Jump to content

Boco_D1

Verification of signal placement please.

Recommended Posts

I’d appreciate if someone whose signalling knowledge on absolute block could look over my Signalling “diagram”, I think my knowledge of track circuit block has crept in and i’m certain i’ve got something wrong.9BBBB360-F3B0-410E-8317-F94969C97F7F.jpeg.ec073ab438b9f643760c980ec242646b.jpeg

 

Period wise it’s late 80s early 90s western region. The engine shed is privately owned by a preservation group who have running rights on the branch. The platforms can both be permissively worked. Goods trains come in from the single line and run round via the station. 

 

So the parts i’m not certain about, does the top platform (2) require the shunt signal or could the signalman clear the starter to the section (held at danger) for that part of the shunt and therefore the shunt signal is not required.

i’ve put a shunt on the goods starter but i’ve now realised I don’t need that signal so please ignore.

Is the shunt signal to return the loco to the goods line in the right place or should that be on the home signal, in which case the signaller would need to shunt into section? (and if so would the driver still be given the token to shunt on the signal line or would there be a loco sized space left between the section signal and the home signal, i would say wait for token release but I could be wrong)

The signal box has a release for the ground frame, once the points are set to return the loco to its shed could the calling on be used (with route indicator) or does that signal require a shunt for the loco to return to shed.

 

Of course if there is anything else that doesn’t look right please let me know, your help is most appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

Working from the right...

The home bracket is ok, but I think it should be right up by the toe of the points adjacent to the disc. As the right hand arm reads into the goods loop, then this could be a short goods arm. It's not clear if your disc refers to the goods loop or main. 

The section signal is good,  might be a bit further out to the right to allow running round inside the section without releasing the token. This would presuppose an outer home which would be 440 yds away and off scene.

The goods loop starter is fine but I suspect would either be a single disc or a single arm. You don't need both.

The inner homes are ok, but you have a double bracket reading over three possible routes. You could consider adding a disc at the foot of this signal to read into the shed.

Platform starters look fine. But the disc signal reading from the top platform into the goods loop needs to be combined with the platform starters. Possible this might have been a disc mounted up on the gantry.

Yellow discs look good, you don't often see these modelled.

As always, there are many ways to skin the cat and lots depends on what movements the traffic department anticipates needing.

I am sure others will have different points of view!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a trap point at the LH end of the goods line to protect the bay platform line (assuming that the latter is a passenger-rated line).


I would argue that the points leading to the ES would be worked directly from the SB.  The LH yellow disc could be worked from SB as well. A yellow disc reading OUT of the RH end of the siding is redundant, as it could only read for one route anyway, which is the one that an engine could pass when 'on' anyway! I see no purpose for the GF, other than perhaps one lever to give a release to the SB for the points - a release plunger could serve the same purpose.

 

I do not see any need for the subsidiary (Calling On ?) arms on the Inner Home bracket. A disc (or multiple discs) at the foot of the post could cover all shunt moves into the ES or either platform.

 

I would agree with most of what ikcdab has said, but....

 

>>>The home bracket..... As the right hand arm reads into the goods loop, then this could be a short goods arm. 

I'm not sure if that would be valid given that it would lead only to a disc at the :H end of the goods loop. For 80s/90s I would make it just a disc (mounted on the bracket) and abolish the ground disc at the points.

 

>>>The section signal is good,  might be a bit further out to the right to allow running round inside the section without releasing the token. This would presuppose an outer home which would be 440 yds away and off scene.

If an Outer home was provided then the run-round would be outside the section, hence no need to draw a token. The OH would need to be at least 440 yards from the Advanced Starting, not just the Inner Home, but only really needed if you want to be able to accept a Down train while shunting was in progress.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While things are a bit more like a heritage railway than a remaining WR branch terminus for the 1980s (even the busiest branch termini didn't have more than one platform by then and quite a lot of them didn't have much, if anything, in the way of signals or a signal box either).  Doing it the way you have is your choice although the signalling looks very much like the results of a 1960s alteration so at least it is believable.  So if you want to keep the signalling and make it look authentically WR for the period of something partially rationalised and  resignalled in the 1960s it does need a few changes.

