Jump to content
 

Comments please on attached signalling plan


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I would be really pleased if I could get some views on the attached signalling diagram for my layout. It's Anyrail system so I've  attached a pdf.

 

I hope studying all the information on this forum has paid off and there is at least some resemblance to a railway-like approach! The layout is heavily influenced by Minories and the ideas of Peter Denny.

 

First some background:

Set in a fictitious town sometime in the late BR period, its origins lie in the M & GN Joint Railway.

Mainly steam and with a few diesels appearing.

2 track with Up Line running from left to right towards the south: Peterborough etc.

The Down Line runs into the large terminus of Langbury (5 platform faces etc) and also to the single track (former Midland R line) leading to more northern places eg Grantham.

Traffic : busy!!

Up Goods through traffic will pass via either Platform , Down goods through Platform 2 or Goods Arrival.

But Pick-up or local Goods will need to run into Goods Arrival for access to the Goods yards & factory sidings. For the Up trains my plan would be to run them in on the Down Line. Is this a possible or reasonable solution ? Would there need to be some sort of token? Or would it be better to keep to the Up Line and live with the reversing and shunting necessary? This has to be balanced against the extra signals needed in the first case?

Ground signals: I'll concentrate on the semaphore ones for the time being I think & assume they exist where needed.

 

Signals

11, 14 & 15 are there in case of trains running the “wrong” way?

Note: length of the arms on the bracket signals are because only one example available on AnyRail

 

There must be a way to open the pdf and make it readable on the post , but haven't found it yet?

Thanks in advance .

 

 

 

Uffton  Signal Dia 2.jpg

Edited by Edward
fault
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Something wierd how AnyRail exports designs as pdf.  Have tried the jpeg route and hope that works better. Have also added the jpeg to the original post. ( Wow. talk about getting imbrangled!)1470269159_UfftonSignalDia2.jpg.e2b7e58ff53837046c8f48b44cbef248.jpg

Edited by Edward
fault
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Do you need the whole thing reversibly signalled? I think that was pretty rare in steam days. I'd expect the main running lines to be unidirectional. I'd shift the crossover across so that up goods trains can run directly from the up line into the goods loop, and remove the extra signals.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, Nick C said:

I'd shift the crossover across so that up goods trains can run directly from the up line into the goods loop, and remove the extra signals.

 

Here's my go at signalling that configuration. I've left in your "shunting spur" off the up line as a siding of some kind to increase operating potential.

 

Trains are assumed to approach and depart station limits "right line" which greatly reduces the number of signals.  Discs are provided for shunting moves - the experts can argue over whether multiple discs should be provided where there is more than one route, but I believe that the ER was frugal in that respect.  Note that the down advanced starter (leftmost signal) has been included in error on this diagram and should be deleted.

 

Edward1.png.0ce9a53ab948582805038b1c674db140.png

 

However, if you are still at the planning stage, I think that the following is a more likely layout for a smallish station such as yours.  It avoids facing points on the main line and goods trains enter the yard by drawing up to the advanced starter and reversing, which was very common practice.  If you browse the signal plans on signalbox.org or the Signalling Record Society you will find many similar layouts.

 

Edward2.png.b819a7bb8002f8790e83c4b132ce6bc7.png

 

Finally, a development of the above catering for terminating trains off the branch line, which arrive and run round in platform 1 before shunting into the bay platform 3 to await departure, again a common practice.

 

Edward3.png.442dbf9051157ec1426bd57346fd0501.png

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

First impressions is it’s way “ over signalled “ for the scale of operations 

most of the reverse moves in the prototype would have been signalled by ground disk. Unless it’s intended to run passanger ( and not empty stock ) over those routes 

I would agree with that, on both counts.

 

Although, with a facing crossover (not that common a feature until more recent times) platform 2 can be used bi-directionally, this station is, like most, built round a definite up line and a down line. Its running movements would be signalled on that basis, with the other shunt movements controlled by ground signals.

 

On that basis I have edited the original diagram, as best I can, as below:-

 

UfftonSignalDia2v2.jpg.f3735c3fbc80b3d275b607adb60b0c1f.jpg

 

Points I would note are:-

1.  I have left the bracketed signal 1/2 as is in case the idea is to use platform 2 for terminating trains (which would be a reason for the crossover being facing rather than trailing).

