Jump to content
 

Layout signalling requirements


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Greetings

 

I have been working on a layout design, with much help from forum members, over in the "Layout and Track Design" section of the forum. I'm at the point where I'm starting to cut and lay the track.

 

 

However, I don't yet have any idea where signals should go on my layout. I've been reading and learning about signals at https://signalbox.org - but I'm keen to get advice on how I should signal my layout. I'm thinking I will need a home signal to protect the station block, perhaps a ground signal where the goods sidings join the loop, but is there anything else? Thanks in advance.

 

This is the (mostly) final track plan:

 

layoutfinal.png.0410c62539fe0180580587dfe11c73b7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on it, for what it’s worth. Take it with a pinch of salt ;)

 

I’m assuming semaphore signalling?

 

1. Home signal somewhere to the right of the bridge. (There would also be a Distant, probably fixed, off-scene to the right)

 

2. Starter at the end of the platform

 

3. Ground signal where loop and sidings join the running line (there should also be a trap point here)

 

4. Ground signal exiting the mill sidings before the trap/spur

 

5. Ground signal entering the mill sidings at the diverging points on the loop. (only required as your mill siding access crosses the running line)

 

6. (Optional) Ground signal where the loco runaround points diverge from the platform line onto the loop. 

 

..... or make it “one engine in steam”, have all the points on groundframes unlocked from a key on the train staff, and have no signals at all. But where’s the fun in that? :P

 

Edit- nice track plan, by the way

Edited by Titanius Anglesmith
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

It'll depend on which region you're modelling, particularly with regards to shunting signals.

 

I'd suggest, in addition to @Titanius Anglesmith suggestions:

 

7. Ground signal under home signal, or 'calling on' arm on the same post, to allow shunting moves back into the station (e.g. after running round). Some companies would have a separate shunt signal/arm here for the loop, others would use one for both routes.

8. Advanced starting signal (Optional, some railways used them, others didn't.), to allow shunting moves without having to enter the block section.

9. Ground signal at the opposite end of the crossover to (6) to allow moves into the Cattle Dock.

 

As mentioned, there should be a trap to the right of the three-way on the bottom sidings, to protect the single line. This would be worked as a crossover with the loop point. Similarly the trap on the mill siding would be worked in conjunction with the point opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2019 at 16:00, Titanius Anglesmith said:

My take on it, for what it’s worth. Take it with a pinch of salt ;)

 

..... or make it “one engine in steam”, have all the points on groundframes unlocked from a key on the train staff, and have no signals at all. But where’s the fun in that? :P

 

Edit- nice track plan, by the way

One engine in steam would probably need some signals for a passenger line, the Home would surely need some interlocking so the road had to be set into the platform so it could be pulled off?   The points to the diamond also should need locking when the home was pulled off as well as some form of trap for the loop to stop errant wagons being blown out of the sidings and down towards the junction.

A starter would be nice.   However the fun of one engine in steam comes when the branch goods is shunting and the passenger is due.  Instead of goods driver disappearing down the Dog and Duck for a mineral water he has to uncouple, make sure the wagons are out of the way and skidaddle down to meet the passenger at the next station with a loop. It can then wait for the passenger to return, or more likely double head the passenger back to the terminus where shunting can resume.  I believe it happened at Ashburton in 2 engine operation days and at Wick into the 1980s before RETB was introduced.   Ashburton Ground Frame was just a signal box without the token instruments/ bells you need for block working.  Good excuse for double headed 2 coach trains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

One engine in steam would probably need some signals for a passenger line, the Home would surely need some interlocking so the road had to be set into the platform so it could be pulled off?   The points to the diamond also should need locking when the home was pulled off as well as some form of trap for the loop to stop errant wagons being blown out of the sidings and down towards the junction.

A starter would be nice.   However the fun of one engine in steam comes when the branch goods is shunting and the passenger is due.  Instead of goods driver disappearing down the Dog and Duck for a mineral water he has to uncouple, make sure the wagons are out of the way and skidaddle down to meet the passenger at the next station with a loop. It can then wait for the passenger to return, or more likely double head the passenger back to the terminus where shunting can resume.  I believe it happened at Ashburton in 2 engine operation days and at Wick into the 1980s before RETB was introduced.   Ashburton Ground Frame was just a signal box without the token instruments/ bells you need for block working.  Good excuse for double headed 2 coach trains.

