Jump to content
 

Sproston. Signalling Alterations


Recommended Posts

Helo Phil - I don't know if you had read my last comments re a couple of small changes? one concerning the spare levers,  numbered and with plates - not spaces, and the second the labelling of the headshunt behind the box as 'spur'.

( this was on the previous iteration of the diagram )

I have just been reading Mikes comments - hence my question re a track - circuit in lieu of the switch mounted lockbars (anything to make it easier)! and the fact that the new bracket signal has 4 foot arms on both dolls...

Awaiting Mikes verdict on these questions, as this will probably affect some details on the drawing, apart from that it's all good!

No further progress on layout to report..

Steve.

Edited by sigtech
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, sigtech said:

Helo Phil - I don't know if you had read my last comments re a couple of small changes? one concerning the spare levers,  numbered and with plates - not spaces, and the second the labelling of the headshunt behind the box as 'spur'.

( this was on the previous iteration of the diagram )

I have just been reading Mikes comments - hence my question re a track - circuit in lieu of the switch mounted lockbars (anything to make it easier)! and the fact that the new bracket signal has 4 foot arms on both dolls...

Awaiting Mikes verdict on these questions, as this will probably affect some details on the drawing, apart from that it's all good!

No further progress on layout to report..

Steve.

Hi Steve,

Yes, I've got those changes in the drawing. Will wait for the conclusion of these discussions before I post a new version. FYI: 4 is shown as a 3ft arm in the drawing currently but it's trivial to change.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, sigtech said:

Hello again Mike - just another quick question, have just realized 2 and 4 signals both have 4 ft arms, i assume that is o.k? 

Yes - not at all unusual to have 4ft arms reading into bay platforms at both termini and through stations in GWR days.

 

As far as the lock(ing) bars are concerned the use of two inside bars on the switch rails definitely happened and there are photos around which show it - including some surviving on lines which closed in the late '50s/very early '60s.  I suspect they might have been something of a maintenance headache but can't recall coming across anybody who spoke about having to look after them.  Again it really depends on teh date and whether there had been problems with maintenance however I a would have expected that if one set of bars were replaced by track circuits the others would have been done at the same time

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike - think that solves the problem. so Phil - thats 4 foot arms on both 2 and 4 signals please, and I'll go with mechanical fpl on all 3 ends of facing points - 11 will have them mounted  ( imaginary.. ) on both switches, due to the lack of space in rear of the toe of these points. No track circuits .

I believe that just about covers all the necessary alterations.

Are you happy with this Phil,-  after all you're the one in charge of producing the new diagram??

Regards

Steve

.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WR track circuits were shown black. There was a small gap left between the end of each adjacent TC, which I assume had the same colour as the un-circuited sections of that line.

 

NB: the above applies to later (illuminated) versions of diagram. IIRC early GWR ones had a horizontal red line along the centre line of the track.....Mike???

Edited by RailWest
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

So I’ve seen certainly WR era diagrams with seemingly multi colour sections that seem track circuited. Maybe these are much layer diagrams 

Were those of WR origin, or perhaps from other lines (eg SR) which had been taken over by the WR?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally completed installation and testing of Sproston's inner home signals. no2 and no4 signed into use  @ 22.30 hours.

I have included a few photos just to prove it.... All ready for the new revised signalling box diagram.

Had great fun extending the operating cables - as I said previously they are 11 inches long!!!  (each) - The Dapol spares number for additional  2metre extension 3 core cables, Dapol part #4a-000-014 seems to be a total work of fiction - none available....anywhere!!!

So I used the old fallback viz: - 2 x 3 hole terminal blocks, 6 length of single colour multi strand cable, solder, soldering iron, insulation tape, side - cutters, and a terminal screwdriver, add a lot of colourful language, stir well whilst cutting both cables carefully in half, insert centre sections include a couple of thumps on the head whilst scrabbling around underneath the layout!, result it all works.

I AM NOW GOING TO HAVE A NICE CUP OF TEA!!

Regards,

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

066 (1824 x 1368).jpg

067 (1824 x 1368).jpg

068 (1824 x 1368).jpg

069 (1824 x 1368).jpg

070 (1824 x 1368).jpg

071 (1824 x 1368).jpg

Edited by sigtech
  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 11/12/2019 at 09:28, RailWest said:

WR track circuits were shown black. There was a small gap left between the end of each adjacent TC, which I assume had the same colour as the un-circuited sections of that line.

 

NB: the above applies to later (illuminated) versions of diagram. IIRC early GWR ones had a horizontal red line along the centre line of the track.....Mike???

Yes, the original style of showing track circuited sections was a red centre line on the diagram drawn through the track circuited section of track. (I know that for a fact as I own a diagram which has track circuits shown in that manner.  I don't know when the style changed but I'm fairly sure that it was sometime between the wars - it might be mentioned in one of Vaughan's books (one I haven't got).    I wonder if the change came in when illuminated diagrams became compulsory for 'boxes with 5 or more track circuits?

 

I think we can reasonably safely say that as long as Reading Drawing Office survived, in whatever form/location, WR diagram style in respect of track circuits did not change from the WR standard to the BR standard but it would need some dated diagrams to be certain of that.  (The recent GWR Signalling Practice book appears not to cover the subject although its index is rather poor.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

"GWR Signalling Practice" covers the subject briefly on Pages 258-259 (with photos of two different styles on 257 and 258).

