Signalling a single-track GWR passing station

[Grovenor]

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

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.

To be fair to Colhut the section of the LNER appendix that he quotes IS about working of single lines, NOT Single Line Working. It covers, staff and ticket, electric token and one engine in steam.

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

To be fair to Colhut the section of the LNER appendix that he quotes IS about working of single lines, NOT Single Line Working. It covers, staff and ticket, electric token and one engine in steam.

Fair enough - but he specifically used the term 'Single Line Working'.  I know others have misused it in the past and it has been misused in some generally erudite publications (even BRJ) but misuse can cause immense confusion and the relevant  RCH Rule Books for all the Grouped Companies were quite clear what Single Line Working as indeed where the Appendixes which supported those Rule Books.

[Rowan]

Reverting to the initial post in this thread, I am struggling to work out the signalling for my Maes y Coed layout.

 

Maes y Coed is a mythical small, single platform country station on the Ruabon/Barmouth single track line set in C1910. I have to confess, when I created the track plan, I only thought of one direction - a down passenger train at the platform and an up freight train on the passing loop. As far as shunting is concerned, this will all be done by Hercules the horse! What I forgot is what goes down must also go up! The 'up' passenger train must also pull into the station and the down freight train onto the passing loop. Does this mean I have to have 'home' signals at both ends of the platform? I'm guessing the goods line (the uppermost of the 3 lines), even though freight trains will run on it to load/unload wagons, could be controlled by ground signals or does this need to the controlled by standard semaphore signals. Any advice would be most welcome.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Rowan
clarification needed

[Stephen Freeman]

I am sure that Mike will have something to say on this but to my mind it is a slightly unusual arrangement. Passenger trains must use the platform in both up and down directions. The freight loop can be used in both directions and the paltform line, off hand I can think of Highley on the SVR as a prototype and you could base the signalling on that station to a degree modified to suit (bay will require signalling for a start).

[The Stationmaster]

Hmm, interesting.  What you are creating - if you want to do it in the way you have described is the nit unusual situation of a crossing loop where two passenfe ger cannot crss each other but a freight can cross a passenger train and two freights can cross each other.

 

So, additional sidings apart, you have created a place which can do exactly what Bucfastleigh could do in  pre-preservation days and this link to an SRS diagram shows how to signal it -

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S961.htm

 

However you might have given yourself a problem because on the compressed situation of a model railway you will finish up with a virtual forest of signals signals at eacn end of the platform and the loop plus splitting signals approaching the turnouts to the loop in both directions - that's 8 signal atms before you add a multitode of ground signals.  But it will deliver exactly what you want for operational purposes as you have described them.  And if you have a long layout witha good distance between the loop points it might not look too overcrowded with signals.

 

If you prefer a nice wide open more spacious look you will have no choice - doing it properly in signalling terms - but to simply regard the loop as a siding into which freight trains may be shunted to clear the single line.  So in thsi scenario you still need the Home Signals in each direction at the loop points, and the signals on the platform line protecting the points for a passenger train approaching the points in the trailing direction.  But you can do everything else with ground discs and, in my v opinion it will look a lot better from a scenic viewpoint (but that's how I think and might not suit how you think).

 

Your sketch doesn't show any trap points but they are essential to protect the passenger line from any errant movement from the loops or sidings - single tongue dummy traps can be added to the track you have already laid.

 

At this stage you might like to think about things before we go into any greater detail?

[Rowan]

Many thanks to both Mike and Stephen for their helpful advice.

 

Stephen, it was interesting you mentioned Highley - I found its track plan a few months ago and they are, indeed, very similar. As  result, I decided to relocate the signal box (when the kit finally arrives!) to a similar location to that of Highley where it can also usefully serve to hide the only surface mounted point motor.

 

To answer Mike's points - to a degree, living in Malaysia, few will be aware of the detail of UK railway operations and I am only just learning about them myself. I will readily admit, I am not a railway guru but I'm learning as I go along. Few will notice the omission of catch points (myself included if the omission had not been pointed out) and to include them now would require a great deal of demolition.

It is a similar logic with regard to signalling, to replicate the prototype in 00 scale is, inevitably, a compromise particularly in a compact model. I will follow your advice and keep it simple.

 

I am sorely tempted to remove the ridiculously short station siding completely and replace it with a narrow gauge line (totally incorrect for its location on the Ruabon/Barmouth line) purely so I can include the very attractive Victorian 'Plum and Cream' bug boxes. It will mean some limited track relaying to take out the 3-way turnout but, visually, it may be worth the effort and additional expense.

 

Thanks again.