 

So working from the left -

1. I'm not sure what is meant for the upper platform - presumably a semaphore stop signal reading to the main line and a disc reading to the goods.  If so then co-locate them with a straight post semaphore to the left of the line or put the disc on the bracket signal next to the semaphore (the bracket needs a much longer gallery in any case if you keep it).

2. The 'goods' needs a trap point in advance of the ground disc.

3.  The connection to the preservation site could be done in several different ways but it is probably best to assume that either -

a. The WR signalling has survived,

or

b. The former shed was redeveloped as a preservation site some time after closure and reconnected and signalled accordingly with a ground frame to control the connection instead of it being worked from the signal box.

If we go with option a the left hand yellow disc would be there, the right hand yellow disc won't be there (because it's technical impossibility in any case) and there would be a red arm disc at the foot of the Inner Home (splitting) Signal reading to the shed.

If we go with option b the ground frame, with 3 levers would be there, the yellow disc would not be there, but the red disc - now worked by the ground frame - would be there.

The choice is yours - it's one or the other.

4. The (splitting) Inner Home Signal is ok - adding Calling On arms on such signals was a common feature of WR reiocking and signalling changes in the late 1950s and very early '60s.

5.  The 'goods' departure signal is going to be one thing or the other, either - 

a. Assuming there is a shunt spur (as implied. by the ground disc) it would be a yellow arm disc,

or

 b. Assuming there is no shunt spur it would be a red arm disc - no semaphore running signal to really reflect WR practice of the 1950s onwards.

6.  Similarly the (splitting) Home Signal and ground disc would actually be either -

a. (most likely by your time frame)  a siinglel post stop signal with a co-located - at ground level - red arm disc,

or

b. (not at all likely by your time frame but a possib;e very late survivor) a splitting signal with a 3ft arm reading to the 'goods' and no disc signal at all.

7.  An Advanced Starting Signal would probably be provided, released by token, as a train might potentially start from the 'goods' .

 

I'll try now to clear up the situation regarding shunting into a token section.  Shunting into token, and most other types of single line section, was very similar to a double line Blocking Back movement so the essential feature was that it applied to a  movement which would pass outside the protection of teh Home signal and come to a stand in rear of that siignal and all that happened was the Signalman sent a 3-3 bell signal and when it had been acknowledged by the 'box at the other end of the section he could allow a shunting movement into the section.  Except where it was specifically prohibited (usually because of gradients or very short sections) such movements could be made from both ends of the single line section - so it was impossible to draw a token for such moves.  Years back some places had special Shunting tokens but these long ago vanished from general use and in some places where such moves took place regularly Shunt Ahead subsidiary arms were provided.

 

The idea of providing an additional Home Signal 440yds in rear of the Home Signal is a relatively modern one although it is used on heritage lines - it is not essential.  Neither is provision of an Advanced Starting Signal to act as a limiting point for such a movement.  these types of shunts took place at hundreds of locations where there were no Outer Home or Advanced Starting Signals because the railways didn't believe in wasting money on generally useless extra signals.  And in one circumstance you could even shunt a train 'outside' the Hme Signal when there was another train already in the single line section (provided it was going away from you - so no way i on earth could that sort of shunt be given a token (the last time I made such a move was with a 10 coach loaded passenger train with another passenger train already in the section - quite legitimate).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon,

 

No expert, but wouldn't something like this suffice for an 80s WR BLT, as imagined perviously?

 

WR80sBLT.jpg.2049bd0c43acfc3e8488f09c8ab36cff.jpg

 

  • Both Platforms have Starter Signal which send train straight out into block section, though driver must collect Token from Box before entering 'the Block'
  • Both Platform Starters have associated Ground Shunt disc, to enable a shunt move into 'the block'.  (You never know, something in P2 might need to be recessed in the loop for a while.
  • Loop is fitted with trap at platform end.  Ground discs sufficient both ends.
  • 'Outer Home' (if it is called that) has ground disc for move into loop.  All inbound trains give up token to the Bobby before any signal is cleared anyhow.
  • 'Inner Home' (again, if that's its name) has call on arms for permissive working - though they might not be needed I guess if Method of Work states so. Also, has disc for move into Private Siding.
  • Private Siding.  Given that it is private why would BR be operating signals within it?  Any signals, traps etc connected to the BR infrastructure would need to be outside the Private Facility no?  So, perhaps the exit is a ground disc and trap, or perhaps to save more money a trap, Stop Board and Phone linked to the Bobby in the Box.  Either way I would expect any private infrastructure to be trapped in from BRs infrastructure.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

