Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello All!

 

How is everyone on this fine Bank Holiday Morning?
I spent last night and this morning working on the signalling plan for my latest layout - a project that has been on/off since 2013. And I am slowly making progress - recently I've been looking at the signalling on the layout and I am slightly concerned that I am over signalling it with respect to the economy that any company paying for the installation would be casting an eye over.
spacer.png
Above is the signal diagram for my layout, a larger version is located Here, as I didn't want the embedded image to be too large for a forum post.

I am slightly concerned as I said that I am over signalling it or that I am applying too modern thinking to the plan for it to be correct. The layout is planned to have been built by the LBSCR and currently is sitting in 1936 having been absorbed by the Southern Railway and new paint applied but not much more - the uncertainty in Europe isn't overly concerning to the residents of Ifield Green who have been carrying on as they have always done so.

The visible scene on the railway doesn't include the inner home signal so only from The end of Whitehall Siding & Point 5 onwards towards the right. Passenger Trains can be accepted into the Main Platform Road & The Dock Road which are both equipped to handle passengers - although the Dock Road is more for the handling of parcels and freight and perhaps to send the freight on its way leaving the platform road clear for an arriving passenger train. There is a calling on signal to allow a loco to run around its train and back down onto its coaches - and in theory a freight could be accepted directly into the loop line if needed but its not a passenger move. The advanced starter is on the other side of the bridge/short tunnel that forms the scenic break so you cannot see the points & routing from that position in my minds eye.

The run around points are always switched as a pair so I've put them working off of the same lever #11 with no FPL and no passengers will travel over it in a facing direction But wondering if it would be better to separate them off with 11A having a FPL and 11B being put on its own lever - I've also spotted that I probably need a catch point from the Dock Road protecting the 'Main Line' which I'll add and that'll need a FPL - thankfully the LBSCR had the economical FPL on the same lever as the switch itself!! I'm not sure if the Distant signal would be working or fixed - I've depicted it as a fixed Distant but included a lever on the Frame for it.
I think the lay of points 9 needs to be reversed with Whitehall Siding acting as the 'catch point' for the mainline.

I am open to any/all criticism as my rudimentary understanding of railway signalling is most likely incorrect - it just looks like there are too many signals on there to my eyes. The layout would operate normally as 'One Engine in Steam' with the occasional Daily Freight and Passenger being in the station at the same time or a special there as well. The installation would be as I said Saxby & Farmer from the 1870/1880's and taken into SR ownership at Grouping - so mostly original i would imagine as this sleepy backwater wouldn't need/warrant changes.

Please be kind & truthfull!
Kind Regards,
Gary 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest 9 points "normal" position would be towards Whitehall siding, thereby providing a "trap" from the Loop. You could also provide a "yellow on black" disc signal on the approach to 9 points, thus allowing movement to Whitehall siding, but requiring both 9 points reverse and this signal cleared to allow movement towards 17 signal. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

 

For a single line terminus in 1936, essentially as installed by the LBSCR, you have provided a level of sophistication that might have applied some time in the BR era.

 

There would be no track circuits.

The outer home and advanced starter are very unlikely

Points 5 & 6 would have separate FPL levers, as you currently have them it implies motor points.

Points 5 & 9 should work as a crossover on one lever

Points 11A & 11B are reversed, the A end is nearest to the box but in 1936 that terminology wasn't used so just plain 11 points.

Signals 13 & 14 aren't likely.

Points 9 need a signal protecting them from the loop, could well be a yellow arm as suggested above and therefore 10 is probably redundant.

Calling on arm is unlikely

The distant signal may well have worked originally but the SR could equally  well have "fixed" it

 

This may at first seem harsh but by your own suggestion it is over signalled and allowing for the fact that it is yours to do as you please I would suggest that my thoughts are nearer what might have existed.

