Please Help! - Signalling advice for LMS layout

[ianLMS]

Good morning,

I am hoping someone can help me.

 

I have been putting off signaling the layout for sometime as I find it difficult to get my head around. Its simple to understand the concept, however, putting it into practice and applying it to my non-prototypical layout is a little daunting.

 

I have added ground and semaphore signals to my plan where I think they should go. Double ground discs I assume would be stacked, but it looks an awful lot! Would semaphore be more appropriate in a goods/wagon siding situation?

 

I have a couple of the Ratio kits i'm making and have just built a couple of Comets LNWR and LMS ground signals.

 

 

Jencaster Station signalling Plan - Mar 19.pdf

Edited March 25, 2019 by ianLMS

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would need to take a look at the layout thread to get a better picture of what all the various tracks are for.

 

But, on the face of it, you have a lot more signals and ground signals than you really need.

[Rowsley17D]

Agreed, there would just be ground signals to protect where the goods yard/sidings fan meets the running lines. Each siding would not be signalled. Forget the distants too as they would be too far away in real life. You could easily loose 2/3 of the signals you have on your diagram.

[ianLMS]

Thank you for the help.

 

Would something like this be better?

 

Not sure on how the double slips would work. Slip 2/3 is for the Up-to-Down line to access the cattle pen siding, or to loop around into the engine shed area (20). The 5-23, and 5-24 line are just a short siding loop (the schematic makes it much longer than in reality), with point 25 leading to the goods shed. 28 and beyond are wagon sidings.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Much more like it. I have not yet got to understand what the sidings at 19/20 are for. Very unprototypical to have a facing lead into there.

 

And likewise the double slip at 2/3.

 

You also have numbered each of the points. But in reality, many of these are paired and should be operated by one lever (1&3, 2&5, 17&18, 19&21).

 

You need a ground signal at 1 for trains reversing into the goods yard.

 

Accepting the unlikely double slip at 2/3, movement into the goods yard is controlled by the bracket signal. So no ground signals needed at 2.

 

Only one ground disc at 3 controlling a shunt from down to up.

 

A ground signal (or small arm home signal) at 5 to control move from goods yard.

 

Ground signal at 21 duplicates bracket signal (and the bracket is wrong way round).

 

Only one ground signal at 17.

[RailWest]

You would need trap points at the exits from goods lines onto passenger lines (eg between 22 and 23).

 

It might help us to understand the layout better if passenger and goods lines/sidings were in different colours.

 

A lot of the ground discs seem to be in odd positions, nor is it always clear for which direction of travel they are meant to apply  (eg the one to the left of '17').

 

As the OP says "putting it into practice and applying it to my non-prototypical layout is a little daunting".....:-)

[ianLMS]

Thank you again for your help and I can imagine its hard for you to be too specific on a layout which doesn't represent prototypical working. 

 

To help clarify;

 

1. Point 20 leads to an engine shed

2. Point 19 allows locos from the Down line to enter the shed across a diamond crossing. Points 17 & 18 allow a loco from the shed to return to the Up line.

3. Some points are linked so they throw at the same time (2 & 3, 4 & 5, 26 & 25, 21 & 19, 17 & 18)

4. The platforms are on the bottom left starting just at the heel end of point 1 and Double Slip 2.

5. All signals are on the left side facing as you drive towards them.

 

Thank you all again

Ian

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by ianLMS

[ianLMS]

Added ground signal to 1 and moved one or two.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

21 minutes ago, ianLMS said:

Added ground signal to 1 and moved one or two.

 

 

 

Those pics help a lot. I now know that there is a loco depot. Definitely odd to have a facing connection over a diamond into that.

 

Just noticed that you only have one ground signal at 22. There should be 2 - one to control exit from goods yard and one to control trains shunting back into the goods yard (although since your trains can enter goods yard via the double slip this could be seen as redundant.

 

Some ground signals could be omitted on the basis that they are right by the signalbox where the signalman can lean out of the box to give permission.

