Sproston. Signalling Alterations

[sigtech]

Hello everyone, This is just a quick one, I have been waiting for Dapol to produce their GWR motorized 2 doll LH bracket signal for some time, meanwhile using a 'bashed' Hornby 3 doll lattice post upper quadrant  signal on my layout in the loft. ( 'Sproston'   The layout blog is on here under Sigtechs blog ). This was used on the principle that a wrong type of signal is better than no signal...

I asked Harlequin  of this parish if he would be so kind as to 'knock up' a signalling diagram and lever leads printed out as a box diagram for me, and he produced a superb rendition - so thanks for that...I also enquired if he would be prepared to produce another if/when I obtained the correct signal for the layout. He (foolishly.... ) agreed - and now that I have the correct signal, I have asked him to produce an amended diagram.

I thought I would ask/check on the correctness of the amended plan on here, any comments welcome - in particular I am asking for an examination of it by 'The Statiomaster' . Mike could you please give it a once over...?

This is  period 1956-1963. BR. 00 gauge DC. An imaginary ex GWR built, but with LMS running powers single track  branch terminus in Cheshire, serving a small market town , and with a busy rail served United Dairies Creamery.

Thanks, in anticipation.

Regards

(SIGTECH).

 Steve.

Sproston resignalling.pdf

Edited December 3, 2019 by sigtech
PDF Diagram is orientated the wrong way!!

[The Stationmaster]

Righto Steve,

 

The diagram is a bit of a mixture of Reading Drawing Office styles although that might be a consequence of Phil's drawing programme.   If you are using the later style running lines should be pale grey, track circuited sections should be black, and sidings should be pale blue.  Gaps between successive track circuits will be grey (see the examples below).

 

Point/FPL numbering is 'sort of' in the earlier style - I say sort of because the point toe should be in the yellow circle but it is much clearer to draw it the way Phil has used - the later style can be seen in the examples below.

 

As far as the signals are concerned 5/6 would be far more likely to be a double disc on the Western rather than two separate single discs.   I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of 20 as all I can see it possibly doing is allowing an engine to shunt between the bay and the loco depot and in many cases the locking wouldn't allow you to do that anyway with a running move also taking place to/from the main platform.  As 16/17 is a double disc I can see that 20 serves no other purpose except possibly to accommodate a longer train in the bay?

Signal numbering is great.

The track circuits are, I assume the track sections drawn in dark red - in which case they are not entirely correct.  The purpose of the track circuits is to replace the facing point locking bars thus they will only be provided through the facing points and not through any oppsite ends where there is. no FPL - look at the examples below.  There should be no track circuit at all at 24 as it doesn't have an FPL. (of course nothing wrong with it not having an FPL as many run round crossovers at smaller GWR/WR station bay/terminal platforms didn't have FPLs and the company got away with it for many years).

 

Platforms and signals all drawn in the correct colours and style (the signals are drawn incorrectly in the examples below!)   I'm not so sure about showing the goods shed to be honest.  The Western had 'engine sheds' as far as 'box diagrams and lever leads were concerned.  3, 9, and 13 should be shown as spaces if there is no lever there (see the example).   Track circuits should be numbered - 7T and 15T

 

The lever leads need a little bit of work -

5 & 6 should read Disc at Down Main etc etc...

17  Disc Parcels Dock To Engine Shed

18  Up Main Advanced Starting

20 Bay Platform Intermediate Starting

22 Disc Engine Shed to Parcels Dock

25 Disc At 24  (the reason for showing it like that is that 25 will be released by 24 and can only read to the loop)

 

These examples are from a preserved line so are not wholly correct for Reading DO style so must be read in conjunction with the text above in relation to specific points I have made and are not to be used as a general example of styles.

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Thanks Mike.

 

Yes, the first drawing I did for Steve was not in a consistent style. I have learned much more about the period styles since then, with your help and from books, and I hope to be able to do something more specifically 1950s BR(WR) style this time.

 

[sigtech]

Hello Mike, and thanks for taking the time to look at this, and for providing such a comprehensive reply - I must drop Phil a line and ask him to read all this - as it will save me rewriting it!

There are no track circuits on Sproston. This is Phils earlier effort (2017) to draw a diagram for me -  he can now make the details much closer to the BR (WR) style of drawings.

I have put 21 in as it is for the bay and is at the fouling point for the crossover to the loading dock,it allows an autotrailer and loco to sit there, as you had guessed 20 is to allow a longer train to occupy the bay, whilst still allowing a train to arrive/depart from the main platform.

With regard to 5 and 6 , I  have 6 raised on a platform on the LH side of the post, so I assumed that 5 - as it reads to the loop would be at ground level and on the RH side of the signal post.- is this wrong?