Kind regards

Martin

Edited by Martin Shaw
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iands said:

I would suggest 9 points "normal" position would be towards Whitehall siding, thereby providing a "trap" from the Loop. You could also provide a "yellow on black" disc signal on the approach to 9 points, thus allowing movement to Whitehall siding, but requiring both 9 points reverse and this signal cleared to allow movement towards 17 signal. 

 

Agreed. 

 

Why so many spare levers, and all at one end? 

I don’t think 10 or 14 ground signals are needed. 

For a “sleepy backwater” I’d argue that 2 and 17 are an extravagance (though not impossible), same with the Calling-On arm (swap for a ground signal, perhaps) and splitting home. Normal practice at most stations like this would be for all trains to arrive on the platform road, run round, then shunt as required. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies so far, I will try to explain my thought processes:

 

1 hour ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Agreed. 

 

Why so many spare levers, and all at one end? 

I don’t think 10 or 14 ground signals are needed. 

For a “sleepy backwater” I’d argue that 2 and 17 are an extravagance (though not impossible), same with the Calling-On arm (swap for a ground signal, perhaps) and splitting home. Normal practice at most stations like this would be for all trains to arrive on the platform road, run round, then shunt as required. 

Don't worry about the spare levers on the right, I drew the diagram on the PC in paint and just kept duplicating levers until I had more than I thought I needed - the final diagram will omit the ones I don't need. I'm intending to work on a Peco Lever frame for my layout and they are in blocks of sixes for levers.
 

 

1 hour ago, Martin Shaw said:

Gary

 

For a single line terminus in 1936, essentially as installed by the LBSCR, you have provided a level of sophistication that might have applied some time in the BR era.

 

There would be no track circuits.

The outer home and advanced starter are very unlikely

Points 5 & 6 would have separate FPL levers, as you currently have them it implies motor points.

Points 5 & 9 should work as a crossover on one lever

Points 11A & 11B are reversed, the A end is nearest to the box but in 1936 that terminology wasn't used so just plain 11 points.

Signals 13 & 14 aren't likely.

Points 9 need a signal protecting them from the loop, could well be a yellow arm as suggested above and therefore 10 is probably redundant.

Calling on arm is unlikely

The distant signal may well have worked originally but the SR could equally  well have "fixed" it

 

This may at first seem harsh but by your own suggestion it is over signalled and allowing for the fact that it is yours to do as you please I would suggest that my thoughts are nearer what might have existed.

Kind regards

Martin


Thanks Martin;

No its not overly harsh at all I am looking to get an authentic flavour on the layout - I know roughly what the signalling was on the prototype was for my layout but its not complete knowledge. Plus my layout doesn't copy the prototype exactly so I went my own way, when I looked at it I thought it was over engineered. I wasn't sure on the track circuits - I wondered if there would be some sort of audible warning for when a train came onto the diagram apart from "TES" being sent from the previous box.

Would the combined FPL+Point lever not bee in use by the LBSCR/SR at this time - doesn't bother me if not just my research suggested one lever would be suitable for this job - by making #9 & #5 switch together as a crossover does that mean #9 would gain a FPL as well?

#13 & #14 i will remove as I agree they're probably not needed and rename the terminology on #11A/#11B to plain #11. 

I agree #10 is probably superfluous and would be better served as a signal on the loop protecting movements towards the 'Main or Whitehall Siding' i'm not sure if the LBSCR had Yellow armed shunt signals - more research needed. 

 

If there is no advanced starter would both #15 & #16 need to be released by the adjacent box? It would preclude shunting out of either platform road unless a shunt signal/disc is provided whereas the Advanced Starter would allow shunting but conversely needs the outer home to protect it.

 

1 hour ago, iands said:

I would suggest 9 points "normal" position would be towards Whitehall siding, thereby providing a "trap" from the Loop. You could also provide a "yellow on black" disc signal on the approach to 9 points, thus allowing movement to Whitehall siding, but requiring both 9 points reverse and this signal cleared to allow movement towards 17 signal. 


