Question regarding GWR brackets signals and double track

[Junctionmad]

When I laid out the recent O gauge I was  constrained by the decision to use PECO geometry and the size of the baseboard , this resulted in the 4 tracks on the station equally spaced ( up loop , up main , down main , down loop ) whereas the prototype spaced the loop apart from the running lines 

 

 This has meant that I cannot ( as per the prototype ) place single post signals between the loop and running lines 

 

So , I am researching GWR signal configurations that reach out from one side to position the doll over the main line ( and other dolls for the loop ) 

 

i do do have a drawing of the tubular two post bracket on Vaughan’s book and that will nicely do the up line as I need three dolls 

 

for the down line id like to not replicate that structure , I’ve searched the net , but have not come across alternative structures that look suitable ( ie most are conventional gantries ) 

 

i did consider offsetting a conventional bracket , but to me it’s seems incorrect 

 

can anyone provide some photo based options that might be suitable , it can be round or square post ( I was considering the upside down bracket with centre pivot arms but again i have no photo evidence of one reaching out over two lines . The signal would have a starter for the loop and a running signal for the main line and be just beyond the end of the loop platform 

 

it has been suggested to me that the GWR maintained about 8 foot separation between dolls referencing different lines on the same structure or more correctly the dolls were situated over middle  of the lines in question 

 

thanks in advance 

 

Dave 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Tim V]

Have you looked at the signals at Dawlish Warren?

[The Stationmaster]

Things varied a bit but not massively so and they changed over the yrears.  So going through various views in Vaughan's book -

 

Plate 11 shows signals on what looks like an ordinary splitting bracket but they app;ly to separate, adjacent, lines; the form was inevitably a consequence of site constraints

Plate 15 shows a more normal separation of dolls for different lines on that style of bracket structure

Plates 40 & 41 show how it was being done in the 1940s where there was insufficient space in the 6ft to erect separate signals whereas Plate 38 opposite shows how it was done when there was enough space between adjacent lines.

Plates 42 is another multiple line variation but note again it is 1940s new work

Plate 74 shows the more normal situation (apart from the unique UQ arms of course)

 

But a lot also depended on ground conditions and the ability to get into a site with minimum disruption to passing traffic - which definitely influenced the way the job shown in Plate 40 had to be done.

 

In your modelled situation, and notwithstanding the Reading example (which was not unique at the approach to a platform but it was very unusual at the exit from a platform) where a normal bracket separation would look very wrong.  But just to be as contrary as it ever could be the GWR had, at one time, exactly that arrangement at the south end of Leamington Spa as illustrated below - the arms on the lower doll applied to the platform line on and those on the higher doll applied to the through line.  At the north end exit from the Down platform separate posts were provided for the signals for each line.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls2025a.htm

 

[Junctionmad]

4 hours ago, Tim V said:

Have you looked at the signals at Dawlish Warren?

do mean something like this , but two dolls?

 

Photo by Stephen Dance 

[Junctionmad]

Mike thank you for that . for the There doll signal , I am partial to building Plate 40 , as it is a post WW2 timescale ,  and then for the other a version of the Dawlish Warren signal as depicted  with two dolls with a greater then junction signal separation of the dolls , what do you think ?

 

 

[Tim V]

8 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

do mean something like this , but two dolls?

 

Photo by Stephen Dance 

 

A bit like this, with the loop starter on a separate post.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

Mike thank you for that . for the There doll signal , I am partial to building Plate 40 , as it is a post WW2 timescale ,  and then for the other a version of the Dawlish Warren signal as depicted  with two dolls with a greater then junction signal separation of the dolls , what do you think ?

 

 

If you're looking for an 'era stamp' in terms of signal styles that would be a nice idea I think.  Signals don't just maketh the layout but they can also convey a sense of place (obviously) and a sense of time (era).  The style in Plate 40 appeared in a number of places - even on plain line 'out in the country' on sections of line where teh additional running lines were paired by direction.