Also would disc 12, as it is the exit from the loop onto the up main, but can /needs to be passed when 'ON' for shunting the yard and to allow access the creamery, have a white light instead of a red. I believe the GWR or BR (WR) did not use a yellow disc?

Period for my layout is 1956-1963, GWR built branch with ex LMS running powers ficticiously located in Cheshire. Signals are/will be Dapol.

Once again, thanks Mike for your time, I've no doubt I will need to call on your services again...

Regards

Steve.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Steve,

 

12 probably would have a white light although their meaning was rather different from a yellow light disc.  By the late '50s (and definitely the early '60s) it could easily have been converted to a yellow arm because if it had been a white light there would have been no need for a locking alteration.  So if any signal renewals had taken place on other signals it's quite possible it would have been altered at the same time.

 

If you've got co-located discs (as with 5/6) I would think it far more likely for them to be treated in the same way - so if you have one of them up on the bracket gallery make it a double disc and all is solved.  It was unusual - except sometimes  in the case of a single disc - to arrange co-located discs in the way you would arrange semaphore arms, they were usually put in the most convenient place.   You certainly wouldn't want them with. one on the gallery and the other on the ground unless it happened during soem sort of alteration but even then I suspect that it wouldn't be looked on favourably.

[sigtech]

Thanks Mike, - so from your reply, - as the period covered is 1956 onwards and assuming there had been no major signalling renewals, would it be best to have disc 12 as a white light ( with horizantal red stripe ) and would it be correct for the functions I mentioned in my previous post?  I remember reading on here somewhere recently that there had to be a signal in advance of the white light disc, showing a red aspect, so does that mean that the bufferstop lamp on the spur must show a red light?  is that an acceptable option, or do i need to rethink it?  (reason I ask is mine shows white at the moment - as it is alongside a running line ) - or is that of lesser importance?.

 

With regard to discs 5 and 6, then the best thing would be to mount them one above the other on a separate  platform with its own ladder, and at about 6 foot off the ground fixed to left hand side of the main signalpost - no.6 at the top reading to the parcels dock, and no.5 underneath reading to the loop.  Correct?

One last question - with a view to getting no.21 right, at moment it has a straight post,- but would it be better for sighting  for it to be mounted on a left hand bracket above the parcels dock line?

No more questions you'll be glad to hear - at least I can't think of any right now ¬  ( I'm hoping Phil is following me and reading all this....)

Regards, Thanks for all your help - and thanks to Phil also.

Steve.

Edited December 7, 2019 by sigtech
Wrong height for platform of 5+6 discs given.

[Junctionmad]

nice piece on Signal diagram colours , I learn something new every day / Its awkward trying to balance the requirements of a Control panel and a signalling diagram 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Quote

ard to

Quote

 The purpose of the track circuits is to replace the facing point locking bars thus they will only be provided through the facing points and not through any oppsite ends where there is

 I notice in signalling diagrams I have that track circuits were also applied to remove the need to apply Rule 55 

[RailWest]

3 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

 I notice in signalling diagrams I have that track circuits were also applied to remove the need to apply Rule 55 

...but only relevant to those which were (berth) circuits immediately in rear of a stop signal.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

 I notice in signalling diagrams I have that track circuits were also applied to remove the need to apply Rule 55 

They did not remove the need to apply Rule 55 because it still applied at all signals capable of showing a danger indication.  But the way in which it was applied was modified.

[The Stationmaster]

On 01/12/2019 at 20:23, sigtech said:

Thanks Mike, - so from your reply, - as the period covered is 1956 onwards and assuming there had been no major signalling renewals, would it be best to have disc 12 as a white light ( with horizantal red stripe ) and would it be correct for the functions I mentioned in my previous post?  I remember reading on here somewhere recently that there had to be a signal in advance of the white light disc, showing a red aspect, so does that mean that the bufferstop lamp on the spur must show a red light?  is that an acceptable option, or do i need to rethink it?  (reason I ask is mine shows white at the moment - as it is alongside a running line ) - or is that of lesser importance?.

 

With regard to discs 5 and 6, then the best thing would be to mount them one above the other on a separate  platform with its own ladder, and at about 9 foot off the ground fixed to left hand side of the main signalpost - no.6 at the top reading to the parcels dock, and no.5 underneath reading to the loop.  Correct?

One last question - with a view to getting no.21 right, at moment it has a straight post,- but would it be better for sighting  for it to be mounted on a left hand bracket above the parcels dock line?

No more questions you'll be glad to hear - at least I can't think of any right now ¬  ( I'm hoping Phil is following me and reading all this....)

Regards, Thanks for all your help - and thanks to Phil also.

Steve.