Beware of quoting or taking note of what happened at Ashburton - it was worked under some rather unusual Regulations (dating according to some sources from South Devon Railway days and not exactly in accirdance with 'normal' One Engine In Steam Regulations).  There were for instance situations where a second train could be worked there under some special method while one was already at that end of the line.

 

Normally on most OES worked lines there would only ever be one trains at the terminus and the freight trip tended to run during a gap in the passenger service. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I am much mistaken (in which case I'm sure I will be corrected very swiftly), there is a bit of confusion going on here.

 

If this putative BLT is to be operated "one engine in steam", it doesn't need any signals at all.

 

In fact, many BLTs were demoted to become parts of OES sections precisely to allow signals, and more to the point signalmen, to be dispensed with. For some reason, West Bay in Dorset always springs to my mind as a good example.

 

The staff permitting the one engine to be steaming about in it can carry a key to unlock points/groundframe(s), and only be released from them, and therefore in possession of the driver, when they are in 'normal' position.

 

The staff tells the driver it is safe to move - no signals needed.

 

And, if it is OES, without very special/odd/weird working practices, there can't be two active locos on scene at any one time, unless they are coupled together, thereby counting as one, so forget goods and passenger trains being here simultaneously. There might, of course, be an engine, some wagons, and some carriages, but that isn't two trains, its just a load of rolling stock, until something is coupled-up and prepared for departure as a train. Then it is a train. Not two trains. A light engine moving in the section is also a train.

 

All that having been said, I personally wouldn't make the layout based on OES practice; it would be too boring/restrictive. See "Design your own BLT" thread for how to signal it, although I think we steered well clear of shunt signals in that thread, because practices varied so widely, from "none" to "every conceivable move and a few inconceivable ones besides".

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my sketch of how I would signal your layout as shown by the plan above. 

I've moved the signal box onto the platform, mainly because it would allow the Signalman (Porter Signalman) to undertake other duties in between trains; the position of the box on your diagram is fine though.

There is a couple of comments on the diagram; I hope they make sense (but having not long finished a 12 hours shift, I may be a bit addled).

The numbers on the diagram are the lever numbers.

DSCN5204.JPG.94a893bc4464daeeb8908df5b0bf4f3e.JPG

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts/questions:

 

- can one lever do all of No.7? It needs four positions, and I've never seen one with more than three, arranged push-normal-pull (but then, I haven't seen much of signalling).

 

- maybe 12 could be sprung points, normally set to allow run-around of passenger trains, with a local lever working against the springs to set it for what you have shown as normal. I think this would avoid the need for a GF and GF-release-lever. A stop board would then be needed on the platform clear of 12 to permit this.

 

- If you have 8, don't you also need a shunt signal for the move over the normal route into the platform, or do you clear the home for that?

 

- depending upon time and place, 3 and 8 might be ringed-arm semaphores. Certainly if this was ex-SER territory, that would be quite usual, possibly into BR days, and the same is true to a lesser extent on ex-LBSCR and ex-LSWR lines, but I have no idea about other places.

 

- is 15 really necessary, or could it be replaced with a shunt-limit marker?

 

- might 3 need to be three discs stacked? Or, two stacked, if the ringed-arm idea floats?

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick reply.

I think 7 could work the points and traps, though a S&T Man might disagree. 5 could become the FPL with 6 the main line points if you're concerned. 

Disc 8 applies to the loop for moves to the main line.

Points 12 would likely only be sprung and worked by a hand lever if the platform finished short of the crossover.

15, I think would be needed if there was a lot of shunting; you could live without it though.

Disc 3 only applies to the move from the main to the loop (and sidings). The Southern, especially, seemed happy to use one disc for several routes.