 

Edited by bigP
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the knowledgeable answers. I had originally planned for one platform but thought two might make working the layout a little more operationally interesting. But I completely forgot about trap points! I’ve already laid the track on a board and it’s a very tight space so I will go back to having one platform rather than trying to squeeze a set of traps in. I think this might make the signalling layout easier. I will take the great advice given go back to the drawing board and correct my plan.  

 

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

3.  The connection to the preservation site could be done in several different ways but it is probably best to assume that either -

a. The WR signalling has survived,

or

b. The former shed was redeveloped as a preservation site some time after closure and reconnected and signalled accordingly with a ground frame to control the connection instead of it being worked from the signal box.

If we go with option a the left hand yellow disc would be there, the right hand yellow disc won't be there (because it's technical impossibility in any case) and there would be a red arm disc at the foot of the Inner Home (splitting) Signal reading to the shed.

If we go with option b the ground frame, with 3 levers would be there, the yellow disc would not be there, but the red disc - now worked by the ground frame - would be there.

The choice is yours - it's one or the other.

 

 

I see what you mean about the right hand yellow disc, it’s not actually protecting anything, a bit of an oversight there. Option B would be my preferred choice (just so I can model a ground frame) the red disc your referring to is this the one I need to add to the inner home? If so would the road for the engine shed have a signal to bring a loco out on to the main line? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Boco_D1 said:

Thank you for all the knowledgeable answers. I had originally planned for one platform but thought two might make working the layout a little more operationally interesting. But I completely forgot about trap points! I’ve already laid the track on a board and it’s a very tight space so I will go back to having one platform rather than trying to squeeze a set of traps in. I think this might make the signalling layout easier. I will take the great advice given go back to the drawing board and correct my plan.  

 

 

I see what you mean about the right hand yellow disc, it’s not actually protecting anything, a bit of an oversight there. Option B would be my preferred choice (just so I can model a ground frame) the red disc your referring to is this the one I need to add to the inner home? If so would the road for the engine shed have a signal to bring a loco out on to the main line? 

No need for a signal at the engine shed end because the points are worked by the ground frame and when that is released once the points are set it would be opk to move (agreed over the 'phone with the Signalman). You have the disc coming the other way because the ground frame is not by those points so the person working the ground frane can't visually check teh points are correctly set plus any move from the main line would then be passing a signal at danger if the disc wasn't there.

 

If the upper platform is no longer going to be a passenger line do you need a semaphore signal reading to it and from it - what will it be used for?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As bigP suggests, it's very unlikely that an LBT in steam days would have been as lavishly signalled as the OP's diagram. Even bigP's diagram would have been an extravagance unless the terminus was very intensively worked - a more economical setup would have been to work all passenger trains from P2 and dispense with the P1 starter and bracket signal. On a preserved railway more signalling sophistication could be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying that Mike. I will change the signalling to and from the upper platform as it’s just going to be a head shunt now there’s no requirement for the semaphores, i’ll Just put a disc to come out of the head shunt to run round. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dpgibbons said:

As bigP suggests, it's very unlikely that an LBT in steam days would have been as lavishly signalled as the OP's diagram. Even bigP's diagram would have been an extravagance unless the terminus was very intensively worked - a more economical setup would have been to work all passenger trains from P2 and dispense with the P1 starter and bracket signal. On a preserved railway more signalling sophistication could be justified.

Maybe you should have read my post - which gave the correct information for a 1980s WR branch (and correct signalling for the track layout)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the comments so far seem correct in the context of  GWR signalling which is of course what you first asked about.  However I suspect your original post was addressing the wrong issue.  It might be helpful to you if you can put your model into a historical context to justify the various anomalies that people see in your layout.

