Please Help! - Signalling advice for LMS layout

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

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.  

 

52 minutes ago, ianLMS said:

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.

 

 

Not a few published track plans are just plain unprototypical, which is a pretty heinous crime IMO.  Beginners should at least be presented with something railwaylike, unless it's quite clear that the layout is of the just-for-fun type. Even then, some of them make no sense when you start to look at how trains might be run on them.

[Grovenor]

I am unconvinced that Ian has taken in the advice offered and tried to download the drawing in order to show suggested changes. With the previous iteration of RMweb this was normally straightforward. However the files now seem to be hidden in a format that I can't open in any drawing program. Can anyone suggest how the image files can be downloaded and opened for editing?

Regards

[ianLMS]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

I am unconvinced that Ian has taken in the advice offered and tried to download the drawing in order to show suggested changes. With the previous iteration of RMweb this was normally straightforward. However the files now seem to be hidden in a format that I can't open in any drawing program. Can anyone suggest how the image files can be downloaded and opened for editing?

Regards

I uploaded the original in .pdf in the first post. Since then i have uploaded snapshots using adobe. My computer at work is down right now so i am unable to upload an edited plan to confirm the changes that have been suggested. I will probably be able to do so tomorrow. 

[ianLMS]

I have pc just not internet. Is this what you recommend. Replace the diamond with a single slip and change to trailing points?

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Grovenor said:

I am unconvinced that Ian has taken in the advice offered and tried to download the drawing in order to show suggested changes. With the previous iteration of RMweb this was normally straightforward. However the files now seem to be hidden in a format that I can't open in any drawing program. Can anyone suggest how the image files can be downloaded and opened for editing?

Regards

@Grovenor Doesn't right-click, "Copy image", <change to drawing program>, Paste work for you?

 

The images are PNGs, which any drawing program should be able to handle.

 

[RailWest]

>>>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........

 

Quite true. However, the 'other side of the coin' is that many track plans are fairly generic, but how it is signalled will depend upon a multitude of factors such as period, original constructing railway, their contractor, changes over time etc etc. Equally, some layout would have, or do not have, elements that were a 'feature' of certain pre-grouping companies but not others.

 

As an aside.....many years ago there appeared on the exhibition circuit a very nice model of a particular quite well known prototype location, done by a modelling group with a good reputation. However....they chose a location which originally had two signal-boxes - one at each end - that had been superseded in later years with just one central box. That alteration had been accompanied by changes in the track layout and therefore the associated signalling. Unfortunately the group had built the model with the track layout of one period, onto which they had superimposed the signalling of the other period! Consequently some of the signals were in totally the wrong places and/or served no purpose at all :-( So it's not just a simple as copying a prototype plan.......

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, ianLMS said:

I have pc just not internet. Is this what you recommend. Replace the diamond with a single slip and change to trailing points?

Method  1.  Simply turn round the facing connection to the engine shed to make it a trailing connection which makes 33/34 a plain diamond crossing. (yes it would use left hand points instead of right hand so not exactly 'turning round' what is there at present of course).

 

Method 2.  Use a single slip in place of the diamond crossing to create a trailing crossover between the main lines as well as the trailing connection to the engine shed siding - probably the most prototypical way of doing things although the existing trailing crossover is quite close so visually it might not look as good as it could.

 

Method 3. Use a double slip at 33/34. Why?  It creates an extra facing point leading from a main running line to a very short siding so it would serve no purpose whatsoever as the facility to get into the engine shed siding already (correctly) exists via crossover 18/19.  And double slips in main running lines 'out in the country' were always high maintenance so apart from introducing facing points they were avoided like the plague.

 

Ideal answer - Method 1 or Method 2. (If I was starting from scratch I'd use Method 2 but the other crossover would be much further away and the double slip forming part of it wouldn't be there in any case.)

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, ianLMS said:

I have pc just not internet. Is this what you recommend. Replace the diamond with a single slip and change to trailing points?

 

That looks right to me.  This diagram shows how they would probably be worked as two crossovers (see 4 and 5). BTW, note that as late as 1950, this station has ground signals only for movements onto the main line from the sidings.  Everything else would have been done with handsignals.

[Grovenor]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

@Grovenor Doesn't right-click, "Copy image", <change to drawing program>, Paste work for you?

 

The images are PNGs, which any drawing program should be able to handle.