Edited by flyingsignalman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

can one lever do all of No.7? It needs four positions, and I've never seen one with more than three, arranged push-normal-pull (but then, I haven't seen much of signalling)

 

No. 7 needs only two positions, to work the traps and the main line points together as a crossover and thus control access to the running line.  It doesn't work the two siding points as they're worked by handlevers.

 

OP, note the location of the traps at 7 and not between the toe of the three-way and the running line as previously suggested, which would probably still allow runaway vehicles to foul the running line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FP, 

 

If what you say is correct about 7, then how can 3 be cleared, given that the route it is cleared for is indeterminate? Which may take us back to what flyingsignalman said above regarding the meaning of shunt signals.

 

If we were to go with my ringed-arm suggestion, then the route it was cleared for would have to be determinate, surely.

 

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

No. 7 needs only two positions, to work the traps and the main line points together as a crossover and thus control access to the running line.  It doesn't work the two siding points as they're worked by handlevers.

 

OP, note the location of the traps at 7 and not between the toe of the three-way and the running line as previously suggested, which would probably still allow runaway vehicles to foul the running line.

 

It's not shown as working the yard points, it works the traps.

 

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

The S+T guys could never adjust all those traps to work off a singe lever surely?.   I reckon it would be hand levers with a bloke holding it over as the train emerged

 

Depends how far from the box they are.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

FP, 

 

If what you say is correct about 7, then how can 3 be cleared, given that the route it is cleared for is indeterminate? Which may take us back to what flyingsignalman said above regarding the meaning of shunt signals.

 

If we were to go with my ringed-arm suggestion, then the route it was cleared for would have to be determinate, surely.

 

K

3 would be released by 7 reverse, it would not read to the platform line.   That is the older way of doing things but many such survived until lines closed in the 1960s or even the 1970s.

 

As far as 7 working three trap ends is concerned I don't see a problem that close to the signalbox, the arrangement drawn is perfectly correct.  There was a curved rodding run at Reading West Jcn which worked three sets of switch ends - all in compounds (i.e. slips) - over 100 yards from the 'box and although it was definitely (bl**dy) heavy it worked, even when the rodding was long past its better days.

 

15 is really 'a six of one and half a dozen of the other' signal and its provision would depend very much on Company/Regional practice although as already said its provision would be more likely if there was a lot of shunting out onto the single line (which I doubt to be honest).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

If what you say is correct about 7, then how can 3 be cleared, given that the route it is cleared for is indeterminate?

As traffic would be sparse there probably wouldn't be a resident shunter. On arrival the Guard or Fireman would go forward to ensure that any hand points were set for wherever the train had to go. There would rarely be more than one loco present at any time so not much room for confusion as to what is supposed to be going on.

 

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The S+T guys could never adjust all those traps to work off a single lever surely?.

I've worked much more difficult 4-enders than that, all 3 trap ends could be on separate adjusting cranks. Much worse is trying to work double slips off one crank.

 

18 hours ago, flyingsignalman said:

Disc 8 applies to the loop for moves to the main line.

Disc 8 would read from the loop and the sidings to the main line as both moves will require traps 7 reverse. There doesn't seem much room to fit 8 in between the Mill points from the loop and the main line points. I would look at putting 8 in the sidings clear of the loop and making 11 read for the mill or main line.

 

Regarding the track layout at the loop/sidings entrance, I would move the river to the right so that the points aren't on the bridge.

 

To get the trap clear of the main line I would consider using a double slip as shown in the layout below.

 

1420564274_Branchsignals.jpg.46fa4989a1d0f5fe5c53747baaf3935d.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, RailWest said:

IMHO 8 then would be unnecessarily too far back. If you can get a double-slip in to provide a trap-road - probably the best idea - then I see no reason why it should not be where the letters '7A' are on the plan?

 

Yes, 8 could go at 7A/B points and read for the sidings or loop to the Branch. Unless there were two trains there at once it wouldn't make any difference. the main danger in that is the driver getting 11 and not obeying 8 thus ending up in the river. Can be cured by 11 released by 8 with 10 normal so you can't clear it that way unless to road is set to the branch.