[ianLMS]

Thank you - I have omitted the ground signals from 17 & 18 based on the closeness of the signal box and put one on the other side of 22. I also removed the one next to the diamond crossing as the ones covering points 19 & 21 would be interlocked and set to allow a loco to cross the Up line. 

 

RailWest  - Trap points were one thing I forgot when planning/track laying. I might be able to retrofit some parts from my spares box to make it look like I have some. 

 

Another question - each end there are tunnel entrances. Would signals be needed at the entrances, or is the assumption that the tunnel is clear as its part of the block section between signal boxes? I have planned on putting my Distance signals there, but as you have said, due to the distance portrayed, they wouldn't be required.

 

[RailWest]

1. As has been mentioned already, the bracket signal to the left of point 21 should have the arm on the right lower than the one on the left.

2. There needs to be a Home signal on your green line somewhere to the right of the diamond.

3. On the blue line, there needs to be a Starting signal some distance to the right of point 22.

4. Having now seen from the pix just how close  point 1 is to 17, then I would suggest that the stop signal which you show between the two is probably in the wrong place and might be omitted or else moved to the right of point 17 (but I'm not an LMS expert...) .

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, ianLMS said:

Thank you for the help.

 

Would something like this be better?

 

Not sure on how the double slips would work. Slip 2/3 is for the Up-to-Down line to access the cattle pen siding, or to loop around into the engine shed area (20). The 5-23, and 5-24 line are just a short siding loop (the schematic makes it much longer than in reality), with point 25 leading to the goods shed. 28 and beyond are wagon sidings.

 

You need full size signals to control access to mainline, such as points 18 & 22.

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You need full size signals to control access to mainline, such as points 18 & 22.

Not necessarily - there were numerous places on the LNW section of the LMS/BR Midland region where that was not the case.

 

17 hours ago, RailWest said:

1. As has been mentioned already, the bracket signal to the left of point 21 should have the arm on the right lower than the one on the left.

2. There needs to be a Home signal on your green line somewhere to the right of the diamond.

3. On the blue line, there needs to be a Starting signal some distance to the right of point 22.

4. Having now seen from the pix just how close  point 1 is to 17, then I would suggest that the stop signal which you show between the two is probably in the wrong place and might be omitted or else moved to the right of point 17 (but I'm not an LMS expert...) .

Agreed.  It should be remembered that the LM  had a useful habit at some smaller stations of setting back Home Signals a long way in rear of the first point etc they were protecting - in some cases even sufficiently far to create a Clearing Point.

[ianLMS]

Thank you all - this is really helping me understand a little more about where to put the signals and which type.

 

I assume then that if the point deviates to the left, the lower signal should be on the left, and vice-versa. Makes sense. So far, I have built two bracket signals, both with the short arm on the left. I have another signal kit winging its way from Ebay so I can make one with the lower arm on the right. 

 

I will loosely place them, and post up pics before setting them properly.

 

I am very, very appreciative for the help you have given me.

 

Ian

[ianLMS]

I have added in all the recommendations from above.

 

Not sure if 18 would be a bracket signal or a single or, as mentioned above if access would be controlled by hand signals as the signal box is right there.

 

[RailWest]

>>>I assume then that if the point deviates to the left, the lower signal should be on the left, and vice-versa...

 

Not necessarily. The higher arm is always the more important route, the lower arm the less important route.

 

I'm not sure what the LMS practice would be for the disc at 19. Would it have one for straight-ahead towards 18?  Going to the right would take you across the diamond onto the blue line at 21, where you would then be going 'wrong direction' back to the discs at 3 - would the LMS allow such a move?

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, RailWest said:

>>>I assume then that if the point deviates to the left, the lower signal should be on the left, and vice-versa...

 

Not necessarily. The higher arm is always the more important route, the lower arm the less important route.

 

I'm not sure what the LMS practice would be for the disc at 19. Would it have one for straight-ahead towards 18?  Going to the right would take you across the diamond onto the blue line at 21, where you would then be going 'wrong direction' back to the discs at 3 - would the LMS allow such a move?