 

Your period modelled is relatively recent when most traditional traffics had ceased, but any single line branch terminus important enough to have an engine shed would originally have had a coaling stage, general purposes coal unloading facilities (a coal merchants), a goods shed a couple of general sidings and probably a cattle dock or end loading platform or similar as seen on most GWR single line branch layouts so often seen  in model railway magazines.  These structures although redundant by your period were typically robustly constructed and would likely survive albeit under private ownership or would at least leave traces.  OK, so you may deem your heritage group to have acquired some of these and for some of it to be demolished or off scene, but they would have governed the physical layout of whatever signalling survives even after any rationalisation(s). 

 

If you want to justify having signalling on the strength of retention of what once used to be there, remember that the signal placement would have reflected the hypothetical historical position of these now-obsolete former traffics.  So you should work out where they theoretically were....

 

Two full length platforms is improbable - the second would usually have been more of a short bay used for milk/parcels/horses/cattle/end-loading.  On the other hand a seaside terminus might well have justified more than one long platform - but would have needed sidings (off-scene?) to store excursion trains between workings.

 

Yes the GWR would probably have worked by Key Token, but that would probably have been discontinued by your dates.  In most cases at a rural terminus the signalman would have been able to stroll down  to the platform end and hand the token to the driver before departure was due.  He might have had a "cow's horn" to collect it from incoming trains.  If the box has been closed the structure might have survived (especially if brick rather than timber) either by now derelict or perhaps used for some other railway purpose.

 

Even in steam days a railcar or push-pull service was likely on a branch.  Modern passenger traffic pattern would be DMUs of some sort using only the single platform and as others have already said no signalling at all would now be needed - it would now be worked by a One Train Staff issued and returned to the box controlling junction at the main line (effectively making the branch a long siding) and the box abolished. 

Call on signals into the platform(s) would originally have been justified if a loco-hauled train needed to run round  in an adjacent loop (unlikely after the abolition of steam) or perhaps two trains requiring to occupy the platform (perhaps units to couple).  When the run round loop was lifted, the call-ons would normally go too.

So you need two trains there at once to justify employing a signalman, which is where the goods service potentially comes in - on the basis that there isn't enough of a gap between the passenger trains to accommodate the goods in that gap.  Or perhaps a "difficult" level crossing still worked manually because it can't safely be automated  -although in this case the job would probably have been downgraded to crossing keeper status reducing the wages bill and the only signalling retained would probably that needed to protect the crossing.

 

Your goods won't be a 1950s style general mixed freight!!  If it terminates there, nowadays it will be one single specific traffic - perhaps an oil terminal or a quarry or nuclear flasks or some such.  This probably means modelling special unloading facilities and only justifies one type of goods wagon.  Engineers' depot might allow more variety?  However you did say you wanted goods trains to come in and run round.  You could justify a wider range of freight types if that's all they do - come in, run round and go straight back out.  This would be necessary to allow trains to reverse in order to reach another branch off your branch because that off-scene junction is trailing rather than facing, and if it happens to serve a few different industries that would allow you to run different types of freights.

 

It is of course your railway and you can build what you like without having to justify it to anybody, but sorry your idea of a heritage group having running powers sharing track with the national network just seems to me very far-fetched.  Yes, I know the NYMR now run a timetabled service to Whitby but they have very special arrangements in that NYMR trains are segregated from the big railway at both ends.  It's "No Signal Key Token" worked under control of Nunthorpe (ie train crews operate the token instruments after asking permission from a box miles away), and there's no signal boxes or signals left on the section from Grosmont to Whitby.  The North Norfolk can run  through onto the network at Sheringham, but that involves removing fixed locked obstructions either side of the level crossing and they are only allowed to do that a dozen times a year for steam specials.  Some other preserved lines like the Nene Valley also have similar facilities but can't run regular services.  The Mid Norfolk has a connection at Wymondham which is used to allow trains to run FROM the national network for storage at specially built sidings in the middle of nowhere on the MNR pending driver training and commissioning of this fleet of new trains.  I would suggest with your layout such a rail connection only allowing infrequent special excursions or the odd loco delivery etc is perhaps more plausible than running powers.