Thanks Ian - I agree and buried in my note book I found (after i posted the diagram) my notes saying #9 acts a trap point for protecting the main and should be positioned normally facing down into Whitehall Siding - with yourself and Martin both saying the same thing I will amend the diagram correctly. 

 

2 hours ago, Gordon A said:

I suggest the Dock Road needs a trap point if wagons are going to be left there for loading / unloading.

 

 

Totally agree is an oversight on my part - I am guessing it would be switched as a pair with #6 working like a crossover and locked appropriately and interlocked with the platform starter.

 

24 minutes ago, micknich2003 said:

As drawn, and with locking frame at the front of the signalbox, your levers are numbered the weong way round.

Of course!

Thanks I had forgotten this - the perils of having a three year old running around when trying to design a signal frame - I'll leave it incorrectly numbered until the final draft - so changes can be referred to - then renumber it the opposite way round. 

 

Thanks to All!
Kind Regards,

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matloughe said:

I wondered if there would be some sort of audible warning for when a train came onto the diagram apart from "TES" being sent from the previous box.

 

More than likely that TES would be the only indication of a train approaching. TC's are extremely unlikely. If operationally some need had been demonstrated a treadle might have been used, but even that's a rare occurrence.

1 hour ago, Matloughe said:

Would the combined FPL+Point lever not bee in use by the LBSCR/SR at this time - doesn't bother me if not just my research suggested one lever would be suitable for this job - by making #9 & #5 switch together as a crossover does that mean #9 would gain a FPL as well?

This matter cropped up on another thread, maybe Hayling Island, so I did some research. The LBSC did occasionally fit EFPL's but I could only find a handful off instances across the whole of the LBSC, so I think separate FPL's would be the correct approach. You do not need an FPL on facing points not traversed by pasenger trains.

 

1 hour ago, Matloughe said:

If there is no advanced starter would both #15 & #16 need to be released by the adjacent box? It would preclude shunting out of either platform road unless a shunt signal/disc is provided whereas the Advanced Starter would allow shunting but conversely needs the outer home to protect it.

In a word, no. The interlinking of block controls and starting signal locks is a relatively modern thing and many starting signals remained free to pull at anytime long into the BR era, indeed often to closing of the line. Any effort to provide this would initially have been on most important lines first. There is also the method of control of the single line that affects this. Typically TS&T makes it economically difficult. You can have an advanced starter without an outer home , the only impact is that it restricts the acceptance of trains. IF the timetable is such that this is a problem then the railway would have looked at the situation from a completely difficult perspective anyway. I think it unlikely that a single track railway in Brighton territory in 1936 would have been overly busy.

Regards

Martin

 

PS A white band on a starting signal lever was an LMS creation and wasn't found south of the river until perhaps the 80s.

Edited by Martin Shaw
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input; I've had a bit of a re-jig and come up with the plan below - and I've renumbered the levers correctly as per the diagram I believe.
I've removed the Advanced Starter and Outer Home - but made the Distant a 'working' signal, I'm assuming a Limit of Shunt Board somewhere along the line prevents a loco wandering too far down the line without permission - would it be worth fitting a Shunting Disc adjacent to the Home Signals to control any shunt movements back?

 

spacer.png

 

The link to the full sized image is here - to make it easier to see. Again ignore the white levers they are just there to colour in should I need them.
The revisions in place bring the levers required down from 17 levers to 12 levers.

#6 is the FPL for Crossover #5 from the Main into the Dock Road including the Catch Point

#8 is the FPL for Crossover #7 for controlling entry into either the main/dock road or the loop.

 

Normal lay of points is indicated and differs to the original image.
Kind Regards,

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been studying the prototype thoroughly and I've spotted an oddity; it looks like as the Dock Road IRL wasn't for passenger use like I am proposing it's exit was covered by a Ground Signal only and no catch point!! - however on the main platform starter there looks like on the single arm a raised ground signal as well.
The problem of looking at 100+ year old photographs with bad resolution is I cannot quite make out what it is aside from what looks like a lamp case - if I did the same thing and made the dock road freight only it would eliminate #11 from my plan and #4 would become a ground signal only - but I'd probably have to add the raised Ground Signal on the Starter and possibly a shunt signal on the Home in place of #11.