[Stephen Freeman]

Here is the low-res image from SRS -  much simpler than Buckfastleigh since the Railway  looked at the loop line as a siding, so not really signalled as a running line, I'd have to check to see if SVR have kept it the same or upgraded the signalling. I think on enthusiast weekends they sometimes use it to cross a freight train working but I haven't been for years so that's just relying on an old memory.

No chance of a bay platform without some some impressive earthworks! It's quite steep down to the river etc.

[Rowan]

Hi Mike,

I have just re-read your post and chewed the cud a little.

With regard to the signalling, I will use Stephen's plan of Highley, which he kindly posted as my guide. It may, or may not, include the bay platform as a standard gauge track.

With regard to catch points, if my reading of the Highley plan is correct, there appears to be only one. I would value your input as to where these should be located on my track plan. Also, I would be most grateful if you could point (no pun intended) me in the direction of instructions as to how to go about making a non-working catch point on track already laid and ballasted as you suggest.

Thanks to everyone.

[Happy Hippo]

Could I also suggest looking at Penryndeudraeth. (It's also Welsh)

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwu/S3234.htm

[Ramblin Rich]

7 hours ago, Rowan said:

Hi Mike,

I have just re-read your post and chewed the cud a little.

With regard to the signalling, I will use Stephen's plan of Highley, which he kindly posted as my guide. It may, or may not, include the bay platform as a standard gauge track.

With regard to catch points, if my reading of the Highley plan is correct, there appears to be only one. I would value your input as to where these should be located on my track plan. Also, I would be most grateful if you could point (no pun intended) me in the direction of instructions as to how to go about making a non-working catch point on track already laid and ballasted as you suggest.

Thanks to everyone.

With the setup at Highley, the crossovers act as trap points. Because both points in the crossovers act together, when set for the 'main' through route, anything in the 'sidings' loops will be directed onto the parallel line on the left, or the colliery line on the right; so any uncontrolledmovements can't get onto the 'main'.

In cases where there was no parallel line to direct onto, trap points would be added. Lapford on the Exeter to Barnstaple line had a number of these interlaced in the pointwork where the sidings converged and shows why a parallel line might be easier to work with!

Your setup needs trap points to stop anything running onto the main line from either end of the loops.  These can just be dummy rails glued onto the side of existing rails, unless you want to go to the effort of actually inserting working versions. Peco do one in the streamline range.

https://peco-uk.com/products/catch-turnout-right-hand

Strictly they should be driven by the same lever as the main points but this is probably overdoing things and the could be left positioned to run through.

Here's Ken Gibbons model of Lapford Road showing added trap points

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Ramblin Rich
can spell but can't type Lapford!

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Rowan said:

Hi Mike,

I have just re-read your post and chewed the cud a little.

With regard to the signalling, I will use Stephen's plan of Highley, which he kindly posted as my guide. It may, or may not, include the bay platform as a standard gauge track.

With regard to catch points, if my reading of the Highley plan is correct, there appears to be only one. I would value your input as to where these should be located on my track plan. Also, I would be most grateful if you could point (no pun intended) me in the direction of instructions as to how to go about making a non-working catch point on track already laid and ballasted as you suggest.

Thanks to everyone.

Highley is a siding - as noted - and not a loop and  it also has no ground signals so is odd in that respect.  Trains would normally only enter the siding by setting back into it and would not enter it head on.

 

Penrhyndeudraeth is interesting as the loop only acts as a loop in one direction which reduces the signal forest somewhat.  As 'Ramblin Rich' has explained dummy single tongue traps can be added without altering any existing trackwork.

 

A three way point, of any sort, in a running line waaway from a major terminus was a pretty rare event to say the least.  Very rarely needed as there was lenty of room to avoid them when virtually all rural stations were built or later expanded.

[Rowan]

Thanks Guys.

It doesn't take much to confuse me these days! Am I right in thinking 'Ramblin Rich' is saying, on my layout, the points in and of themselves would act as traps? The trap shown on the Highley track plan is, I believe, on the line from the quarry. I'm guessing this would have been a private siding and the purpose of the trap at the end of that particular siding would be to prevent private owner wagons/trains damaging GWR stock and equipment.

With regard to 3 way turnouts, yes I agree - they were/are as rare as hen's teeth in real life.

[Stephen Freeman]

As regards Highley the (gated) private siding as was currently leads to a verry nice museum (Engine House - worth a visit even when there isn't a model railway  show), originally of course it was there to take the coal away from the rope-worked incline which leads to the former mine at the top (not much there now if my memory serves me correctly). I am sure the incline (pretty steep I can tell you) is still there but of course not in use any more - I think the rails have gone.