 

In case you decide to construct a historical justification of a signalling plan I would make a couple of generalised observations about the location of signal boxes.  If there were a level crossing over an important road it would have been right next to that.  The Board of Trade (and mechanical practicalities with rodding) specified limits  on how far a box could be from the points it worked.  Ideally it should be mid way between the furthest most points it controlled to avoid having very heavy levers.  Although power operation gets you round that limitation, that was uncommon when boxes were first built.  So the position on your original plan is probably better than BigP's, and by the way his signal arms all point the wrong way- even for the GWR who always liked to be different!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is of course the Marlow branch, still going strong with token keys and colour light signalling, of an odd sort ( not TCB/MAS).  Two platforms at Bourne End as well.

 

Perhaps you’re not at the end of the line after all.  Perhaps it’s in the middle of the branch and trains have to reverse here.  Loose branch has a spot like that too, though it’s ticket and staff sown the Looe branch still I believe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bigP said:

There is of course the Marlow branch, still going strong with token keys and colour light signalling, of an odd sort ( not TCB/MAS).  Two platforms at Bourne End as well.

 

Perhaps you’re not at the end of the line after all.  Perhaps it’s in the middle of the branch and trains have to reverse here.  Loose branch has a spot like that too, though it’s ticket and staff sown the Looe branch still I believe.

 

 

AFAIK it is NSKT from Liskeard to Coombe Jnc and OTS from Coombe Jcn to Looe. Coombe Jcn to Moorswater is just siding working I think.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input Michael, the layout is just meant to be an exercise to get back into scenic modelling in OO gauge before starting my larger layout as I used to model in N. However as a former signaller i’d wanted to get my Signalling right on my layout. It’s a rather large reply you’ve written and as you’ve taken the time to write it I thought it be easier to respond to your comments like so...

On 03/02/2020 at 20:00, Michael Hodgson said:

Most of the comments so far seem correct in the context of  GWR signalling which is of course what you first asked about.  However I suspect your original post was addressing the wrong issue. I hope not as I wanted someone with knowledge of absolute block signalling to point out my errors as I suspected my years of working track circuit had crept in and some of the signalling was in the later practise rather than the former.:lol:   It might be helpful to you if you can put your model into a historical context to justify the various anomalies that people see in your layout.

 

Your period modelled is relatively recent when most traditional traffics had ceased, but any single line branch terminus important enough to have an engine shed would originally have had a coaling stage, general purposes coal unloading facilities (a coal merchants), a goods shed a couple of general sidings and probably a cattle dock or end loading platform or similar as seen on most GWR single line branch layouts so often seen  in model railway magazines.  These structures although redundant by your period were typically robustly constructed and would likely survive albeit under private ownership or would at least leave traces.  OK, so you may deem your heritage group to have acquired some of these and for some of it to be demolished or off scene, but they would have governed the physical layout of whatever signalling survives even after any rationalisation(s).  The track plan is based on Wallingford albeit in a rationalised state most of the goods yard has been sold off and built on over the years. The shed surviving as it was a stabling point for an 08 when the yard was bigger and had more traffic or the building had been sold off previously and had survived as a small business or similar and the heritage group took over when it came up for sale (some rational reason like that).

 

If you want to justify having signalling on the strength of retention of what once used to be there, remember that the signal placement would have reflected the hypothetical historical position of these now-obsolete former traffics.  So you should work out where they theoretically were....

 

Two full length platforms is improbable - the second would usually have been more of a short bay used for milk/parcels/horses/cattle/end-loading.  On the other hand a seaside terminus might well have justified more than one long platform - but would have needed sidings (off-scene?) to store excursion trains between workings. The second platform was a spur of the moment idea just trying to keep the layout more interesting but thinking along the lines of a similar set up as Bourne End, keeping the layout a little more interesting to operate, but as pointed out I would need a catch point on the goods and as I have laid the track and the board is only 4ft long (only half of my diagram will be a layout at the moment) i’ve Opted to shorten the track and make it a headshunt again. I think compared to the Wallingford track plan what is my head shunt was the old cattle dock.

 

Yes the GWR would probably have worked by Key Token, but that would probably have been discontinued by your dates. Again i’m thinking along the lines of Bourne End and the reason it’s required is due to the freight traffic on the branch.  In most cases at a rural terminus the signalman would have been able to stroll down  to the platform end and hand the token to the driver before departure was due.  He might have had a "cow's horn" to collect it from incoming trains.  If the box has been closed the structure might have survived (especially if brick rather than timber) either by now derelict or perhaps used for some other railway purpose.