Edited September 3, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Leamington Spa as illustrated below - the arms on the lower doll applied to the platform line on and those on the higher doll applied to the through line.  

Approaching this signal on the through lines there was a trailing crossover protected by a bracket mounted on the station canopy.

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls2072.htm

 

When the platform starter was renewed during layout alterations c1966 it was replaced in this form to improve sighting.

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls2037.htm

[Nearholmer]

It’s no wonder it took ages to “learn the road”, because some of those, especially that Leamington one, seem designed to be misunderstood to mean something else.

 

Theres an excellent SR film called something like “With the Motorman”, which is an over-the-shoulder view out of the cab window from Croydon into Victoria, I think late 1920s, and sighting and reading the signals, even in daylight, is unbelievably difficult; at night when it was just an array of coloured lights against a backdrop of (admittedly not as bright as today) street and house/factory lights it must have been a true art.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Junctionmad]

15 hours ago, Tim V said:

 

A bit like this, with the loop starter on a separate post.

Do you mean the loop starter on a separate doll on that gantry  or a  completely separate standalone signal 

 

thanks 

dave 

[Stephen Freeman]

Have you considered Shrewsbury Crewe Junction? Did that in 4mm scale, seen " A Nod to Brent", three posts tubular with 3 arms

[Junctionmad]

12 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Have you considered Shrewsbury Crewe Junction? Did that in 4mm scale, seen " A Nod to Brent", three posts tubular with 3 arms

Which signal in particular ? 

[The Stationmaster]

On 04/09/2019 at 07:18, Junctionmad said:

Do you mean the loop starter on a separate doll on that gantry  or a  completely separate standalone signal 

 

thanks 

dave 

It's very LMR of course as they had taken over by then!

 

Have a look through this thread particularly some of my photos therein -

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/

 

[Stephen Freeman]

 

 

Mike posted this one, perhaps not quite what you are looking for but could be a basis for it.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Stephen Freeman

[Nick Gough]

http://www.roscalen.com/signals/London/GW+GC.htm

 

On this page there are a number of bracket signals for both main and relief lines for the four track section between Northolt Junction and West Ruislip.

[Junctionmad]

16 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

http://www.roscalen.com/signals/London/GW+GC.htm

 

On this page there are a number of bracket signals for both main and relief lines for the four track section between Northolt Junction and West Ruislip.

Thank you nick, that’s seems definitive , and gives me good prototype cover for my decision 

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

http://www.roscalen.com/signals/London/GW+GC.htm

 

On this page there are a number of bracket signals for both main and relief lines for the four track section between Northolt Junction and West Ruislip.

I wonder whether they were unusual as the GWR seemed to favour U-D-U-D with 4 track lines?

At stations with loops off through mains the normal practice seemed to be separate signals.

[RailWest]

>>>I wonder whether they were unusual as the GWR seemed to favour U-D-U-D with 4 track lines?

 

Not always the case, Cogload to Norton Fitzwarren was paired by direction.

[Nick Gough]

As was Wantage Road to Challow.

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

I wonder whether they were unusual as the GWR seemed to favour U-D-U-D with 4 track lines?

At stations with loops off through mains the normal practice seemed to be separate signals.

The odd bits of later quadrupling tended to be by direction although original GWR practice was to pair by use.

 

Separate signals were usually possible at GWR stations with looped playform lines because they were built to GWR dimensions and they didn't use Peco geometry and separation distance between adjacent lines.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

As was Wantage Road to Challow.

And is again after I had it reinstated - one of the more enjoyable achievements of my railway career.  I watched the previous quadruple being taken out and decided on and justified the new arrangement being put in.

[Junctionmad]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The odd bits of later quadrupling tended to be by direction although original GWR practice was to pair by use.

 

Separate signals were usually possible at GWR stations with looped playform lines because they were built to GWR dimensions and they didn't use Peco geometry and separation distance between adjacent lines.

Indeed , I wished I had hand built those loop points which would have allowed me to space the track correctly and therefore have used separate posts. Alas it was not to be