New layout limited space (Signalling Help Required)

[chuffinghell]

15 minutes ago, Julia said:

 

'Scuse my ignorance, but why would there be an engine shed at a station which is run as one engine in steam? Surely the loco comes up the branch from where ever, does it's stuff, and runs off back to where it came? 

 

J

 

To be honest it’s only been assumed that I’ll be running ‘one engine in steam’ 

 

Applying rule #1 it’s a fictional location  and I hoped it would be a interesting feature and add flexibility to the layout

 

And basically I just wanted one 

[Julia]

1 minute ago, chuffinghell said:

 

To be honest it’s only been assumed that I’ll be running ‘one engine in steam’ 

 

Applying rule #1 it’s a fictional location  and I hoped it would be a interesting feature and add flexibility to the layout

 

And basically I just wanted one 

 

Having an engine shed makes sense, and you have enough track to justify a small shunter loco. *BUT* that changes how the signalling has to be done. Which is why I bring it up now. 

 

J

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, Julia said:

 

'Scuse my ignorance, but why would there be an engine shed at a station which is run as one engine in steam? Surely the loco comes up the branch from where ever, does it's stuff, and runs off back to where it came? 

 

J

 

Alternatively of course, the loco could start and end its day at the terminus, particularly if the branch was a longer one, and/or if the branch was connecting a small town to a larger provincial centre.

 

In those circumstances the first train of the day may be to take people from the town to the provincial centre to work in the morning, and the last one may well be to bring them home again in the early evening (with possibly a later one to bring back theatregoers etc who had spent the evening in the provincial centre). Keeping the loco (and coaches) at the terminus saves two wasteful empty journeys.

[RLBH]

9 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Alternatively of course, the loco could start and end its day at the terminus, particularly if the branch was a longer one, and/or if the branch was connecting a small town to a larger provincial centre.

Being swapped periodically with another locomotive, allowing for maintenance to be done at the bigger depot in the provincial centre. And not coincidentally, justifying owning more than one locomotive for a one-engine-in-steam branch line!

Edited April 12, 2019 by RLBH

[Pacific231G]

On 11/04/2019 at 20:17, Julia said:

 

'Scuse my ignorance, but why would there be an engine shed at a station which is run as one engine in steam? Surely the loco comes up the branch from where ever, does it's stuff, and runs off back to where it came? 

 

J

Hi Julia

It was really a matter of economics.

Normally the first train of the day would be running to the junction either for those travelling to the local major town or, more likely, to connect with the main line to get to "the city" (not always London)  It would be the other way round for the last train of the day.

Not having a loco shed at the terminus would mean two non-revenue runs each day and extra costs especially if the longer duty time required an additional crew.  Also, unless the junction was itself a major station, there would be no other reason for it to have a loco shed so the branch loco would have to come each day from an MPD some mile further away so spending more time and coal running light engine and not making any money for the railway.

 

For some short branches the economics might have made it better to not have a shed at the terminus if there was an MPD at or near the junction (for example the Brentford Branch served by Southall Shed) but otherwise they seem to have been pretty universal even on quite short branches like Watlington or Wallingford.  I believe that it was common for a loco to spend a week on the branch before returning to its home depot for boiler washout etc.

 

if the end of the branch was operated one engine in steam then presumably the staff would have simply remained at the terminus overnight.  Wallingford, Watlington and Tetbury all had a loco shed and were operated OES. Wallingford and Watlington also had a signal box but I'm not sure what its purpose would have been and though there were two intermediate stations on the Watlington Line the whole branch was operated OES as a single staff section.

Watlington had signals as well until the station master in 1929 suggested that costs could be saved by losing them.

 

This need for a shed at the terminus caused me some angst with my current layout - a small French terminus- because sheds at small termini were, if anything even more universal (though dead end SG branches were less common there as most secondary railways ran cross country between main line junctions) However, a loco shed adds very little to the operational potential of a small layout compared with an extra siding. In the end I contrived a fiction to explain that the shed was at the previous station and replaced it with a wine warehouse.  

Edited April 13, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Siberian Snooper]

Loads of sheds at termini down here! Ashburton, Mortenhampstead, Launceston, Princetown and Barnstaple to name a few off the top of my head.

 

 

[spikey]

I've only just noticed the ashpit moulding in the pictures.  Wherdyergerrit?  Who makes it?

[Izzy]

Going back to the signalling, I have often thought that having a small box with an open or slightly open window with a green flag that can be poked out of it to authorise any moves, ( and a nice little challenge on the ‘making it work’ front), is as good a way as any of overcoming any shortcomings on the signalling.

 

Izzy

[chuffinghell]

39 minutes ago, spikey said:

I've only just noticed the ashpit moulding in the pictures.  Wherdyergerrit?  Who makes it?

 

Peco Modular locomotive depot inspection pit kit

 

LK-56 for code 100

LK-156 for code 75

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by chuffinghell

[spikey]

11 hours ago, chuffinghell said:

 

Peco Modular locomotive depot inspection pit kit

 

 

Thank you, kind sir.  Never seen it before!