 

It suggests that the change in the representation of TCs was not coincident with the introduction of illuminated diagrams. For some period the style of showing black track sections was used with the TC indicators on the shelf amongst all the other instruments.

 

So the sequence for showing TC on box diagrams was:

  1. Thin red lines, non-illuminated
  2. Thick black lines, non-illuminated
  3. Thick black lines, illuminated (mid 1930s onwards starting at larger installations)

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

could we review the colours for the diagrams  in GWR /early WR , Im a little confused , thanks . I hope Phil,  you get a chance to specify  the RGBs of the main colours as I don't have a colour corrected monitor so I can never be sure,  exactly  what I am seeing,  is correct 

 

thanks again , I love the drawings , as I am redoing Little Siddingtons panel , I am trying to emulate the style 

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

"GWR Signalling Practice" covers the subject briefly on Pages 258-259 (with photos of two different styles on 257 and 258).

 

It suggests that the change in the representation of TCs was not coincident with the introduction of illuminated digrams. For some period the style of showing black track sections was used with the TC indicators on the shelf amongst all the other instruments.

 

So the sequence for showing TC on box diagrams was:

  1. Thin red lines, non-illuminated
  2. Thick black lines, non-illuminated
  3. Thick black lines, illuminated (mid 1930s onwards starting at larger installations)

 

Thanks Phil - I was obviously looking in the wrong place (I blame the index, again).  The interesting question of course is when did TC indications first begin to appear on diagrams?  The earliest I can trace with any certainty are in the 1930s when it appears that the original single white light to indicate an occupied track circuit was first used - it could possibly have been used even earlier than that.  The two red lights in a single lozenge shaped cut out would seem to have come some time later.  I suspect that Wolvercote Jcn might not be a very good example as it was a wartime job being altered in 1942 when the Down Loop from Oxford North Jcn was added.

 

Incidentally the change of style would not have depended on the size of the installation but would have been governed by the date on which the Drawing Office Instruction was issued.  One of the biggest losses to the student of GWR signalling is that a comprehensive list of Drawing Office Instructions - let alone example of them - never seems to have come to light where they're accessible the enthusiast world.  They were the GWR, and subsequently WR, equivalent of Signalling Principles and also covered such things as interlocking standards but over the years I have only learnt a few oddments from the people who used them and have never seen any of the written versions.

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally the change of style would not have depended on the size of the installation but would have been governed by the date on which the Drawing Office Instruction was issued.  One of the biggest losses to the student of GWR signalling is that a comprehensive list of Drawing Office Instructions - let alone example of them - never seems to have come to light where they're accessible the enthusiast world.  They were the GWR, and subsequently WR, equivalent of Signalling Principles and also covered such things as interlocking standards but over the years I have only learnt a few oddments from the people who used them and have never seen any of the written versions.

Do you think that information might be locked away at STEAM or at Kew, maybe?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Do you think that information might be locked away at STEAM or at Kew, maybe?

 

I rather suspect that they ended up in a skip when Reading signal works was cleared out ready for subsequent occupation by BR computing. There was certainly a period in the 1970s when Porchester Row was actively discouraging the acquisition of more material no matter how interesting, and, unless an individual expressed an interest, a skip was the only answer. I was given the task of clearing out the historical archives on international train services when the SISD moved from 50 Liverpool Street to Eversholt House in the mid 1970s, they were full of interesting items, some SECR files dating back well before the Great War, but, apart from a handful of choice items, they all went in a skip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, bécasse said:

I rather suspect that they ended up in a skip when Reading signal works was cleared out ready for subsequent occupation by BR computing. There was certainly a period in the 1970s when Porchester Row was actively discouraging the acquisition of more material no matter how interesting, and, unless an individual expressed an interest, a skip was the only answer. I was given the task of clearing out the historical archives on international train services when the SISD moved from 50 Liverpool Street to Eversholt House in the mid 1970s, they were full of interesting items, some SECR files dating back well before the Great War, but, apart from a handful of choice items, they all went in a skip.

That’s a very sad story... :sad_mini:

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

  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Junctionmad

 

The track and platfom colours I used on Sproston are not solid. I gave them a bit of variation to simulate an ink wash and I gave them a smaller scale transparency variation to give a slightly grainy effect. So their final appearance depends on the colour behind them.

 

Here they are in close up over the light buff paper colour that I used for the drawing and also over pure white:

1528930030_Sproston22colours.png.d1b729f8435bd94713a98a2562c8e103.png

 

I can't claim that these colours are accurate to the prototype drawings. The photographs that you can find on the net usually show very old drawings that are yellowed with age and/or bleached by exposure to sunlight. So I made best guesses to the original colours without going too saturated.

 

The convention I'm using for track colours is: grey for primary running lines, blue for sidings and orange for secondary running lines (such as goods relief lines). The secondary orange is a slightly stronger version of the platform orange shown above but I didn't have to use it on Sproston.

 

Sample RGB values over buff paper colour:

Platform orange = #ecceb3

Primary grey = #c6c1bb

Siding blue = #a4c5d7

 

Sample RGB values over white:

Platform orange = #f6e1d3

Primary grey = #c5c0bd

Siding blue = #abcbde

 

The track outlines are 60% black (#666666) - they should possibly be a bit darker.

 

  • Like 1
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...