My main reason for putting 8 where I did was that originally I left out the two short bits of plain line between the points in the branch and loop but thought this may shorten the sidings too much.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

Regarding the track layout at the loop/sidings entrance, I would move the river to the right so that the points aren't on the bridge.

 

To get the trap clear of the main line I would consider using a double slip as shown in the layout below.

 

1420564274_Branchsignals.jpg.46fa4989a1d0f5fe5c53747baaf3935d.jpg

 

 The layout design people were of the broad opinion that a double slip at that position would be rather expensive infrastructure and that a trap was more likely. (Please see the original thread that the OP refers to in the first post.)

 

The layout design thread also gives the target date as early to mid 1960's, if that makes a difference to the signalling design.

 

@davegardnerisme All this talk of one engine in steam (one loco/MU moving on the main tracks at any one time) suggests even more strongly that being able to operate the private Mill railway independently might be attractive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

The layout design people were of the broad opinion that a double slip at that position would be rather expensive infrastructure and that a trap was more likely. (Please see the original thread that the OP refers to in the first post.)

The plan in the OP doesn't have sufficient space for a conventional trap without moving the siding points to the left. That would probably preclude using a ready made three-way point. 

I've worked at many places with a double slip used as I had suggested, it depends on the available space for putting in single leads. No problem if you had half a mile of flat empty ground at agricultural values but in a built up area or hilly terrain where the houses are nailed to the hillside it could be the most economical or only practical solution.

 

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

The layout design thread also gives the target date as early to mid 1960's, if that makes a difference to the signalling design.

 Give or take local customs depending on the original owner the suggestion put up by Flying Signalman would seem quite logical for around 1960 on a branch line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>....being able to operate the private Mill railway independently might be attractive.

 

But other than having their own engine shunting the odd wagon or two between a very short head-shunt/trap-road and two short sidings, what purpose would that achieve?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, RailWest said:

>>>....being able to operate the private Mill railway independently might be attractive.

 

But other than having their own engine shunting the odd wagon or two between a very short head-shunt/trap-road and two short sidings, what purpose would that achieve?

Probable shunting methods would be (in ascending order of cost)

1 Man with pinch bar

2 Horse

3 Tractor with plank and rope

4 Ruston loco

 

We are talking Yorkshire Mill Owners here so probably the order of preference as well (Dons tin hat and makes sharp exit)

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, RailWest said:

>>>....being able to operate the private Mill railway independently might be attractive.

 

But other than having their own engine shunting the odd wagon or two between a very short head-shunt/trap-road and two short sidings, what purpose would that achieve?

 

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Probable shunting methods would be (in ascending order of cost)

1 Man with pinch bar

2 Horse

3 Tractor with plank and rope

4 Ruston loco

 

We are talking Yorkshire Mill Owners here so probably the order of preference as well (Dons tin hat and makes sharp exit)

 

The possible scenario is that the Mill complex is much bigger than what we see modelled - big enough to justify a small shunter.

 

The private track we can see might be extended so that it appears to turn and leave the scene alongside one of the big buildings but, once obscured, it would turn back to create a longer headshunt, possibly with access at the left hand end. There's also some possibility of doubling-back under cover of the buildings to form a loop with one of the sidings and maybe exiting into the fiddle yard at the right hand side, which would make a very interesting little sub-layout with the shunter appearing from unpredictable locations with varying wagons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I've worked at many places with a double slip used as I had suggested, it depends on the available space for putting in single leads. No problem if you had half a mile of flat empty ground at agricultural values but in a built up area or hilly terrain where the houses are nailed to the hillside it could be the most economical or only practical solution.

Using double slips was actually a recommended solution for restricted areas in the Permanent Way Institute's handbook on British Railway Track.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

The possible scenario is that the Mill complex is much bigger than what we see modelled - big enough to justify a small shunter.

Not Yorkshire Dales but not far off were the cotton mills in Longdendale served by the GC. There were rail connections from the Waterside Branch to Hollingworth Print Works, Waterside Mill at Hadfield, Bridge Mill at Tintwistle and Hadfiled Mill served from the Woodhead line at Hadfield.

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=53.4664&lon=-1.9717&layers=168&b=1

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...