Signalling a single-track GWR passing station

[RailWest]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

As has been mentioned Island platforms on the GWR single branches are extremely rare, I have just been through Cooke's GWR Atlas and found about 6 or 7 only.

The normal passing place has two platforms facing each other with any siding coming of in a trailing direction like so:

Indeed.

However it should be noted that in later years, as pointwork needed replacement and the concerns about facing points had diminished, it was not uncommon to find that that the trailing point + diamond arrangement shown at the LH end would be replaced by a facing point off the upper platform loop,  making the siding effectively a parallel loop around the back of the platform.

[melmerby]

9 minutes ago, RailWest said:

Indeed.

However it should be noted that in later years, as pointwork needed replacement and the concerns about facing points had diminished, it was not uncommon to find that that the trailing point + diamond arrangement shown at the LH end would be replaced by a facing point off the upper platform loop,  making the siding effectively a parallel loop around the back of the platform.

Even in earlier times a facing point wasn't unknown, looking at station plans over the years one wonders why some were always a facing point and some always a trailing point, some changed from trailing to facing in later times.

[bécasse]

On the "traditional" passenger railway facing points were never put in gratuitously, not least because they cost more in both first cost and maintenance than trailing points, but also because they were frowned on by the BoT/MoT and the Inspecting Officer would require an explanation before approving the track layout (as required by the 1889 Act). Failure to convince the Inspecting Officer of the need for a facing connection would almost certainly lead to a refusal to approve the layout.

[The Stationmaster]

23 minutes ago, bécasse said:

On the "traditional" passenger railway facing points were never put in gratuitously, not least because they cost more in both first cost and maintenance than trailing points, but also because they were frowned on by the BoT/MoT and the Inspecting Officer would require an explanation before approving the track layout (as required by the 1889 Act). Failure to convince the Inspecting Officer of the need for a facing connection would almost certainly lead to a refusal to approve the layout.

Indeed rather more than 'frowned on' but specifically 'to be avoided' (except of course where there was no alternative such as at termini, junctions, and passing loops on single lines).  

 

The other problem with facing points leading into sidings and small yards is the problem of shunting them for the simple reason that the engine is on the wrong end of whatever is being shunted and would therefore be trapped.  And fly shunting, apart from being positively discouraged in any case, is impossible with signalbox worked points.

[ColHut]

You may find this useful, there were earlier and later editions, and they did not apply to existing works, (perhaps the majority):

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=7409

 

it would be easier if the up and down lines were parallel but offset such that arriving trains took the straight line on the facing point into the station platform, and went through the trailing point on departure:

____________________________

       \________________________\____________________

 

 

This would also allow you to have trailing sidings on each side.  As it is you would need a lot of facing point locks and I suspect you could still only have one engine in operation at a time given block working.

 

Whilst rule no.1 applies (it is for your fun and enjoyment).  You might find some inspiration and maybe more plausible layouts on the Fairford branch.  Note quite a few stations are not passing places and have no signal box just ground frames.

http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk

 

 

John Hinson's site has a worked example of block working.

 

https://signalbox.org/block-system/keepin-the-trains-apart/

 

regards

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, ColHut said:

You may find this useful, there were earlier and later editions, and they did not apply to existing works, (perhaps the majority):

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=7409

 

it would be easier if the up and down lines were parallel but offset such that arriving trains took the straight line on the facing point into the station platform, and went through the trailing point on departure:

____________________________

       \________________________\____________________

 

 

This would also allow you to have trailing sidings on each side.  As it is you would need a lot of facing point locks and I suspect you could still only have one engine in operation at a time given block working.

 

Whilst rule no.1 applies (it is for your fun and enjoyment).  You might find some inspiration and maybe more plausible layouts on the Fairford branch.  Note quite a few stations are not passing places and have no signal box just ground frames.

http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk

 

 

John Hinson's site has a worked example of block working.

 

https://signalbox.org/block-system/keepin-the-trains-apart/

 

regards

There were plenty of places where the 'straight' road into the loop was not the arriving side and in any event on a line worked by Electric Token etc it made no difference because the governing speed was that for token exchange rather than that for pointwork.