 

Thanks Phil, don't know why I had not tried that. I was using my usual technique, copy image and paste into a folder, worked with previous version of RMweba nd with other forums, now produces a file name like image.png.4908c43d272a8d9b084a8e8a3c7bfc95.webp which paint etc don't like. But pasting direct into the program as you suggested works losing the superfluous numbers and .webp

Regards

[ianLMS]

Thanks for that. I will work the changes over the next week or two. Ian

[ianLMS]

Visited Model Junction in Bury St Edmunds on Saturday who were more than happy to relieve me of £100 in exchange for the new track parts i needed. Spent Sunday afternoon removing the old track and fitting the new points and single slip. A vit of realignment necessary but its coming along nicely!

Edited April 1, 2019 by ianLMS

[RailWest]

>>>>Spent Sunday afternoon removing the old track and fitting the new points and single slip.....

 

But did you need a weekend blockage and then over-run into Monday morning.....? :-):-)

[ianLMS]

Lol. I almost called in sick this morning so i could carry on working on the tracklaying!!! Its looking better already. 

[ianLMS]

I have been modifying the track plan over the last few days to bring inline the changes recommended above.

 

I have completed the track laying, wired it up and just have the point motors to connect.

 

Below is the revised track layout with my thoughts on signalling taking into account the advice already given, but again, would appreciate another look over and determine which are needed or need moving. I have built signals from the Ratio kit and some of them have an arm for a fixed distant. Seeing as the next block is out of view, but could be assumed close by, I didnt think it would hurt to use them. Included in the kit is a very small stop signal which I beleive I can use for the siding coming off the main track. Am i correct in assuming this?

 

I havent ballasted it yet as I intend to have some point rodding. I will try to get a birdseye view of the track so I can draw where I think the point rodding might go, but again, advice would be greatly appreciated. I plan on getting the DCC Concepts point rodding kit, but at £100 its pretty pricey, whereas 3 or 4 Wills kits might do the trick (at half the price). Any thoughts?

 

Once again, thank you all for the help you have given me.

 

PS (ignore the mess - i am not the tidiest or workers!)

 

 

[Flying Pig]

The new track is looking good. After we've emptied your wallet, I'm surprised at the lack of response to your last post, so I'll have a go. It should at least provoke the experts.

 

I've never built the Ratio LMS signals, but I think you probably mean 'slotted' rather than 'fixed' distants. The latter actually are fixed and always show caution, whereas slotted distants are worked by the next signal box in the ordinary way, except that they are also interlocked with the stop arm on the same post by a mechanism known as 'slotting' .  There was some discussion about them recently on this thread.

 

As you say, they are used when the section is short. I don't think that would normally be the case at a country station, but you might argue it for the inner blue line as there is clearly a junction for the sorting sidings not far off scene.  However I think slotted distants are unlikely in the other direction (green), though not impossible. Depends how many of the signals you've built .

 

Your main running signals look mostly ok, apart from the first one on the blue line which should not have a junction arm for the sidings. However, I think you have included more than necessary and some of them will end up very close together. I would leave out all but the first and last on the green line (the one adjacent to your programming track looks like a good candidate for frequent breakage anyway!) and probably also the first one on the blue line.

 

The facing connection at the double slip 2 should as you say be controlled by the bracketed miniature arm in the kit.  (Actually, though, I would leave it unsignalled and pretend it wasn't there! I think you will struggle to find occasions when you need to use it). 

 

The possibilites for shunting signals are quite diverse, depending on what movements need to be controlled. There are for example four possible shunting moves across the points at 1. I would go with a simple solution (as linked in my previous post) and just provide shunt signals for moves onto running lines, which could be LMS discs or even the earlier Midland type.  I think there would however be separate discs at 18 for moves over the crossover or onto the shed (although later practice would be to use a disc with a yellow arm that could be passed at danger for moves onto the shed).

 

Note that the connections to the running lines at 17 and 22 should be protected by trap points - even if you don't actually model these, they will affect the placing of the signals.  Actually, the position of the shunting signals on your diagram is a bit odd - they should be at the toe of the points they protect and not in the middle of the crossover as you have drawn at  e.g. 19 and 22.

[The Stationmaster]

Added to which there is no need for the signal you have drawn in between points 19 & 21.  The signal at the toe of  points 18 could either be a ground disc or a semaphore with two miniature arms arranged one above the other. 