I'll begin at the end -

21 is perfectly ok as it is, very Great Western to have a signal sited like that, Drivers were expected to know the road and which signals applied to their train etc.

5&6 perfectly ok as you describe but you could put them on the ground if you want - probably a bit more typical for 1930s onwards

12 would be ok as it doesn't read out onto a running line and that is where it would have to read to a red.  You can't put red lamps on stop blocks where ther y are on lines alongside or close to running lines on which a train wiuld be running towards them.

[Harlequin]

Hi Steve,

 

Here's the first stage. This is just the basic drawing laid out with no signalling added yet.

• I'm imagining that Sproston hasn't had any major PWay or signalling changes for a long time and so the old 1930's style GWR box diagram is still in use with some paper ammendments for minor changes.
• A better font than the previous version with no lower case.
• Better track colours - trying to look like an ink wash between pencil lines.
• Border with plain-ish corners.

OK so far?

 

[RailWest]

I would have thought that both the 'loop' and the 'parcels dock' line should have been coloured blue as sidings? Also, if the point off the 'loop' to the two sidings at bottom right is not to be worked from the box, then it ought to be drawn as a hand-point.

[Harlequin]

Hi Steve again,

 

Sorry, I haven't given you much chance to reply but I've gone ahead and put all the signalling, the lever numbers and the FPLs on in GWR mid-1930s-onwards style, according to your sketch (thanks):

 

Don't worry, though, everything can still be changed.

I followed up on Chris's (@RailWest) feedback about the colour of the loop line and the hand point into the goods yard (a mistake carried over from from the old diagram). Thanks Chris.

Haven't changed the parcels line colour yet because I'm not sure about that.

 

Still to do the lever list, spares and spaces. We could also show yardages on the signals if you wanted.

[sigtech]

Hello Phil. - it looks good to me - have spent most of this afternoon proceeding with the alterations.

21 signal removed, reposition,  wired up and now working  o.k. as 21 Bay Platform Starting Signal.

Lever 23 is now 'spare', repainted white, - not very easy with the frame fixed in place inside the box....

Disc 23 removed and ''on'' aspect (white light) added, signal repositioned as the new 12 disc. loop exit to up main.

disc22 removed from layout, converted to a double disc 5 with disc 6, both discs and mounting platform with ladder removed (carefully!) from old Hornby u/q 3 doll bracket signal. Awaiting fitting to new inner home bracket signal.

Hole for new Dapol working bracket signal (2 doll lh  l/q signal ) cut in baseboard.

Holes where previous signals have been removed covered with card, and ground scatter applied/ballasted as required.

More progress hopefully tomorrow.

Regards,

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

[Harlequin]

Here's an improved version:

 

 

 

[sigtech]

HI Phil.  I definately prefer the latest version of the diagram, the engine shed looks better with the siding aligned that way - it's also much closer to the actual track layout.

Been busy this morning cutting out a recess under the board, for the twin servo powerpack, this fits underneath the actual signal, and it needs a LOT of room.... glad I don't have anymore to fit!!

i have extended both the power wires by about 18" to enable it to reach the layouts signal bussbars.

I don't think marking signal distances from the box on the diagram will be of much relevance - as all distances on this layout are terribly compressed! ( The main platform ,from bufferstops to end of the ramp is only 41 inches), and the bay will only take two coaches and a small loco.

However, I will have to extend both sets of  the 3 core signal operating wires, as the length supplied is only  12"  ( plug in unit to switch terminals ) - rediculous... even on this little layout with these being the closest signals to the controls, they need a  further 2 foot or so of extra wire added.

The short siding behind the box was labelled as 'Spur' ( headshunt ) on the old diagram.

The new bracket signal is temporary fixed in place, as I still have to fit the landing with the co-located discs and a small ladder to it - and to then finish wiring and testing.  Progressing steadily!

Regards.

( SIGTECH )

Steve.

Edited December 7, 2019 by sigtech
missed out a bracket

[Junctionmad]

Lovely drawing. Given me thought about reworking my mimic diagram. A version 2 is needed anyway. 
 

If you don’t mind , What are the RGB values for the colours and the faint lines bordering the track colour , thanks 

 

Dave 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Harlequin]

Hi Steve,

 

I think I've finished:

 

I've added dummy yardages to get a bit closer to the real thing but they are on a separate layer and can be turned on or off as required.

FYI: The diagram fits on a landscape A3 sheet and most of the labels are 8pt.

 

Here's a close up of the small note pasted in the bottom left corner, which I understand was compulsory:

 

Here are the lever labels (without locking info):

 

Please let me know if you want any changes or if you can see any mistakes before I send you the PDF version. (No hurry.)

 

@The Stationmaster Do these drawings look OK to you? Anything horribly wrong???