 

As far as block working is concern one very basic principle (that of space separation of successive trains) and the importance of the tail lamp apart  John Hinson's double line Absolute Block working summary is of little relevance at a crossing station on a single line.  Apart from the difficulty imposed by the facing points it would be quite straightforward to have two trains (one in each direction) at the crossing station shown in the OP's sketch and for each of them to be simultaneously shunting the trailing siding on their particular loop provided they had sufficient head room to get clear of the trailing points with the vehicles they needed to move in one shunt.  

 

To suggest  that you 'could still only have one engine in operation at a time given block working' is totally incorrect unless the line happened to be worked under the One Engine In Steam Regulations - which has never been suggested in any of the OP's posts (or anybody else's in this thread)

[tomparryharry]

The type of place that 'might' interest you is Worthy Down, on the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton. You might need a dose of Rule 1, though.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[meil]

If you do want an island platform, engine stabling facilities and goods then have a look at Bewdley - especially the pre-preservation layout with its junctions to Stourport and Tenbury.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 11/05/2020 at 22:43, roythebus said:

The Americans and Europeans have different ways of doing things to us. Track plans are track plans but they don't always translate into UK practice when it comes to train operation. Have a look at the typical German branch station, usually two loops of a main line with a couple of kick-back sidings. The main goods work took place on one of the loops.

Indeed - as it appears I’ve demonstrated with this thread.  One of the biggest problems in looking at US track plans for UK trains comes down to platforms and the very different understanding in many places: the design I began with didn’t have one at all.

 

As it happens, the ‘two loops’ concept is another design I’ve always liked.  There is however a GWR example at Fairford, albeit at a terminus originally intended to be a through station.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 11/05/2020 at 22:04, Chris116 said:

When I was a young teenager there was a guy who lived about 15 houses up the road who had a model railway on a 6 x 4 board in the centre of a room that was about 10 x 8 giving him 2 feet room on all sides. My parents had been chatting to him and let slip that I was into model railways and would be happy to help him as he felt his layout was missing something. A few days later I went and saw the layout which was a typical Triang track plan on a 6 x 4. I asked him why given the room was so much bigger and was only used for the layout he had built a small layout in the middle of the room. He said that he wanted to make sure he could reach the points all around the layout and so needed the 2 foot walkway around the layout. When I suggested changing it to a 10 x 8 layout with an operating well in the middle his eyes lit up and within a few weeks the new boards were built and track laid. 

 

I tell that story by way of asking if the OP is in a similar situation? A four foot wide board means you cannot reach the rear of the layout unless you can walk around that side and if you can walk around then a central well can be wider and still give you a lot more space for the trains. 

 

Just a few thoughts that are probably way out of line but are presented in the hope that they help improve what is possible.

 

On 11/05/2020 at 22:11, Joseph_Pestell said:

The situation that you recount is remarkably common. Many people find it hard to move on from the trainset meme.

 

Assuming that your neighbour built baseboards 2' wide (he could have gone to 2'6"), he would have had an area for his layout of exactly double what he had before.

 

On 11/05/2020 at 22:16, Chris116 said:

Exactly. After some careful measuring by the two of us we used 2'6" on three sides and 2' on the long side that had the door with a lifting section to get in and out of the room which was about 1' wide.

The US track plan and layout ideas books I read often make this point - the prevalence of the 8’ x 4’ plywood train table in many plans comes across as a real mixed blessing: it has great opportunities to help make the transition from the train set to model railroad (in particular because the continuous run helps give the impression of distance travelled, which is a key aspect of US railroading), but can then become a constraint if not careful.  There are a number of quite sophisticated and well detailed examples that are well advanced from a train set, with scenic divides to break up the visual impact and hide the curves.

 

In my own case, it’s actually a conscious choice for a portable layout, but all the points Joseph and Chris make are good ones.

 

On 11/05/2020 at 22:43, roythebus said:

One of my best layout creations was Tidmouth Junction which was built in the early 1980s in about 10 days before the Westminster show. I can't remember if it was 10x5 or 8x5, but it had a double track main line, double junction to a main terminal; a separate Thomas branch, loco shed with turntable, separate goods yard and hidden loops! I'd have to look through phots to try to re-create the track plan.