Just the one trap as observed.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, Rowan said:

Thanks Guys.

It doesn't take much to confuse me these days! Am I right in thinking 'Ramblin Rich' is saying, on my layout, the points in and of themselves would act as traps?

No. Highley doesn't need traps* because the running line connections are crossovers (pairs of points linking two parallel lines). The second set of points in each crossover serves the same purpose as a trap, ensuring that improperly secured vehicles in the sidings cannot foul the running line.

 

Your layout doesn't have crossovers, so it needs traps. Usually each set of points onto the main line has just one trap,, but your layout does not have room for this because the next set of points is too close to the running line. To overcome this, you need a trap on each line. In the top photo in @Ramblin Rich's post. there are no fewer than three traps, and there ought to be a fourth (on the far, rusty, line), but I can't make it out. The bottom photo shows this done in model form, with non-working traps (they are all closed, when in reality they should all be open).

 

Although I have used the word "need", model railways don't need traps at all. Personally, I think they are a nice feature, even if they don't actually work, but most people won't notice them. However, including traps helps guard against the more noticable error of wagons in sidings standing too close to the running line. Also, if movements out of your loop and sidings have signals, then having traps helps position the signals correctly.

 

*Highley did have a trap, of course, on the colliery line, but this served a different purpose. The colliery was up an incline (at least, this is how I understand it), so there was a risk of runaway wagons ending up in the station yard. The trap is there to prevent them getting that far. Running lines need protection not just from wagons running away down inclines, but wagons being blown by the wind, pushed by naughty schoolboys and moving any other means of propulsion, foreseeable or not.

[Philou]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

A three way point, of any sort, in a running line waaway from a major terminus was a pretty rare event to say the least

 

Bum! I have one as a proposed space saver at the end of a single line passing station. Can I Rule 1 or would it be a no-no? Asking for a friend ;).

[Grovenor]

Rule 1 is always applicable. While real country railways mostly have plenty of room that is not true of models so compromise is needed.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

32 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Rule 1 is always applicable. While real country railways mostly have plenty of room that is not true of models so compromise is needed.

 

A valid point of course (especially true in country settings, as you say).  

 

My rationale when starting this thread (and some others in a similar vein) was to establish with the kind help of the relevant experts here on RMweb what prototype practice required - how things should be done.  I’ve learned a lot.

 

Suitably informed, I can then choose which compromises I will accept in order to fit my space, budget (etc), and which features I want to include (eg: working or non-working trap points is a choice - but omitting them is something I wouldn’t want to do).  Needless to say, I do make a lot of compromises in all my projects.

 

My thanks to @Rowan for finding this thread still relevant, and to @Stephen Freeman , @The Stationmaster and others for the helpful responses.  All useful, thank you, Keith.

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Flying Pig]

The Peco SL-99 symmetric three-way point vies with the double slip as the most inappropriately used item in layout plans, because they are both great space savers.  Personally, I think SL-99 should be killed with both fire and hammers, since, while three- and four-way (and possibly more-way*) versions existed on the prototype, in model form it seems to be just too tempting.

 

*here is a model of a 5-way in P4 (probably impossible to fit all the flangeways in 00).

[Rowan]

To amplify @Grovenor's point and to a certain extent @Kieth Addenbrooke, replicating the prototype in model form is inevitably a complex set of compromises. To faithfully replicate Highley would, at a guess, require a model some 4 to 5 meters in length. As tolerant as my wife is, it is doubtful marital harmony could be retained if I embarked upon such a project! The compromises each person is prepared to make will vary and boil down to what pleases them regardless as to whether this accords with prototype practice or not. Each person's compromises are equally valid. It is your model and you decide what is acceptable to you. That said, it does not mean one should ignore prototype practice but do so based on knowledge.

This is moving off topic but, as a retired Architect, the biggest problems I have are with buildings and other scenic structures. Most contain elements that are constructional or engineering impossibilities. Although nowhere complete, most of the structures within Maes y Coed are heavily kit-bashed or scratch built. Perhaps this could be a separate thread.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Rowan

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Rowan said:

To amplify @Grovenor's point and to a certain extent @Kieth Addenbrooke, replicating the prototype in model form is inevitably a complex set of compromises. To faithfully replicate Highley would, at a guess, require a model some 4 to 5 meters in length. As tolerant as my wife is, it is doubtful marital harmony could be retained if I embarked upon such a project! The compromises each person is prepared to make will vary and boil down to what pleases them regardless as to whether this accords with prototype practice or not. Each person's compromises are equally valid. It is your model and you decide what is acceptable to you. That said, it does not mean one should ignore prototype practice but do so based on knowledge.