 

Kind Regards,

Gary

Edited by Matloughe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
55 minutes ago, Martin Shaw said:

 

 

PS A white band on a starting signal lever was an LMS creation and wasn't found south of the river until perhaps the 80s.

Albeit OT but I take issue with that statement because I knew numerous signal boxes a long way south of the river (assuming you mean the Thames as I  suspect is the case) some time prior to the 1980s.  As ever it is necessary to remind folk that Swindon is some miles south of that river while the WR's Signal Works at Reading was also a couple of hundred yards south of it albeit just within the old 100 year flood boundary of said river.  And of course most of the GWR's principal main line route lies to the south of said river.   A fact which I was repeatedly amused to have to point out to my York based boss in TLF days although my 'patch' at that time did extend as far as it was possible to go south of that river without landing in the English Channel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike

Bit of a sweeping generalisation that inevitably leaves it open to contradiction and I did pick something of an arbitrary date, but you will realise I was talking about the SR which in my days around there during the 70s was largely bereft of white bands. There were inevitably variations when furriners got involved. I would imagine that the introduction of a UK wide set of signalling standards would have brought the Southern in line with lesser railways, anyone care to put a date to that. In any case it wouldn't apply to the OP set as it is in 1936.

 

Gary

Which protoype are you basing your plan on?

 

Regards

Martin

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Martin Shaw said:

Gary

Which protoype are you basing your plan on?

 

Regards

Martin

 

Based loosely on Devils Dyke, just transplanted elsewhere Martin.

 

Kind Regards,

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matloughe said:

Thanks for your input; I've had a bit of a re-jig and come up with the plan below - and I've renumbered the levers correctly as per the diagram I believe.
I've removed the Advanced Starter and Outer Home - but made the Distant a 'working' signal, I'm assuming a Limit of Shunt Board somewhere along the line prevents a loco wandering too far down the line without permission -

There would not be a limit of shunt, drivers know not to head off down a single line without authority.

would it be worth fitting a Shunting Disc adjacent to the Home Signals to control any shunt movements back?

In my view yes, but you could rely on a green flag from the box window.

 

spacer.png

 

The link to the full sized image is here - to make it easier to see. Again ignore the white levers they are just there to colour in should I need them.
The revisions in place bring the levers required down from 17 levers to 12 levers.

#6 is the FPL for Crossover #5 from the Main into the Dock Road including the Catch Point

I would make the crossover 6 and the FPL 5, then 5 just bolts 6 for departures.

#8 is the FPL for Crossover #7 for controlling entry into either the main/dock road or the loop.

#8 should be the FPL for 7 and for 6, the renumbered 5, for arrivals. This avoids bolting trailing points and reduces lever pulls and makes the locking easier.

Normal lay of points is indicated and differs to the original image.
Kind Regards,

Gary

Added my comments in coloured text as recent changes have made splitting the quotes difficult. In addition to those I would suggest 9 should be at the toe of 7. Integrated detection requires that and putting it back wastes space, also if it is the equivalent of a yellow disc, ie it can be passed at stop if 7 is normal, then the driver must be able to see the lie of the points as well as the signal.

Rgds

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

DykeSB.jpg.94112e0b9c643800f6a9ac4d4edac04e.jpgThe top diagram is the actual signalling layout for Dyke up until it closed sat the end of 1938. It is a typical Brighton installation and probably dates from the opening in 1887. The retention of a working distant in SR days was unusual but may have resulted from the grade so that trains weren't checked at the entry to the station.