 

But a compliment from the late CJ Freezer was tat it was an excellent design, it could be used as a train set or run as a proper railway. It was just possible to terminate a 3 car passenger set in the terminus, then shunt and release the train engine for turning using a small diesel shunter, without fouling the main lines.

Excellent story - definitely one way to move on from the train set.  If you had a track plan it’d be interesting to see.  I’d imagine, from what Mr Freezer said, if you didn’t have time in ten days for the signalling, it would nevertheless have been straightforward.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

22 hours ago, melmerby said:

Even in earlier times a facing point wasn't unknown, looking at station plans over the years one wonders why some were always a facing point and some always a trailing point, some changed from trailing to facing in later times.

 

18 hours ago, bécasse said:

On the "traditional" passenger railway facing points were never put in gratuitously, not least because they cost more in both first cost and maintenance than trailing points, but also because they were frowned on by the BoT/MoT and the Inspecting Officer would require an explanation before approving the track layout (as required by the 1889 Act). Failure to convince the Inspecting Officer of the need for a facing connection would almost certainly lead to a refusal to approve the layout.

Perhaps the second quote, from becasse, sometimes answered the first from melmerby: the Inspector officer was sometimes convinced?

[ColHut]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There were plenty of places where the 'straight' road into the loop was not the arriving side and in any event on a line worked by Electric Token etc it made no difference because the governing speed was that for token exchange rather than that for pointwork.

 

As far as block working is concern one very basic principle (that of space separation of successive trains) and the importance of the tail lamp apart  John Hinson's double line Absolute Block working summary is of little relevance at a crossing station on a single line.  Apart from the difficulty imposed by the facing points it would be quite straightforward to have two trains (one in each direction) at the crossing station shown in the OP's sketch and for each of them to be simultaneously shunting the trailing siding on their particular loop provided they had sufficient head room to get clear of the trailing points with the vehicles they needed to move in one shunt.  

 

To suggest  that you 'could still only have one engine in operation at a time given block working' is totally incorrect unless the line happened to be worked under the One Engine In Steam Regulations - which has never been suggested in any of the OP's posts (or anybody else's in this thread)

 

The recommendation came from the Col. Rich following an accident at Chartly on the  S&U on 30/3/1882, a single line passing place recently taken over by the GNR, and resignalled 9 days earlier.  The accident was caused by excessive speed.    I have no doubt that all sorts of other ways of  laying out the passing loops  existed.

 

Given the current track diagram I cannot see how , in practice, you could operate or accept more than one train on the single line, especially given I have no idea how the single line is controlled.  YMMV.

 

I had incorrctly recalled that there was a sub section on single line signalling on the Signal Box website, but the link to the section on single line staffs does not seem to work.

 

To the OP, there is some information on the web in a number of places on working single lines.  Some of the different ways are covered here pp 11-26 [nominal page numbers 1-16] (in the LNER General Appendix, NE area 1947)  others were similar. from Limit of Shunt website:

 

http://filestore.limitofshunt.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/sectional-appendices/lner/ne-area-1947.pdf

 

How you envisage the line being controlled might help you with deciding how to signal it.

 

regards

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by ColHut
replace single line working with working single lines in case the context was unclear

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, meil said:

If you do want an island platform, engine stabling facilities and goods then have a look at Bewdley - especially the pre-preservation layout with its junctions to Stourport and Tenbury.

In 8' x 4'! I don't think so.

[Joseph_Pestell]

37 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

In my own case, it’s actually a conscious choice for a portable layout, 

 

Even a sheet of 8'x4' ply is not very "portable".

 

Add on timber bracing, track, scenery, etc, and it won't be portable in any usual sense of the word. Unless you live in a very large house, you won't even manage to get it to the front door.

[Harlequin]

47 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

In my own case, it’s actually a conscious choice for a portable layout, but all the points Joseph and Chris make are good ones.