As far as the route towards 18 is concerned the most likely LMS solution would be to use a yellow arm disc - quite common in their installations.

 

The move across to opposite line at 21 is not in itself a particular problem as 19 would read to the disc at 3 (which should only be a single disc as you can only go one way from it, the equivalent coming out of the sidings at that end would be placed - single disc - at 5 and could again be a yellow arm disc),  The real problem of course, and far too late to do anything about, is having a facing crossover off a running line direct into an engine yard/shed - something the Railway inspectorate would have thrown out as soon as they saw it in the real world,.  But it's there on the model so it will have to stay and the a signal arm reading through it from the running line should be either a miniature arm (the most likely) or a disc (possibly elevated).

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The real problem of course, and far too late to do anything about

 

As it so often is!  Why is signalling so frequently an afterthought?  Threads in this part of RMweb can be a very frustrating read, though the quality of scenic modelling in this case makes it worse than usual. Mostly the OP has just epoxied the track in position, wired it and ballasted it with cement before asking the question and the rest is still bare boards.

[RailWest]

45 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

As it so often is!  Why is signalling so frequently an afterthought?  Threads in this part of RMweb can be a very frustrating read, though the quality of scenic modelling in this case makes it worse than usual. Mostly the OP has just epoxied the track in position, wired it and ballasted it with cement before asking the question and the rest is still bare boards.

Indeed. In fact, when I first started to read this thread I had assumed that the layout was just in the initial planning stage, so the photos (splendid tho' they are) came as a shock!

 

To be fair, it must be rather disheartening for some OPs to  post a query here, only to be told in effect that their pride and joy is the S&T equivalent of a pig's ear.  Hopefully they will gain from the experience, painful tho' it may be. Mind you, I don't think the 'problem' is confined necessarily to modellers, I have my suspicions about one or two heritage railways as well.....:-)

[ianLMS]

Totally agree that signalling and following prototype rules on track layout were completely ignored at the planning stage. If i decide to build a layout again and avoid the same thing happening i would build one of a real location and follow the plan exactly. Of course hindesight is wonderful but i am sure many layouts dont follow basic rules still look good and even end up in magazines or winners of shows. In this instance it is what it is and i am very grateful to those folks who have tried to help me understand signalling a little and apply it to my non protypical, completely incorrectly laid out, poorly designed model railway. 

 

I will press on and follow the guidance already given and see how it looks. 

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, RailWest said:

Indeed. In fact, when I first started to read this thread I had assumed that the layout was just in the initial planning stage, so the photos (splendid tho' they are) came as a shock!

 

To be fair, it must be rather disheartening for some OPs to  post a query here, only to be told in effect that their pride and joy is the S&T equivalent of a pig's ear.  Hopefully they will gain from the experience, painful tho' it may be. Mind you, I don't think the 'problem' is confined necessarily to modellers, I have my suspicions about one or two heritage railways as well.....:-)

I quite agree Chris but Simon's point is what it really should come down to every time although it is understandable that it doesn't.  There are very many people who not only regard signalling as something difficult and probably mystic but even more who see it as almost a chore to be done after everything else is in place and we then find they offer up a layout 'to be signalled please' and we find out that it is impossible to do so.

 

Alas I think many layout planning books don't help as all they talk about is coming up with something that will fit a particular face and offer whatever facilities.  The alternative of course is to copy a real place - and in most cases then find that it won't fit the space you have available so it has to be compressed and then things go wrong.  What is often needed is looking at real life practice from the period you intend to model and studying umpteen plans and photos until what uyou design and plan almost unconsciously gets all the right sort of features and arrangements that suit the type of place you are modelling.

 

As for me - I never, ever, draw a running line track plan without signalling it as I go.  If it can't be signalled then there is something very unusual or wrong in the trackplan.  Great when you know how of course, not so easy when you're just moving on from trainset railways.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, ianLMS said:

my non protypical, completely incorrectly laid out, poorly designed model railway

 

Sorry if you feel put upon because of my comment. Apart from the couple of facing connections already mentioned in the thread, your railway is a good representation of a small Midland station, so neither completely incorrect nor anywhere near being an S&T pig's ear. Had you posted the plan before building, you might have found out in time to make the very small changes required.  (Though it's equally likely you would have been encouraged to ditch your plans and build a multilevel epic allegedly based on Minories.) 

[ianLMS]

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry if you feel put upon because of my comment. Apart from the couple of facing connections already mentioned in the thread, your railway is a good representation of a small Midland station, so neither completely incorrect nor anywhere near being an S&T pig's ear. Had you posted the plan before building, you might have found out in time to make the very small changes required.  (Though it's equally likely you would have been encouraged to ditch your plans and build a multilevel epic allegedly based on Minories.) 

I have to be honest and agree that the comment did set me back a little but i totally agree with your comments concerning a lack of understanding how real railways operate and the lack of planning a layout taking protypical track formations into consideration. The layout was developed to fit the space i had and to do the things i wanted it to do. The diamond was to allow a loco to come off the downline to the engine shed but rejoin the Up line via point 18, reverse across the double slip and connect back onto the train. It also provides a programming track close to my operating area. It would not take too much to rip that section up, however, i would probably want to re lay the whole layout using bullhead track to EM if i was going that far. I dont operate to a particular schedule or standard nor run exact locos or train formations for the area so some compromise is acceptable as far as i am concerned. This was my first major layout build and im learning more everyday. Signalling confused me and my main focus was running trains, electrics and focusing on the scenery first. Many track plans omit signalling so its hard for beginners to plan it in without a whole load of research and learning a very difficult subject.

Again, i thank everyone for helping me to understand things a little better and next time i will ask during the planning stage before i build anything. Valuable lesson learnt!!!

[Flying Pig]

34 minutes ago, ianLMS said:

The diamond was to allow a loco to come off the downline to the engine shed but rejoin the Up line via point 18, reverse across the double slip and connect back onto the train. It also provides a programming track close to my operating area.

 

Ironically, if 19/21 were laid out as a trailing crossover, not only would the resulting arrangement be more prototypical, it would allow you to run round a significantly longer train on the Down line and probably still leave a long enough programming track.  The diamond could then be converted to a trailing single slip on the up line for locos to run round without needing to enter the shed siding (again prototypical). 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

47 minutes ago, ianLMS said:

I have to be honest and agree that the comment did set me back a little but i totally agree with your comments concerning a lack of understanding how real railways operate and the lack of planning a layout taking protypical track formations into consideration. The layout was developed to fit the space i had and to do the things i wanted it to do. The diamond was to allow a loco to come off the downline to the engine shed but rejoin the Up line via point 18, reverse across the double slip and connect back onto the train. It also provides a programming track close to my operating area. It would not take too much to rip that section up, however, i would probably want to re lay the whole layout using bullhead track to EM if i was going that far. I dont operate to a particular schedule or standard nor run exact locos or train formations for the area so some compromise is acceptable as far as i am concerned. This was my first major layout build and im learning more everyday. Signalling confused me and my main focus was running trains, electrics and focusing on the scenery first. Many track plans omit signalling so its hard for beginners to plan it in without a whole load of research and learning a very difficult subject.

Again, i thank everyone for helping me to understand things a little better and next time i will ask during the planning stage before i build anything. Valuable lesson learnt!!!

 

You may well get a bit more satisfaction from correcting the layout. Much depends how easily you can lift and re-lay the pointwork.

 

The facing double slip is perhaps not worth messing with. There were a few places with them although, off-hand, I can't think of one on the Midland.

 

But I think it would definitely be worth taking out the facing lead and replacing it with a trailing crossover. You have plenty of space to do it and it does not impact on your programming track at all. Scenically, you can justify the "extra" crossover by having a traffic source there, i.e. a small loading platform or cattle dock.