This is moving off topic but, as a retired Architect, the biggest problems I have are with buildings and other scenic structures. Most contain elements that are constructional or engineering impossibilities. Although nowhere complete, most of the structures within Maes y Coed are heavily kit-bashed or scratch built. Perhaps this could be a separate thread.

Compromise is inevitable for most of us modelling railways - and many of us start that with the track gauge!  However even with forced compromises such as the ever present selective compression of the length of everything from sidings to many of the trains we try to portray there remains, I think, a set of basic rules which we need to follow if we wish to correctly capture the atmosphere of a real railway.

 

The most important rule is - to my mind - not to have something which looks seriously wrong or out if place such as 'Flying Pig's comment about that 3 way, or lots of facing points instead of trailing points.  If a layout is impossible to signal it will be wrong - the track layout won't be correct for normal British railway practice.  Or to have sidings in a goods yard so close together that road vehicles, even horse drawn, can't get between them and turn round to get back out.  Or y to have sidings which serve no purpose, or loco depots where there would never gave been one in the real world.

 

Scenically mistakes can be just as easy such as ancient buidings standing above tunnels which would have collapsed long ago or scenery and back scenes which don't fit teh area being modelled.  Nowt wrong with havinga 'bus on a bridge - provided it's from the right area in the right livery etc.

 

Loys f other little things will come into people's minds as they think of them but the key I am sure is not to havre anything which is not believable in the context of what you are trying to portray

[Philou]

21 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

double slip as the most inappropriately used item in layout plans

 

But ..... but ....... on my plans, both stations following the prototypes, have double slips (one being on the through mainline!) AND and an outside single slip.The mainline double slip I was going to omit it and just use a single one, but thinking on what is happening further along the mainline, I'm going to have to put it in otherwise it'll make a non-sense of the rest of the trackwork.

 

However, to bring things back OT, I'm a silly boy as I've been busy laying my trackbed in cuttings and embankments and who's forgotten to allow indents and the like to be able to plonk signals alongside .... hmmmm?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Scenically mistakes can be just as easy such as ancient buidings standing above tunnels

Have you been to Conwy?

 

Curiously I cannot find a good picture of the tunnel (c. 1850) with the town walls (c. 1283) above. Here's one from Wikipedia, but the walls merge into the background:

[Rowan]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Compromise is inevitable for most of us modelling railways - and many of us start that with the track gauge!  However even with forced compromises such as the ever present selective compression of the length of everything from sidings to many of the trains we try to portray there remains, I think, a set of basic rules which we need to follow if we wish to correctly capture the atmosphere of a real railway.

 

The most important rule is - to my mind - not to have something which looks seriously wrong or out if place such as 'Flying Pig's comment about that 3 way, or lots of facing points instead of trailing points.  If a layout is impossible to signal it will be wrong - the track layout won't be correct for normal British railway practice.  Or to have sidings in a goods yard so close together that road vehicles, even horse drawn, can't get between them and turn round to get back out.  Or y to have sidings which serve no purpose, or loco depots where there would never gave been one in the real world.

 

Scenically mistakes can be just as easy such as ancient buidings standing above tunnels which would have collapsed long ago or scenery and back scenes which don't fit teh area being modelled.  Nowt wrong with havinga 'bus on a bridge - provided it's from the right area in the right livery etc.

 

Loys f other little things will come into people's minds as they think of them but the key I am sure is not to havre anything which is not believable in the context of what you are trying to portray

Many railway modellers do not have direct knowledge of the design and practices of the prototype railway. Instead, most of us have to rely upon advice and information gleaned from manufacturers, 'experts' or the Internet. In my case, the use of points, the lack of traps and the spacing of sidings was based upon a professionally designed track plan for a previous model, many track planning publications and even manufacturer's information sheets.

 

The rationale behind my track plan is the track adjacent to the platform is the main line. The next one is the passing loop. I accept passenger trains cannot cross but we are talking of a small, rural station in 1910 where passenger trains would be few and far between (they could be timetabled to pass at an adjacent station). The third line is for a coal train to drop off wagons and collect empties. The locos originally envisaged were a shunting loco, a fully lined Dean Goods and a fully lined Small Prairie. And before anyone says anything, all GWR locos were fully lined up until 1906 so a fully lined goods loco in 1910 is a reasonable supposition. Looking into something else unrelated, I discovered that shunting operations in small, rural goods yards were carried out by either manpower or horsepower right up until the 1950's (the last shunting horse was retired in C1967 at Lambourn). The shunting loco idea was scrapped and the model adjusted to include stabling for Hercules the Horse.