 

 

Edit: I don't need to type my replies to this thread - I just telepathically transmit to Joseph and wait... ;-)

 

If we knew the restrictions you are working with, Keith, we might be able to suggest solutions you haven't thought of. And remember the cliché that less is more - you can get interesting operations from a simple trackplan while giving the scenery room to breathe. But this is all really a subject for a different thread - not signalling.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Harlequin

[Keith Addenbrooke]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The other problem with facing points leading into sidings and small yards is the problem of shunting them for the simple reason that the engine is on the wrong end of whatever is being shunted and would therefore be trapped.  And fly shunting, apart from being positively discouraged in any case, is impossible with signalbox worked points.

In model railway layout design, such arrangements can be seen very differently - shunting puzzles come to mind.  A term I’ve come across there: “the deliberate snarl” - not an angry grimace but an intentional complication.  The ‘Hornby Peckett inspired’ growth in industrial layouts perhaps gives some opportunities but that would take us to a very different place and outside the scope of this thread.  There is a prominent American modeller, Lance Mindheim, who has included actual padlocks on the control panels for his industrial themed layout - apparently the padlocks have to be unlocked before the control panels can be used to open some of his industrial spurs, which is perhaps a variation for model layout operation that introduces aspects of signalling / control practice.
 

Within the confines of GWR branch termini, there are examples of awkward sidings: the mill siding at Ashburton and the Gas Works at Wallingford are two obvious ones even I know of, but they involve kickback sidings not facing points on running lines.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Even a sheet of 8'x4' ply is not very "portable".

 

Add on timber bracing, track, scenery, etc, and it won't be portable in any usual sense of the word. Unless you live in a very large house, you won't even manage to get it to the front door.

It is easier using 4 boards each 4’ x 2’ - I wondered if I should have mentioned this, but am conscious this is the Signalling Forum rather than Layout Design; although it is perhaps relevant that one of the compromises I made to the Iain Rice plan I began with was because I had a persistent point across a baseboard joint - it added a facing point (in my UK version) when I moved it.

 

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Edit: I don't need to type my replies to this thread - I just telepathically transmit to Joseph and wait... ;-)

 

If we knew the restrictions you are working with, Keith, we might be able to suggest solutions you haven't thought of. And remember the cliché that less is more - you can get interesting operations from a simple trackplan while giving the scenery room to breathe. But this is all really a subject for a different thread - not signalling.

 

Agreed.  I wasn’t on RMweb yesterday, but in my own summary on Monday evening I suggested I may write up something for the Layout Planning Forum: when I have time I may just do that - I think there may be enough for a conversation of interest?  I may not be on RMweb much over the next few days though.

 

Having read through the posts added to the thread yesterday, I am better informed as to how to think about signalling / block working as part of layout design, which is useful.  Thank you to all, Keith.

 

PS: interesting that the Fairford Branch has been mentioned twice by contributors to this thread...

Edited May 13, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 boards of 4' x 2' is altogether better. But then a much better layout could be built by putting them end to end. Is it that important to you to have a continuous run?

 

But, as others have said, let's start a new thread on the layout design section. 

 

The signalling will fall into place after that.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

4 boards of 4' x 2' is altogether better. But then a much better layout could be built by putting them end to end. Is it that important to you to have a continuous run?

 

But, as others have said, let's start a new thread on the layout design section. 

 

The signalling will fall into place after that.

Indeed, I think we were probably just typing the same things at the same time.  I need to head off now* and am rather busy for the rest of the week, but I’ll look at putting something up in Layout Planning next week.**

 

(* to the other side of the room) (** ‘next week’ as in a modelling timescsale, not a standardised time).

[Happy Hippo]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Unless you live in a very large house, you won't even manage to get it to the front door.

He might not, but I'm sure the Butler, his Valet and two footmen would manage.

[caradoc]

A prototype location which might fit the OP's requirements, in terms of operation if not track layout, is Dolgelly: A passing place on a single track route, where trains terminated, and which had an engine shed, albeit this was down the line a bit at Penmaenpool !

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

He might not, but I'm sure the Butler, his Valet and two footmen would manage.

Shall we just say, this doesn’t apply in my case...

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, ColHut said:

 

The recommendation came from the Col. Rich following an accident at Chartly on the  S&U on 30/3/1882, a single line passing place recently taken over by the GNR, and resignalled 9 days earlier.  The accident was caused by excessive speed.    I have no doubt that all sorts of other ways of  laying out the passing loops  existed.