[Flying Pig]

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

Going back to the signalling, I have often thought that having a small box with an open or slightly open window with a green flag that can be poked out of it to authorise any moves, ( and a nice little challenge on the ‘making it work’ front), is as good a way as any of overcoming any shortcomings on the signalling.

 

Izzy

 

It has been done, even down to the window sliding open.  I remember a Scottish branch line covered in RM some time about 1980 that had such an arrangement.

[TonyA]

It was done on the Lulworth Camp layout by Mike Walshaw. Here is a photo with apologies for the quality.

 

The blockman (army term for signalman) came in and out as required.

 

Tony

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It has been done, even down to the window sliding open.  I remember a Scottish branch line covered in RM some time about 1980 that had such an arrangement.

 

Ah, thanks, that’s probably where the idea was first gleaned and stuck in my memory, being re-awoken in recent years with signalling questions I have posed where the signalman sticking a flag out has often come up.

 

Izzy

[Martin S-C]

Man poking out of box and waving flag is what I'd like to use on my layout so in time I hope I can advise how (not) to do it.

[chuffinghell]

Before fixing the track in place I want to make provisions for point rodding 

 

Does this look feasible?

 

[Flying Pig]

Only the crossover into the loop next to the box would definitely be worked from the box and hence need a rodding run. The loco release crossover (including the shed points) at the other end of the loop might be, but could also be worked by a ground frame - I think this would be released from the box, thus needing a single line of rodding, but others will confirm.

 

All the siding points (except those mentioned above) would be changed by a ground lever adjacent to the point, so no rodding from the box would be needed.

[chuffinghell]

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Only the crossover into the loop next to the box would definitely be worked from the box and hence need a rodding run. The loco release crossover (including the shed points) at the other end of the loop might be, but could also be worked by a ground frame - I think this would be released from the box, thus needing a single line of rodding, but others will confirm.

 

All the siding points (except those mentioned above) would be changed by a ground lever adjacent to the point, so no rodding from the box would be needed.

 

Thank you for replying

 

if that is the case it would make things a little easier...even more so if I only need to rod the crossover at the signal box end

[Harlequin]

52 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Only the crossover into the loop next to the box would definitely be worked from the box and hence need a rodding run. The loco release crossover (including the shed points) at the other end of the loop might be, but could also be worked by a ground frame - I think this would be released from the box, thus needing a single line of rodding, but others will confirm.

 

All the siding points (except those mentioned above) would be changed by a ground lever adjacent to the point, so no rodding from the box would be needed.

Yep, I agree. I think that each of the crossovers would be operated by a single lever in the box (whether operating the points or just releasing a ground frame) - for the crossover near the box that might still be two rods leaving the box though - it depends where the action is split.

 

BTW: Is the extra rodding run to the right-most point for the Facing Point Lock that would be required at that position? If so, Bonus Points!

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, chuffinghell said:

Before fixing the track in place I want to make provisions for point rodding 

 

Does this look feasible?

 

This is what I understand but the signalling experts may know differently and there was probably variation between companies.

 

The design of the station should obviate the need for any catch points as movements away from the running line can all be trapped by the existing  points.

Sidings within a goods yard would normally be operated by local levers and it's only points on or protecting a passenger line that would be required to be interlocked and covered by signals (There would also be a facing point lock on the right hand loop point as you've shown)

As a minimum, only the crossover at the entrance to the station and the points for the   run round loop at the left hand end would be required to be operated from the interlocking frame and interlocked with signals. In practice, I suspect that the second point from the left that effectively forms a  crossover with the loco release point would probably also be controlled from the box. I'm not sure about the two back to back points that access the goods sidings but, with the two crossovers the whole yard can be locked out from the running line so enabling shunting to be carried out freely. The two points within in the goods yard would almost certainly be controlled by local levers. 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Pacific231G

[chuffinghell]

16 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

BTW: Is the extra rodding run to the right-most point for the Facing Point Lock that would be required at that position? If so, Bonus Points!

 

 

It is

 

Is this right?

[Flying Pig]

Only the loco release needs a ground frame. The other points would almost certainly be worked by individual levers next to the point.  There was some discussion about (non-working) model ground frames and levers in this thread.

 

[chuffinghell]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Only the loco release needs a ground frame. The other points would almost certainly be worked by individual levers next to the point.  There was some discussion about (non-working) model ground frames and levers in this thread.

 

 

Thank you

[Harlequin]

Here's a photo of the loco release crossover at Moretonhampstead:

 

If the crossover was operated by a ground frame I think it would have been roughly where the ground disc is or where the crossing boards are - between the tracks.

The ground disc probably has simple detection to ensure it can only be pulled off when the adjacent point has been set properly.

Notice the signal cable for the disc running parallel with the point rodding all the way back to the 'box.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Harlequin

[chuffinghell]

Is this correct?

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by chuffinghell

[chuffinghell]

?

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by chuffinghell