2.  The Shunt spur would need a shunt signal (and a set of trap points) to protect against movements onto the Up Line.

3.  Movements from platform 1 into the spur would also be controlled via a shunt signal (11)

4.  The advance starter signal 3 (I would assume the section signal (the starter) is off scene to the right so that any movements past any of signals 3-7 do not enter the forward section) has been moved back behind the tips of the switches in the double slip. That is where it would be sited so as to avoid any train standing at it being foul of a movement across the double slip.

5.  14 & 15 would be ground shuunt signals - either a single ground signal with a route indicator, or three ground signals, one for each route from that point.

6.  I have assumed that any movements from platform 2 to the Up Line would be shunt moves, so signals 4 & 5 would be ground signals. Complementing one of these would be a Limit of Shunt marker/signal on the Down line.

7.  Shunt movements from the Goods Arrival in the up direction would be covered by a ground signal, but a running movement to the Up Line would be covered by a full size running signal so that the driver has a positive movement authority as far as the next main aspect signal (which I suggest would be the section signal referred to in (4) above. It avoids the problem of the movement otherwise having to be done under permissive, ie line of sight, working.

8.  The same comments apply to the Down direction signal(s) at the other end of the Goods Arrival, hence the provision of running signal 18 and the various other ground signals for the shunting movements.

9.  I haven't deleted 10 signal, but it serves no useful progress and should be deleted.Signals 12 & 18 cover the running movements already.

 

I am not certain that the double slip is entirely justified - the prototype would more usually have a single slip, with only a trailing connection into the Down line, but modelling considerations may dictate otherwise.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/12/2019 at 10:55, Nick C said:

Do you need the whole thing reversibly signalled? I think that was pretty rare in steam days. I'd expect the main running lines to be unidirectional. I'd shift the crossover across so that up goods trains can run directly from the up line into the goods loop, and remove the extra signals.

Thanks for your comments!  Just getting some time to absorb everything.    I worried about the over signalling and of course it's a lot easier to cut down on them!   The shunt spur I put in as a refuge for an engine which could shunt empty coaching stock from Pt 1 to 2. But perhaps it should have been off the Down line! 

My layout fairly firmly set down now and I feel daunted at the thought of major changes to track.  ...But of course may be necessary! Very good news that I can & WILL dispense with the extra signals.

Edward

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

First impressions is it’s way “ over signalled “ for the scale of operations 

most of the reverse moves in the prototype would have been signalled by ground disk. Unless it’s intended to run passanger ( and not empty stock ) over those routes 

Yes indeed!  From my reply to Nick C , you'll have gathered I'm pleased to be able to take out the extra signals!    So far planned (and written a set of instructions to allow) only pick-up goods to run in the "wrong" way.

Cheers

Edward

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, Edward said:

  I worried about the over signalling and of course it's a lot easier to cut down on them!  

I did the same - my first plan had way too many signals on it for what would have actually been prototypical. I did mine by looking at prototype locations with similar track plans to what I wanted and adapting them - the signalling record society site is very useful for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I did the same - my first plan had way too many signals on it for what would have actually been prototypical. I did mine by looking at prototype locations with similar track plans to what I wanted and adapting them - the signalling record society site is very useful for that.

In someways I wish I could have adopted that approach but decided to go fictional.  Started by copying designs fron the Peter Denny books and found that the plans can't be copied slavishly so have to modify them.  However I guess the most difficult area is getting the geometry to fit.  Using Peco 75 is pretty good mostly but  avoiding too sharp bends is difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your revised plan is considerably better. Not sure the duplication of 10 and 18. 
 

a catch point is needed off the shunt spur 

 

there seems to be a few ground disks in the facing directions that seem to duplicate running signal as well

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Here's my go at the unmodified track layout, the main difference from Jim's being a signal at the up end of platform 2, which is required whether trains run through or only terminate at this platform. 

 

In addition, there is a limit of shunt board to allow shunts back behind the bracket on the up line when: this could be for a loco running round, or for a branch train train that has terminated in platform 1 to be shunted to platform 2 for it's return journey.

 

Up stopping goods draw forward to the up advanced starter (rightmost signal) and set back into the yard - no wrong line running outside station limits needed.

 

There should probably be calling on arms on the up line bracket to allow a loco to set back onto its train when running round  (a movement into an occupied platform), but as the layout is not 100% prototypical anyway it doesn't hurt to keep things simple.  It does mean all the signals are simple types that should be fairly easily available.