 

Given the current track diagram I cannot see how , in practice, you could operate or accept more than one train on the single line, especially given I have no idea how the single line is controlled.  YMMV.

 

I had incorrctly recalled that there was a sub section on single line signalling on the Signal Box website, but the link to the section on single line staffs does not seem to work.

 

To the OP, there is some information on the web in a number of places on single line working.  Some of the different ways are covered here pp 11-26 [nominal page numbers 1-16] (in the LNER General Appendix, NE area 1947)  others were similar. from Limit of Shunt website:

 

http://filestore.limitofshunt.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/sectional-appendices/lner/ne-area-1947.pdf

 

How you envisage the line being controlled might help you with deciding how to signal it.

 

regards

 

 

 

 

1. Single Line Working' is a particular procedure used on double or multiple lines to work traffic in either direction over a normally uni-directional line while the other line is [are] out of use for some reason.  By its very title and procedure Single Line Working cannot take place on a single line railway for the simple reason that the line is already single.  Regrettably misusing the term is a common error even sometimes on the part of those who ought to know much better.

 

2. In normal working you definitely cannot accept more than one train at a time into a single line section although it could be done for shunting purposes under certain conditions. (And yes, albeit along time ago I have done it,  and shunted a second loaded passenger train into a single line section already occupied by another loaded passenger train.)

 

3. Under most single line block Signalling Regulations you can have two trains at a crossing station - it wouldn't be a crossing station if you couldn't do that!  And it was of course how crossing stations on single lines have been worked for very many years (since they were first invented although various new methods of signalling single lines have been devised since then).

 

4.  If anybody wishes to know anything about signalling procedures on single lines (or Single Line Working) they have only to ask and I will be happy to explain them having at some time or other during my railway career worked with almost ,every method of singe line signalling used in Britain and indeed having been involved in writing some of the relevant Signalling Regulations.  I have not worked with certain types of equipment thus I have never worked anywhere using Electric Train Staff or Tablets but have worked with lines signalled using Electric Tokens which are basically no different as far as the Regulations are concerned.

 

5.  I have already pointed out that provided there is headroom available (between the trailing point and the Starting Signal) there is no problem whatsoever simultaneously shunting both the trailing sidings in the OP and that could readily be done under all the 'traditional' Block Signalling Regulations also including Acceptance Lever working (in the original Regulations) although many of these procedures have been removed in more recent years (they have long ceased to be of any use in normal working). 

The procedure is remarkably simple -

a. the two trains arrive at the crossing station - I won't bother here to explain the detail of that as it's not relevant so far as shunting is concerned.

b. provided there is sufficient headroom between the trailing point and the Starting signal on that loop either or both trains may then shunt the trailing connection siding(s)

c. If necessary either or both trains may in accordance with the necessary procedure be shunted back onto the single line section, beyond the Home Signal, from which they arrived in order to reach a particular vehicle needing to be shunted out of the train. BUT they can only shunt the siding within the available headroom, they cannot pass the Starting Signal if the other train has had to set back but could pass it if that section was clear provided the movement to draw forward into the section is accepted by the next signal box in advance.

Edited May 13, 2020 by The Stationmaster
Tidy Pages editing marks

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

A prototype location which might fit the OP's requirements, in terms of operation if not track layout, is Dolgelly: A passing place on a single track route, where trains terminated, and which had an engine shed, albeit this was down the line a bit at Penmaenpool !

 

 

If I understand it correctly, it was also where the GW and Cambrian lines met, so could make a fascinating pre-absorption station to operate as a model, although I wouldn’t know how the track plan evolved.

[The Stationmaster]

Just now, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If I understand it correctly, it was also where the GW and Cambrian lines met, so could make a fascinating pre-absorption station to operate as a model, although I wouldn’t know how the track plan evolved.

A modeller I know through RMweb has been working on modelling Dolgelly for many years and has done a huge amount of research.  The layout and signalling was quite complicated during the Cambrian era, including a separate ticket platform at the Cambrian end, but was considerably simplified once the GWR owned the lot and it then became a relatively straightforward crossing station with quite a lot of siding space.