[RailWest]

I would concur in general with the comments about an excess of lower distant arms. I don't know what the LMS practice was with boxes so close together than the distant would be further back than just the section signal in rear, but frankly I would omit all of them except perhaps the one in the top RH corner on the blue line

[Flying Pig]

General information on outer distant signals here: https://www.signalbox.org/signals/semaphore5.htm

 

From the same site Bedford North in 1966 (ex-Midland Railway), appears to show all three categories mentioned in the above link. Bedford North's distant 44 on the Up Passenger would seem to be the 'extreme situation', being released by Bedford South. Bedford South then has an 'outer distant' slotted with Bedford North's 43 and an ordinary slotted distant under 42. 

 

Clearly things could get quite involved, but it seems like overkill for a small country station.  Could the connection with the sidings be reduced to a ground frame to simplify the situation?  I doubt it would be in very frequent use.

[Jub45565]

Looking at your track layout Ian, the concept you have is similar to Embsay, so have a look at the signalling used there:

 

 

That was slightly different, as Embsay junction was pretty close (in the Skipton direction) so had some interaction at that end. Otherwise, aside from a slightly busier goodsyard and swapping the quarry for a shed it should tie up nicely.

 

[Flying Pig]

26 minutes ago, Jub45565 said:

Looking at your track layout Ian, the concept you have is similar to Embsay, so have a look at the signalling used there:

 

 

That was slightly different, as Embsay junction was pretty close (in the Skipton direction) so had some interaction at that end. Otherwise, aside from a slightly busier goodsyard and swapping the quarry for a shed it should tie up nicely.

 

 

The signals on the Down line are a little confusing.  Do you know what the S and J prefixes on lever numbers refer to? With a distant arm under the down home, why is there not also one under the starter?

 

 

 

[Jub45565]

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The signals on the Down line are a little confusing.  Do you know what the S and J prefixes on lever numbers refer to? With a distant arm under the down home, why is there not also one under the starter?

 

 

 

 

This is to do with the junction, so the starter S12 required J3 in the junction box to also be pulled.  J is junction signal box, while S is station signal box. Note that at the incoming end, the home is just worked by the station box for access to the station, while the (slotted?) distant is worked from the junction box.

 

I'm not sure why signal 15 has the symbol it does, as looking at photos this is a ground signal as 8,10 and 17.

[imt]

EDIT sorry this is now a bit repetitious - I did this post and hour ago and it has just appeared!

 

I have had a good look at your "diagram" and photos.  What is not clear on the diagram is that the station platforms are up to points 1 and 2.

 

It would be better if some of the professionals had made these comments as I expect I am wrong BUT...

 

1) you would not run a goods train into the yard on signals.  It would be brought to a stand before it was then signalled in - so the splitting main arms before the station platform and after it on the blue line are most unlikely.  I would suggest a subsidiary arm at the end of the platform (a shunt disc would be unusual but not impossible).  I actually think that the 2CB connection should not be there (i.e. it should have been another single slip giving a crossover from green to blue or out of the yard to green.

 

2) the signal halfway along the blue line above the 19 is not needed.  You would not signal a train away or through if there was shunting going on - its too close to the points.  The same for the ones at before 20 and 17.  Any train would be kept well away from this area during shunting and you would not bring a train up to these signals whilst shunting was going on just in case the train overran (misjudgement or slippery lines would be disastrous) - obviously a stopping train already at a halt on the blue platform is a different matter.

 

I think it has already been said that the discs at 1 should be moved left to the top of 1.  The signal between 19 and 21 should be a disc and moved left to the main green line beyond the slip.  The main signals between 17 and 1 and before 20 are superfluous.

 

I would suggest that the main signal at 18 should be a disc and at the toe of 18.  You could have another yellow disc to the right of 18 on the way out of the shed (point 18 would be normally locked to the shed so that probably doesn't matter).  The signal at the left of the Programming Track should be a disc again and ought to be before a trap point.  The usual joke of wiping out the signal box rather than a passenger train applies!

 

There would be a section signal somewhere beyond and to the right of 22 - but it might well not be visible on your model.  Shunting of the yard will require the distance between 22 and that signal in some cases.  There may be a case for a disc at the toe of 22, but I image a shunter (real person) would be in charge of that area and would be communicating with the signalman for permission to do things on the main line.

