements but in post #1 Bob sets out the parameters, "Late steam era", "Western region", "difficult [snip] to lift and alter what is already laid", "all lines [snip] bi-directional". You can also see that there's a single track connection to the cassette fiddle yard, which might make adaptation to double-track difficult.

 

Improbable track plans happen in the real world so it seems reasonable to me to help Bob with his request to signal this plan.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Harlequin

[BobM]

Hi Guys....

I am so appreciative of all the comments and posting on here, I am also astounded by the knowledge and experience that has been so freely given and expressed......you cannot imagine the delight all this has given me.....

 

I can appreciate the comments too that this station is perhaps an 'improbable' situation in the 'real world....and I must admit that if I could take the layout apart then perhaps I would and start afresh with an amended track plan....however I am where I am and although I could attempt minor tweaks...it would perhaps curtail my enjoyment of the forthcoming modelling experience.....if I had to contemplate major revamping beforehand...?

 

I have learnt a salient lesson in the requirement for detailed track planning from this layout and that is the reason I am here....to learn for future layouts (when retired (428 weeks next Monday) and moved to larger premises).....

 

I am so appreciative of the signalling advice being given that I wouldn't wish anyone to spend time on signalling 'improvements' on an improved track plan that may not happen on the boards....so if you kind guys are willing to proceed with it, could the track plan that we have be taken as the 'real thing' and signaled accordingly as it would possibly have to be to make it work safely....?

 

Again I cannot express my thanks enough to you all for taking this on board....next time I promise I will plan better...indeed it proposes to follow the 1950's Aberystwyth track plan to the letter....!

 

Hope you understand the sincere sentiment behind this posting....?

 

Kindest regards as always...

Bob

Edited May 8, 2018 by BobM

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Guys....

I am so appreciative of all the comments and posting on here, I am also astounded by the knowledge and experience that has been so freely given and expressed......you cannot imagine the delight all this has given me.....

 

I can appreciate the comments too that this station is perhaps an 'improbable' situation in the 'real world....and I must admit that if I could take the layout apart then perhaps I would and start afresh with an amended track plan....however I am where I am and although I could attempt minor tweaks...it would perhaps curtail my enjoyment of the forthcoming modelling experience.....if I had to contemplate major revamping beforehand...?

 

I have learnt a salient lesson in the requirement for detailed track planning from this layout and that is the reason I am here....to learn for future layouts (when retired (428 weeks next Monday) and moved to larger premises).....

 

I am so appreciative of the signalling advice being given that I wouldn't wish anyone to spend time on signalling 'improvements' on an improved track plan that may not happen on the boards....so if you kind guys are willing to proceed with it, could the track plan that we have be taken as the 'real thing' and signaled accordingly as it would possibly have to be to make it work safely....?

 

Again I cannot express my thanks enough to you all for taking this on board....next time I promise I will plan better...indeed it proposes to follow the 1950's Aberystwyth track plan to the letter....!

 

Hope you understand the sincere sentiment behind this posting....?

 

Kindest regards as always...

Bob

 

Bob,

 

The advice I always give is very simple - as you plan a track layout signal it.  If it is easy to signal prototypically then it's an ok and it's a workable layout.  If it isn't easy to signal (to the standards of the period you are modelling) then you haven't got it right and it might not be workable.  The critical thing about your track layout - albeit with various suggested different ways in this thread of doing the same thing - is that it can actually be signalled although it is a bit on the heavy side with slip connections which MIGHT have been reduced by the time of the period you are modelling and the use of two bi-directional approach lines is rather unusual, but it still works.

[Grovenor]

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:CambrianSt17 extract.png? (Sorry, the positions of flyingsignalman's numbers are not clear to me.)

Yes, although perhaps a bit OTT to show the numbers twice for the end of the double slips, unfortunately the prototype example you gave with this style feature did not have any, maybe you have another example? Mike has answered the signal 77 question, you will need another number to do it that way.

Regards

PS What program are you using to do the drawings?

[Harlequin]

Yes, although perhaps a bit OTT to show the numbers twice for the end of the double slips, unfortunately the prototype example you gave with this style feature did not have any, maybe you have another example? Mike has answered the signal 77 question, you will need another number to do it that way.

Regards

PS What program are you using to do the drawings?

Great, thanks.

 

The "Moor Street Station" example I posted above shows both single slips and double slips with this style of numbering. I assume double slips have two numbers because there are two separate turnout mechanisms at each "end".

 

I can add Mike's suggested signal without too much problem using a spare lever - e.g. No. 65, now that it's spare.

 

 

The program is Xara Designer Pro and, in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I have worked on the development team for the past 25 years. (I can hardly believe that now that I come to write it down!)

 

Here's the working document in the editor, zoomed out. You can see useful resources on the "drawing board" around the page, and you can see that the diagram is currently wider than the A3 page! (But that won't be a problem.)

Edited May 9, 2018 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's the signal box diagram for Cambrian Street that Bob, Mike The Stationmaster and I have been working on:

 

With this lever list:

 

Many thanks to Bob and Mike for their patience and Mike for all his knowledgeable advice.

 

Edit: I've spotted a couple of mistakes since posting (typical!). Sorry. I will fix them soon.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Harlequin

[Grovenor]

Great, thanks.

 

The "Moor Street Station" example I posted above shows both single slips and double slips with this style of numbering. I assume double slips have two numbers because there are two separate turnout mechanisms at each "end".

 

I can add Mike's suggested signal without too much problem using a spare lever - e.g. No. 65, now that it's spare.

 

 

The program is Xara Designer Pro and, in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I have worked on the development team for the past 25 years. (I can hardly believe that now that I come to write it down!)

 

Here's the working document in the editor, zoomed out. You can see useful resources on the "drawing board" around the page, and you can see that the diagram is currently wider than the A3 page! (But that won't be a problem.)

Screenshot.png

Somehow this got in without my edits/contribution, so I'll add it now..

The great majority of double slips have all 4 blades at the one end worked by one lever connected to all 4 blades. Some companies in the past, GWR and LNWR especially did sometimes use two levers, one for each pair of bades, either because of some percieved need for different locking on each set or to reduce the load on the lever.

 

I'm impressed by the drawing standard, your 25 years has not been wasted !

Regards

Edited August 6, 2018 by Grovenor

[BobM]

My sincere personal thanks for the support, guidance and encouragement from Phil and Mike, and for all their brilliant work on this diagram.....

Regards always....

Bob

[Harlequin]

Updates with a number of small fixes: