Which way should GWR semaphore blades face?

[Cofga]

On 26/09/2019 at 11:42, The Stationmaster said:

If you look carefully you'll see both the front of the arm (nearer signal) and the back of the arm on the other signal beyond the level crossing.  The nearer signal is to theh right of the line to which it applies, the other signal is to the left of the line to which it applies.

 

I think it was this kind of arrangement that confused me.

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, Cofga said:

I think it was this kind of arrangement that confused me.

The nearer signal is on a slight curve and there is a station with a building, albeit not a big building and it is well setback from the platform edge, on the opposite side of the line so the signal was placed like that to improve sighting.

[Kingzance]

As a total novice in the world of signallers, would junction signals ever be mounted to the right of a pair of running lines? 
 

I have a 1930’s GWR double track arrangement leading to a junction where the main route continues straight on and the minor route branches off to the right (two right hand turnouts and a diamond crossing). I plan to install a Stop  junction signal with the main post having the larger arm and the bracket set to the right when viewed approaching the junction, that bracket carrying a shorter doll and smaller arm. Am I correct or should the bracket be set away from the line with the longer doll and arm to the left, i.e not overhanging the track? Thanks in anticipation.

[RailWest]

58 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

As a total novice in the world of signallers, would junction signals ever be mounted to the right of a pair of running lines? 
 

I have a 1930’s GWR double track arrangement leading to a junction where the main route continues straight on and the minor route branches off to the right (two right hand turnouts and a diamond crossing). I plan to install a Stop  junction signal with the main post having the larger arm and the bracket set to the right when viewed approaching the junction, that bracket carrying a shorter doll and smaller arm. Am I correct or should the bracket be set away from the line with the longer doll and arm to the left, i.e not overhanging the track? Thanks in anticipation.

 

Assuming that the 'minor route' is NOT goods-only, then both arms should be the same size. The arm for the main route should be higher than the one for the minor route.

 

Apart from that, where you place the signals in relation to the track depends upon (a) sighting and (b) ensuring that they do not foul anything passing on the adjacent track. Exactly what your bracket will look like then will largely follow on from that - but I'm sure Stationmaster can give a more detailed answer :-)

[Kingzance]

3 hours ago, RailWest said:

 

Assuming that the 'minor route' is NOT goods-only, then both arms should be the same size. The arm for the main route should be higher than the one for the minor route.

 

Apart from that, where you place the signals in relation to the track depends upon (a) sighting and (b) ensuring that they do not foul anything passing on the adjacent track. Exactly what your bracket will look like then will largely follow on from that - but I'm sure Stationmaster can give a more detailed answer :-)

Thanks Chris. The branch carries both passenger and goods services so equally sized arms then with the branch arm being lower than the main.

[The Stationmaster]

KZ - basically as Chris has answered.  The virtually standard, and by a long way the most common, arrangement of a GWR splitting stop signal in these circumstances would have the main post continued to provided what amounts to the taller doll and the doll for the lesser route bracketed out from it (in this case to the right).  The final decider would be - as Chris has said - a matter of sighting and siting,  and on former broad gauge lines the signal might even be in the 6 foot and use the much shorter centre pivot arms especially if sighting is likely to be obscured by an overbridge.

[Kingzance]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

KZ - basically as Chris has answered.  The virtually standard, and by a long way the most common, arrangement of a GWR splitting stop signal in these circumstances would have the main post continued to provided what amounts to the taller doll and the doll for the lesser route bracketed out from it (in this case to the right).  The final decider would be - as Chris has said - a matter of sighting and siting,  and on former broad gauge lines the signal might even be in the 6 foot and use the much shorter centre pivot arms especially if sighting is likely to be obscured by an overbridge.

Thanks to you and Chris. As the junction is approached on a right hand curve, I will locate the signal on the left side of the track (I don't have enough room to portray anything set on broad gauge) and ensure there is no general obstruction to the view. The Wizard 25' high wooden post style seems a good base that I can motorise and MSE also do a bracket and a shorter doll to extend out to the right the branching traffic route.

[Kingzance]

I ordered two working GWR square post stop signals from Andrew at Wizard on Wednesday afternoon, they arrived today. I also need the split stop signal but Andrew advised I should not attempt to bodge one of his pre-assembled ones and instead gave me a list of parts needed to construct one from his range. Albeit a fiddly job, I am sure it is do-able for me but I fear the linkage necessary to operated the minor route's arm.
As an aside, one of the pre-built signals has a black band and a white AWS diamond, the other does not. When would these diamonds have been installed (indicating AWS rather than the previous GWR ATC I believe) given my era is 1930? Advice would be appreciated as the sources I have checked so far don't help!

[Reorte]

Don't know about when but my understanding is that the diamonds indicate track circuits (so the signalman knows if a train is waiting at the signal), not AWS being present.

[Metr0Land]

Not sure how many remain, but this signal on the Down at Pembrey and Burry Port still has the semaphore on the RHS

 

 

[RailWest]

14 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Don't know about when but my understanding is that the diamonds indicate track circuits (so the signalman knows if a train is waiting at the signal), not AWS being present.

Partly right..:-)

 

The 'diamonds' (actually hexagons) were nothing to do with AWS, but indicated that a train held at that signal was exempt from certain parts of Rule 55. The reason might be - and usually was, but by no mean always - the provision of a track-circuit in rear of the signal, but could also be because of a treadle or some other device for indicating the presence of the train to the signalman.

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, Kingzance said:

I ordered two working GWR square post stop signals from Andrew at Wizard on Wednesday afternoon, they arrived today. I also need the split stop signal but Andrew advised I should not attempt to bodge one of his pre-assembled ones and instead gave me a list of parts needed to construct one from his range. Albeit a fiddly job, I am sure it is do-able for me but I fear the linkage necessary to operated the minor route's arm.
As an aside, one of the pre-built signals has a black band and a white AWS diamond, the other does not. When would these diamonds have been installed (indicating AWS rather than the previous GWR ATC I believe) given my era is 1930? Advice would be appreciated as the sources I have checked so far don't help!

Certainly in use at Leamington by 1935.

[RailWest]

Quote

 

Before the OP starts wondering about whether or now Rule 55 diamonds would be relevant to his period, the first question to answer is whether or not any of his signals would qualify for the provision of a diamond anyway (under the later rules). If they don't, then no need to worry further :-)

[Kingzance]

23 minutes ago, RailWest said:

Before the OP starts wondering about whether or now Rule 55 diamonds would be relevant to his period, the first question to answer is whether or not any of his signals would qualify for the provision of a diamond anyway (under the later rules). If they don't, then no need to worry further :-)

Thanks Chris.

When you say "later rules", the layout is 1930 (set by the locos, stock and liveries I want to run), not post-war and certainly it would never be something that I feel I could exhibit, even if it could be portable! The reason I ask is that one of the delightful MSE lower quadrant square post working stop signals delivered today has a hexagon / diamond, the other does not and the split stop signal (yet to be built) may or may not need one. The two single stop signals are located at the ends of sections emerging from tunnels whereas the split stop signal is on a simple section leading to the junction. I am minded to think that no hexagon / diamonds would be required so really it could be a case of Rule 1 in railway modelling rather than Rule 55 in real life. I am just trying to achieve some consistency in my layout, which is not based upon any real location but looking at a picture of a similar junction layout at Droitwich with semaphore signals (attached), none of the posts carried a hexagon / diamond. I could mount a small signal box (built but too small for the main station in my out & back layout) adjacent to the junction as in the Droitwich picture if that would make a "no hexagon / diamond" scenario more logical. Either way, one carefully built and painted signal will need to change and I would prefer to include a hexagon / diamond on the split stop signal only if that is necessary during the build and prior to its painting.

 

 

[RailWest]

Firstly - unless I've missed - a plan of your layout and where you propose to put all the stop signals would enable us to determine where, if at all, it was most likely that a diamond would have been provided.

 

Secondly - why not just cut the diamond off and then not have to worry about where it ought to go ? :-)

[Kingzance]

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

Firstly - unless I've missed - a plan of your layout and where you propose to put all the stop signals would enable us to determine where, if at all, it was most likely that a diamond would have been provided.

 

Secondly - why not just cut the diamond off and then not have to worry about where it ought to go ? :-)

I hadn't posted a track plan but your point about cutting off the one to save adding two is what I think is the best solution - thanks.

[melmerby]

Why was that tall signal just there?

It has now been replaced by a much shorter one on the other side of the tracks, complete with modern H&S ladder, the junction signal has also got a new ladder system.

2011: https://goo.gl/maps/h5tmLeM32WHJN7U96

 

2015: https://goo.gl/maps/wkQU6P2LmWwjzHqC8

Edited October 25, 2019 by melmerby

[RailWest]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

Why was that tall signal just there?

 

My guess would be so that it could be seen by the driver of a train approaching from the RH branch, without being obstructed by a train that might be standing on the LH line in rear of the bracket signal.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Kingzance said:

I ordered two working GWR square post stop signals from Andrew at Wizard on Wednesday afternoon, they arrived today. I also need the split stop signal but Andrew advised I should not attempt to bodge one of his pre-assembled ones and instead gave me a list of parts needed to construct one from his range. Albeit a fiddly job, I am sure it is do-able for me but I fear the linkage necessary to operated the minor route's arm.
As an aside, one of the pre-built signals has a black band and a white AWS diamond, the other does not. When would these diamonds have been installed (indicating AWS rather than the previous GWR ATC I believe) given my era is 1930? Advice would be appreciated as the sources I have checked so far don't help!

Ah, track circuit diamond plates on GWR signals in the 1930s - a very interesting question indeed.  the new book on GWR signals says they began to appear on the GWR - replacing the former GWR pattern of indicator pattern - c 1929/30  and that date sounds about right to me judging by various dated photos.  I doubt the new signs replaced the old overnight but they were no doubt fairly common,  if not used universally, by the mid 1930s.

 

The plate actually indicates to trainmen that the provisions of Rule 55 are modified in respect of a train detained at the signal which has the sign - usually in GWR circumstances meaning that the line in rear of the signal was track circuited.  A simple answer for you, as already suggested, would be to remove the sign and not worry about the intricacies of which signal should have it.  But if you wish to give us a sketch plan it is a simple matter to tell you which stop signals would be most likely to have the sign.

 

15 hours ago, Kingzance said:

Thanks Chris.

When you say "later rules", the layout is 1930 (set by the locos, stock and liveries I want to run), not post-war and certainly it would never be something that I feel I could exhibit, even if it could be portable! The reason I ask is that one of the delightful MSE lower quadrant square post working stop signals delivered today has a hexagon / diamond, the other does not and the split stop signal (yet to be built) may or may not need one. The two single stop signals are located at the ends of sections emerging from tunnels whereas the split stop signal is on a simple section leading to the junction. I am minded to think that no hexagon / diamonds would be required so really it could be a case of Rule 1 in railway modelling rather than Rule 55 in real life. I am just trying to achieve some consistency in my layout, which is not based upon any real location but looking at a picture of a similar junction layout at Droitwich with semaphore signals (attached), none of the posts carried a hexagon / diamond. I could mount a small signal box (built but too small for the main station in my out & back layout) adjacent to the junction as in the Droitwich picture if that would make a "no hexagon / diamond" scenario more logical. Either way, one carefully built and painted signal will need to change and I would prefer to include a hexagon / diamond on the split stop signal only if that is necessary during the build and prior to its painting.

 

 

The Droitwich situation - as already partially explained - was a consequence of sighting.  With the Up Starting Signal in that position on the right hand side it could easily be seen from the cab of a right hand drive engine approaching on either route towards the junction - there used to be a much clearer view on the approach on the main line coming in from the left in that picture as well as a clearer view coming in from the branch on the right.  Also being a tall signal it could be seen over a train on the down line as well as over anything standing in the sidings and yard on the left of that view.

 

It was also considerably easier to photograph that Droitwich's Up Main Distant Signal which was one of the last surviving independent semaphore distants on the WR and which involved a battle with considerable undergrowth & overgrowth at the edge of a churchyard to get a decent view of it. What some of us did to get some good signal pictures

 

Now to your layout notes.  I would think it likely that by the 1930s track circuits might have been provided on the approach to the signals applying to trains leaving the tunnels BUT much less likely on any sort of secondary route.

[Kingzance]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Now to your layout notes.  I would think it likely that by the 1930s track circuits might have been provided on the approach to the signals applying to trains leaving the tunnels BUT much less likely on any sort of secondary route.

Thanks Mike - herewith the section involved with the signals that I have bought / will build. The whole represents a terminus such as Kingswear or Penzance in 1930 served by a double track main line but with a separate branch serving an adjacent town (Brixham, Falmouth) clearly with significant modeller's license regarding distances! Obviously there would be more signals later, including the crossovers, but I am trying to deal with a section at a time and in this case it is the junction. The local signal box (if it would do anything) could be physically fitted anywhere from the junction throat into the divergences.

Junction Signals.pdf

Edited October 26, 2019 by Kingzance
Add drawing

[The Stationmaster]

16 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

Thanks Mike - herewith the section involved with the signals that I have bought / will build. The whole represents a terminus such as Kingswear or Penzance in 1930 served by a double track main line but with a separate branch serving an adjacent town (Brixham, Falmouth) clearly with significant modeller's license regarding distances! Obviously there would be more signals later, including the crossovers, but I am trying to deal with a section at a time and in this case it is the junction. The local signal box (if it would do anything) could be physically fitted anywhere from the junction throat into the divergences.

Junction Signals.pdf 646.79 kB · 3 downloads

Excellent KZ, thanks.  Apart from the signal arms facing the US way instead of the British way (but you knew that of course) that's perfectly ok and you could happily get away without the diamond sign on any of those signals although it does depend to some extent on where the signal box finishes up.  If any of them are going to gain the diamond signs then the two protecting the trailing junction would both be prime candidates for several (good) reasons but none too likely at that date in the West Country where track circuits in rear of Home Signals seem to have been something of a rarity.

[Kingzance]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Excellent KZ, thanks.  Apart from the signal arms facing the US way instead of the British way (but you knew that of course) that's perfectly ok and you could happily get away without the diamond sign on any of those signals although it does depend to some extent on where the signal box finishes up.  If any of them are going to gain the diamond signs then the two protecting the trailing junction would both be prime candidates for several (good) reasons but none too likely at that date in the West Country where track circuits in rear of Home Signals seem to have been something of a rarity.

Many thanks for your help, now to gently remove the hex/diamond from one and repaint the white! Once planted, I’ll post a photo.

[O-Gauge-Phil]

I make no excuses for repeating this picture, it's just marvelous.  If the siding branched to the right would the ground signal be in the same position or would it be to the right of the post?

 

[melmerby]

On 26/10/2019 at 15:49, The Stationmaster said:

  Apart from the signal arms facing the US way instead of the British way (but you knew that of course)

Depends whether the US line was LH running or RH running. (some still are even though many are now bi-directional)

Here's an ATSF Railway signal (unfortunately the back):

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, O-Gauge-Phil said:

I make no excuses for repeating this picture, it's just marvelous.  If the siding branched to the right would the ground signal be in the same position or would it be to the right of the post?

 

Thanks for your kind words about my photo - fortunately the weather was kind that day and the sun was in the right position and a high quality lens did the rest.  

 

Now your question - it doesn't matter which way the siding diverged, the ground disc would usually be co-located at the foot of the signal.   Im some cases in the  era of tubular steel signal posts the disc would be carried on a small bracket to one side of the main post but in that situation loading gauge restrictions would often mean it would be to the left of the post, i.e. on the side away from the running line a but might still signal a right hand divergence to a siding.  The reason is that in such cases the disc is subsidiary to the running signal so doesn't have to be situated in a manner which indicates the direction a divergence will take.

 

However things were differeent when a miniature semaphore arm was used and it would have to be located in a manner which indicated which side the divergence went (but you could sometimes find exceptions to that in older GWR practice).