 

I hope that all helps you think through what you need.  You really need to think out how you are going to move trains, shunt goods, move light engines - and then get the signals for those movements.  Over-signalling is not a capital offence, but as in real life, signals cost money and need maintenance.

Edited April 9, 2019 by imt
Posting appeared late

[Flying Pig]

30 minutes ago, Jub45565 said:

This is to do with the junction, so the starter S12 required J3 in the junction box to also be pulled.  J is junction signal box, while S is station signal box. Note that at the incoming end, the home is just worked by the station box for access to the station, while the (slotted?) distant is worked from the junction box.

 

Ok, that makes sense - I was thinking S meant Skipton. The lack of a slotted distant under S.12/J.3 was really throwing me as I was assuming that it was the section signal. However if the boxes are so close that S.12/J.3 is Junction's (outer?) home signal (i.e. is the start of Junction's station limits) then it begins to make sense.  I wonder how the blocks were worked.

 

This is becoming a tangent so I'll stop it now.  I would suggest that Ian does not try to copy such a relatively complicated arrangement.

 

One other point about Embsay - it's another Midland station with ground signals only for moves onto the running line. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, imt said:

EDIT sorry this is now a bit repetitious - I did this post and hour ago and it has just appeared!

 

I have had a good look at your "diagram" and photos.  What is not clear on the diagram is that the station platforms are up to points 1 and 2.

 

It would be better if some of the professionals had made these comments as I expect I am wrong BUT...

 

1) you would not run a goods train into the yard on signals.  It would be brought to a stand before it was then signalled in - so the splitting main arms before the station platform and after it on the blue line are most unlikely.  I would suggest a subsidiary arm at the end of the platform (a shunt disc would be unusual but not impossible).  I actually think that the 2CB connection should not be there (i.e. it should have been another single slip giving a crossover from green to blue or out of the yard to green.

 

2) the signal halfway along the blue line above the 19 is not needed.  You would not signal a train away or through if there was shunting going on - its too close to the points.  The same for the ones at before 20 and 17.  Any train would be kept well away from this area during shunting and you would not bring a train up to these signals whilst shunting was going on just in case the train overran (misjudgement or slippery lines would be disastrous) - obviously a stopping train already at a halt on the blue platform is a different matter.

 

I think it has already been said that the discs at 1 should be moved left to the top of 1.  The signal between 19 and 21 should be a disc and moved left to the main green line beyond the slip.  The main signals between 17 and 1 and before 20 are superfluous.

 

I would suggest that the main signal at 18 should be a disc and at the toe of 18.  You could have another yellow disc to the right of 18 on the way out of the shed (point 18 would be normally locked to the shed so that probably doesn't matter).  The signal at the left of the Programming Track should be a disc again and ought to be before a trap point.  The usual joke of wiping out the signal box rather than a passenger train applies!

 

There would be a section signal somewhere beyond and to the right of 22 - but it might well not be visible on your model.  Shunting of the yard will require the distance between 22 and that signal in some cases.  There may be a case for a disc at the toe of 22, but I image a shunter (real person) would be in charge of that area and would be communicating with the signalman for permission to do things on the main line.

 

I hope that all helps you think through what you need.  You really need to think out how you are going to move trains, shunt goods, move light engines - and then get the signals for those movements.  Over-signalling is not a capital offence, but as in real life, signals cost money and need maintenance.

Your item 1 comment is not correct,. A splitting miniature arm would be 100% typical LMR for the signal at the platform end.  (what isn't so typical is the use of a double slip in that way.)

 

Item 2 - agree the signal is superfluous particularly in that very short distance.

 

The discs at 1 should obviously be at the toe of the point - where they are shown is probably a consequence of the drawing software used?

 

As the Embsay plan shows the LM tended to be rather sparse when it came to running signal provision and tended to have stop signals protecting points quite a distance in advance of the signal.

[imt]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Your item 1 comment is not correct,. A splitting miniature arm would be 100% typical LMR for the signal at the platform end.

 

For clarification, and just for my own education and future reference,  I was suggesting the splitting main arms were incorrect certainly before the platform - high up on the left blue line.  My understanding was that as a goods train would not be run direct into the goods yard but first be brought to a stand, hence pre-signalling a splitting branch was incorrect, was that that not right? I understand that at the station starter a miniature arm could be used to signal a train into the yard.  I also understand (and said) that the double slip in that position was unusual.