 

Regarding scenic blunders, I was thinking more of kits or ready made houses where the position of the chimney would indicate the fireplace was behind the front door, yard offices and the like where the door cill is flush with the ground when the reality would be a minimum of 6" up stand, etc., etc. If we are discussing overall modelling faux pas, I have seen videos of much vaunted layouts that include impossibly steep gradients to both tracks and embankments and many other such errors.

 

But I return to my original point: whether the model railway is correct to the prototype is secondary to the satisfaction of the modeller. We model for our own enjoyment not to produce 'museum' quality masterpieces correct in every detail although we try to follow the prototype as best we can. From this perspective, any criticism of someone's model requires it to be constructive rather than destructive; encouraging rather than it being a 'put down'.

[bécasse]

While you are undoubtedly correct in assuming that a yard as small as the one you propose wouldn't have had a dedicated shunting loco, it almost certainly wouldn't have had a dedicated shunting horse either. The vast majority of shunting would have been carried out by the train engine, picking up empties (assuming there was no originating traffic - which would be true of the majority of rural yards) and dropping off (and positioning for unloading) arriving wagons, all typical work for the daily pick-up goods. During its first sojourn of the day at the station it may well also reposition some empty wagons (perhaps in the second loop) so that they are ready to be conveniently picked up on its return working. 

 

During the absence of the goods train, there might be some need to reposition wagons (especially to/from the kick-back road that you have marked "cattle" and which would be inaccessible to the goods train loco), and these movements would typically be carried out by using a "borrowed" trader's horse or by men using pinch-bars. The latter becoming almost universal by the 1950s as traders' horses disappeared. It isn't impossible pre-c1930 that there was a company horse for a delivery cart and obviously that would be used in preference to a trader's horse when available.

 

One final point is that it is unlikely that the cattle dock would be situated on a relatively inaccessible kick-back road, cattle vans (when loaded) needed to be handled as quickly as possible and docks were usually located to facilitate this (albeit that they also needed good road access), alongside the second loop might be a possible location on your plan.

[Rowan]

3 hours ago, bécasse said:

While you are undoubtedly correct in assuming that a yard as small as the one you propose wouldn't have had a dedicated shunting loco, it almost certainly wouldn't have had a dedicated shunting horse either. The vast majority of shunting would have been carried out by the train engine, picking up empties (assuming there was no originating traffic - which would be true of the majority of rural yards) and dropping off (and positioning for unloading) arriving wagons, all typical work for the daily pick-up goods. During its first sojourn of the day at the station it may well also reposition some empty wagons (perhaps in the second loop) so that they are ready to be conveniently picked up on its return working. 

 

During the absence of the goods train, there might be some need to reposition wagons (especially to/from the kick-back road that you have marked "cattle" and which would be inaccessible to the goods train loco), and these movements would typically be carried out by using a "borrowed" trader's horse or by men using pinch-bars. The latter becoming almost universal by the 1950s as traders' horses disappeared. It isn't impossible pre-c1930 that there was a company horse for a delivery cart and obviously that would be used in preference to a trader's horse when available.

 

One final point is that it is unlikely that the cattle dock would be situated on a relatively inaccessible kick-back road, cattle vans (when loaded) needed to be handled as quickly as possible and docks were usually located to facilitate this (albeit that they also needed good road access), alongside the second loop might be a possible location on your plan.

Thank you for your observations @bécasse. May I respectfully point out my original post on this thread clearly stated my model was of a fictitious small country station somewhere along the GWR Ruabon/Barmouth line in 1910. I also included a photograph which showed the track had been laid with ballasting substantially complete.

 

1) In 1910, such stations would have kept their own Shires both for shunting wagons and for the delivery of goods.

2) The cattle line/dock would only have, at best, usage once a week on market day. In the completed model, the cattle dock is immediately adjacent to the cattle market, all of which gains access from a lane (yet to be modelled) that runs along the left-hand end of the model.

3) The model does not and will not include a train for general freight or perishable freight. The only non-coal freight activity will be a milk siphon C coupled to the passenger train.

4) I do not know this for sure as I can find no details of the working practices of a drop-off freight train, head code K, which stops at intermediate stations. Bearing in mind the plethora of small stations it would be required to stop at between Ruabon and Barmouth, I would guess it highly unlikely it would do more than drop off and collect the few empty coal wagons scheduled for each station. Shunting the wagons to their final places would be left to the station using whatever means they had available.

 

My final point in my last post was, to a degree, stating the obvious - to adversely criticise someone's model once those elements under consideration are substantially complete will achieve nothing but dishearten the modeller. Even if those criticisms are valid, there comes a point when they cease to be constructive.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Rowan