 

@Junctionmad I will try to answer your question later.

 

[Junctionmad]

Thanks Re the colours. When you get a chance 

[chuffinghell]

16 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

Lovely drawing.

Yup! Phil's drawings are a work of art

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Steve,

 

I think I've finished:

 

I've added dummy yardages to get a bit closer to the real thing but they are on a separate layer and can be turned on or off as required.

FYI: The diagram fits on a landscape A3 sheet and most of the labels are 8pt.

 

Here's a close up of the small note pasted in the bottom left corner, which I understand was compulsory:

 

Here are the lever labels (without locking info):

 

Please let me know if you want any changes or if you can see any mistakes before I send you the PDF version. (No hurry.)

 

@The Stationmaster Do these drawings look OK to you? Anything horribly wrong???

 

@Junctionmad I will try to answer your question later.

 

You could rationalise the leads for 5 and 6 to read  'Disc At 2 To ....... ' if Steve wanted.

 

Presumably there are no track circuits at all and the facing points will still have locking bars?

[sigtech]

Hello Phil, that looks very nice, the only minor things that I can see are.levers 3,9,13, and 23 are spare levers in the box (need a lever plate with lever number and 'spare') - there are no spaces in the frame, also the headshunt was labelled as 'spur' on the previous diagram.

Otherwise its truly excellent. Not really sure about rationalising 5+6 lever leads - is there any need or would it be likely?

 

With regard to Mikes question - no track circuits, I presume a little out of the way place like this would not really justify the expenditure.  It is after all a single track branchline.  There is not  enough room in rear of the points for a locking bar on 11a - unless it was mounted on the inside of the actual switchrail,  (this is about the only place a track circuit would really be useful )  I presume 11a would also only have one fpl notch in the lockbar  and 14a likewise. 8 would have notches for both normal and reverse.

 

When I was originally thinking about the layout of signalling for this station, I had drawn plans for a mechanical clearance/fouling bar on the main platform road - just before  24a - due to the curvature of the line and the distance/sighting  from the box, but scrapped the idea as improbable/unlikely for a little terminus such as this.

 

I have attached 5/6 discs to the left side of the main post of the inner homes, - on a small 6ft high platform with ladder, The signal is now in place and I am working on extending the wires for the two new control switches ( 2 choc-blocks 6 wires and some soldering.... )

Hope to get it finished, and then tested soon ( tomorrow? )

Regards,

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

 

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, sigtech said:

Hello Phil, that looks very nice, the only minor things that I can see are.levers 3,9,13, and 23 are spare levers in the box (need a lever plate with lever number and 'spare') - there are no spaces in the frame, also the headshunt was labelled as 'spur' on the previous diagram.

Otherwise its truly excellent. Not really sure about rationalising 5+6 lever leads - is there any need or would it be likely?

 

With regard to Mikes question - no track circuits, I presume a little out of the way place like this would not really justify the expenditure.  It is after all a single track branchline.  There is not  enough room in rear of the points for a locking bar on 11a - unless it was mounted on the inside of the actual switchrail,  (this is about the only place a track circuit would really be useful )  I presume 11a would also only have one fpl notch in the lockbar  and 14a likewise. 8 would have notches for both normal and reverse.

 

When I was originally thinking about the layout of signalling for this station, I had drawn plans for a mechanical clearance/fouling bar on the main platform road - just before  24a - due to the curvature of the line and the distance/sighting  from the box, but scrapped the idea as improbable/unlikely for a little terminus such as this.

 

I have attached 5/6 discs to the left side of the main post of the inner homes, - on a small 6ft high platform with ladder, The signal is now in place and I am working on extending the wires for the two new control switches ( 2 choc-blocks 6 wires and some soldering.... )

Hope to get it finished, and then tested soon ( tomorrow? )

Regards,

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

 

Steve  11A  and 14A should bolt both ways.   The Western  had a strong preference for bolting both ways and it would avoid the need for any detection for discs Nos.5  & 6 as Western ground discs reading through points fitted with FPLs didn't normally detect those points.  The Region seems to have set about track circuiting facing points in a big way in the mid - late 1950s (although the GWR had started long before then of course) but many branches and secondary lines were closed long before track circuiting reached them.

 

At least you won't have the amusement, dating from pre-1914 times of motor worked facing points fitted with locking bars instead of track circuits 

 

The lead layout for 5 and 6 would depend very much on when they were drawn up - later leads tended to be a lot less wordy - for example '+over' became common on levers working crossovers.

[sigtech]

Hello Mike, -   re the above conversation, as there is no room for a second lockbar unless it was mounted on ( both switches of 11 ), would the existence of this problem makes it more likely that there would have been a track circuit installed?

 

Regards

Steve