 

I'd still recommend that the spur on the up side is used as a goods siding for added play value.  There's really no need for a station pilot to cope with the odd terminating branch train.

 

Edward0.png.538486b6c620cf95c5305b56dffbb67a.png

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Gosh I seized on the changes , seeing that the problems would be gone and rushed off to try them out on the layout.  Armed with cutout templates of the Peco Code 75 points, I would surely bend the world, or at least my little station of Uffton, to my will.   But I quickly came up against the iron rule of radii:  so far and no further.   I wanted to use the longest points and have smooth curves with a little transition built-in.  But it's not to be! The necessary right angle to come round the next baseboard with two running lines just couldn't be moved enough to swop the points around.  Which is, I suppose, why I had so much trouble when laying out the first time. 

 

I am so appreciative of all the work put in on this topic.  Really I wish I'd tried out the ideas here before getting everything stuck down.  However it's all great fun and continual learning is one of the reason's railway modelling is a fascinating hobby.

 

I'm going to try to run trains through the layout as it stands,  using a WTT I'm working on.  I've got quite a few old Hornby semaphore signals so  should be able to see if one can produce realistic running. 

I haven't yet worked out where the HOME signals would be.  Looking at the UP line, am I right in saying it can't be No 1 as there's no room to fit in a clearing point? So would have to be another signal in the rear of No 1? Or move No 1 further back? 

( A very knowledgeable person put a document "Absolute Block Regs TS3" onto here and I'm trying understand what it says so I can be on the same wave length in discussions.)    

Where can one get the symbols used on the diagrams?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Home' signals would be the first stop signals that you come to when approaching the station, in your case the ones with the brackets. The Clearing points would then be at the requisite distance beyond them - probably the Advanced Startings.

 

IMHO you should NOT have a LoS outside (in rear of) your Home, as any train shunting out to it could then foul the bock section in rear, which is exactly what the LOS ought to avoid. Frankly I would not have a LOS at all and make the shunt signal read into the siding only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, RailWest said:

IMHO you should NOT have a LoS outside (in rear of) your Home, as any train shunting out to it could then foul the bock section in rear, which is exactly what the LOS ought to avoid. Frankly I would not have a LOS at all and make the shunt signal read into the siding only.

 

Doesn't "blocking back outside home" allow for just this kind of manoeuvre? As you say, it could be avoided by using the siding to run round.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, RailWest said:

The 'Home' signals would be the first stop signals that you come to when approaching the station, in your case the ones with the brackets. The Clearing points would then be at the requisite distance beyond them - probably the Advanced Startings.

 

IMHO you should NOT have a LoS outside (in rear of) your Home, as any train shunting out to it could then foul the bock section in rear, which is exactly what the LOS ought to avoid. Frankly I would not have a LOS at all and make the shunt signal read into the siding only.

As 'Flying Pig' has said the whole purpose of a 3-3 Block Back (Blocking back Outside The Home Signal) was/is to allow a shunting movement to be made back in the block section.  Blocking Back was a standard Regulation on most, if not all.  Railways and didn't require any special authority in the Signal Box Special Instructions - i.e. it could be applied at any block post unless it was specifically forbidden.   And undoubtedly at by far the greatest number of places there was no Limit of Shunt board to limit the distance over which such a shunt could be made - basically it was 'shunt as far as is necessary to do the job'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6A2BB414-A4A1-43B5-8D5F-5AF9D3DBF310.png

In relation to this plan , I would agree with removing the LOS 

I would also suggest that if trains departing “ wrong way “ on the down platform , would normally regain the up line , this would mean a splitting starter on that end but of the platform. 

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

6A2BB414-A4A1-43B5-8D5F-5AF9D3DBF310.png

In relation to this plan , I would agree with removing the LOS 

I would also suggest that if trains departing “ wrong way “ on the down platform , would normally regain the up line , this would mean a splitting starter on that end but of the platform. 

Why would he need a bracket signal, as there would be only one main signalled route, namely across the crossover to the Up line?

 

Also, there would need to be a FPL on the Down line end of that crossover in such a case.

 

There is a potential to shunt from the  Down platform across the facing crossover and into the Up siding, so perhaps there should be a disc for that move next to the Down Starting?

  • 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...