 

Even in steam days a railcar or push-pull service was likely on a branch.  Modern passenger traffic pattern would be DMUs of some sort using only the single platform and as others have already said no signalling at all would now be needed - it would now be worked by a One Train Staff issued and returned to the box controlling junction at the main line (effectively making the branch a long siding) and the box abolished.  Agreed more realistic but a little boring to watch a 121 shuttle in and out once an hour.

Call on signals into the platform(s) would originally have been justified if a loco-hauled train needed to run round  in an adjacent loop (unlikely after the abolition of steam) or perhaps two trains requiring to occupy the platform (perhaps units to couple). When the run round loop was lifted, the call-ons would normally go too. I was going to use the excuse of a need to pick up a parcels van or attaching a unit (in the peak the local arrives shortly followed by the service from Paddington, they couple up and head back to the Junction). The reason i’ve added it so I can shunt a coach for the heritage line and get the loco the right end.

So you need two trains there at once to justify employing a signalman, which is where the goods service potentially comes in - on the basis that there isn't enough of a gap between the passenger trains to accommodate the goods in that gap.  Again reason for the goods line.Or perhaps a "difficult" level crossing still worked manually because it can't safely be automated  -although in this case the job would probably have been downgraded to crossing keeper status reducing the wages bill and the only signalling retained would probably that needed to protect the crossing.

 

Your goods won't be a 1950s style general mixed freight!! Not sure where you got that suggestion from, I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that :unsure:, i’ve yet to decide what industry will be served on the branch but most likely the traffic will be carried in VGA vans.   If it terminates there, nowadays it will be one single specific traffic - perhaps an oil terminal or a quarry or nuclear flasks or some such.  This probably means modelling special unloading facilities and only justifies one type of goods wagon.  Engineers' depot might allow more variety?  However you did say you wanted goods trains to come in and run round.  You could justify a wider range of freight types if that's all they do - come in, run round and go straight back out.  This would be necessary to allow trains to reverse in order to reach another branch off your branch because that off-scene junction is trailing rather than facing, and if it happens to serve a few different industries that would allow you to run different types of freights. As it stands the length of layout means you’d only see one wagon on the freight anyway so I did consider a similar idea but at the moment it’s rather pointless.

 

It is of course your railway and you can build what you like without having to justify it to anybody, but sorry your idea of a heritage group having running powers sharing track with the national network just seems to me very far-fetched.  Yes, I know the NYMR now run a timetabled service to Whitby but they have very special arrangements in that NYMR trains are segregated from the big railway at both ends.  It's "No Signal Key Token" worked under control of Nunthorpe (ie train crews operate the token instruments after asking permission from a box miles away), and there's no signal boxes or signals left on the section from Grosmont to Whitby.  The North Norfolk can run  through onto the network at Sheringham, but that involves removing fixed locked obstructions either side of the level crossing and they are only allowed to do that a dozen times a year for steam specials.  Some other preserved lines like the Nene Valley also have similar facilities but can't run regular services.  The Mid Norfolk has a connection at Wymondham which is used to allow trains to run FROM the national network for storage at specially built sidings in the middle of nowhere on the MNR pending driver training and commissioning of this fleet of new trains.  I would suggest with your layout such a rail connection only allowing infrequent special excursions or the odd loco delivery etc is perhaps more plausible than running powers.  It’s a Sunday only service when BR are not using the branch, I appreciate an unlikely scenario but I have 3 kettles and  just wanted an excuse/somewhere to run them. I was thinking along the lines of what the Dartmoor railway do.

 

In case you decide to construct a historical justification of a signalling plan I would make a couple of generalised observations about the location of signal boxes.  If there were a level crossing over an important road it would have been right next to that.  The Board of Trade (and mechanical practicalities with rodding) specified limits  on how far a box could be from the points it worked.  Ideally it should be mid way between the furthest most points it controlled to avoid having very heavy levers.  Although power operation gets you round that limitation, that was uncommon when boxes were first built.  So the position on your original plan is probably better than BigP's, and by the way his signal arms all point the wrong way- even for the GWR who always liked to be different!

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.