 

The second diagram shows how the layout would have been altered if the bay siding was converted for passenger rather than (minimal) goods use. The working distant would almost certainly have gone when the alterations were made just as it did at Hayling Island. If the alterations were made by the SR, the shunt 14 from platform 2 disc might well have been removed as well [subsequent edit].

 

The Brighton only had three terminals off of single track lines and one of those, Kemp Town, was an oddity in that it would probably have been double track had it not been for the viaduct, long high embankment and final tunnel. Certainly the facilities at the terminal were much grander. The other two, Dyke and Hayling, were remarkably similar albeit with more goods facilities at Hayling.

 

Incidentally your "IG" code is modern-ish, say mid-1970s onward. In the most unlikely event of the station having any c/l signals in 1938 it would have had a two or three letter code starting with C which bore no resemblance to its name.

 

 

Edited by bécasse
Correction to the signalling diagram and extra comment as indicated
  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Added my comments in coloured text as recent changes have made splitting the quotes difficult. In addition to those I would suggest 9 should be at the toe of 7. Integrated detection requires that and putting it back wastes space, also if it is the equivalent of a yellow disc, ie it can be passed at stop if 7 is normal, then the driver must be able to see the lie of the points as well as the signal.

Rgds

 

Thanks for your comments Grovenor, the disc/shunt signal (not quite sure which yet) will be at the toe of point #7 yes - I was in a rush yesterday and didn't have the time/inclination to mark the diagram correctly - my bad I know!

 

11 hours ago, Martin Shaw said:

Gary

I've got the Wagstaffe diagram for The Dyke dated circa 1922, I'll dig it out tomorrow.

Regards

Martin

That'd be fantastic Martin; provided its not too much trouble? It'll be interesting to see.

 

 

11 hours ago, bécasse said:

The top diagram is the actual signalling layout for Dyke up until it closed sat the end of 1938. It is a typical Brighton installation and probably dates from the opening in 1887. The retention of a working distant in SR days was unusual but may have resulted from the grade so that trains weren't checked at the entry to the station.

 

The second diagram shows how the layout would have been altered if the bay siding was converted for passenger rather than (minimal) goods use. The working distant would almost certainly have gone when the alterations were made just as it did at Hayling Island.

 

The Brighton only had three terminals off of single track lines and one of those, Kemp Town, was an oddity in that it would probably have been double track had it not been for the viaduct, long high embankment and final tunnel. Certainly the facilities at the terminal were much grander. The other two, Dyke and Hayling, were remarkably similar albeit with more goods facilities at Hayling.

 

Incidentally your "IG" code is modern-ish, say mid-1970s onward. In the most unlikely event of the station having any c/l signals in 1938 it would have had a two or three letter code starting with C which bore no resemblance to its name.

Thanks for the diagrams I wasn't too far off on my guesstimate of the signalling when I revised it downwards! Interesting that I can't see shunt signal #9 on any photos I can find of them - not even the nice clear full-page shot of the Dyke on page 82 of "Southern Infrastructure" taken from what looks like the very tall home signal shows it! And there is definitely something on the Starter half-way up the post on the same side of the lamp its not the counterweight as its on the opposite side of the post right at the bottom. 

"IG" is my sort of internal designation for a layout; when I build something for it for the first time it is marked with the layout it was designed/built for - I always find it interesting to turn a building over and find a different layout's mark on it - most of the fiddleyard is marked as "BP" for my older minories layout as the wood was recycled into Ifield Green.

It looked good as a 'fake' signal box code so I went for it.

Thank you to everyone for your assistance!
Kind Regards,

Gary

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bécasse said:

The top diagram is the actual signalling layout for Dyke up until it closed sat the end of 1938. It is a typical Brighton installation and probably dates from the opening in 1887. The retention of a working distant in SR days was unusual but may have resulted from the grade so that trains weren't checked at the entry to the station.

 

The second diagram shows how the layout would have been altered if the bay siding was converted for passenger rather than (minimal) goods use. The working distant would almost certainly have gone when the alterations were made just as it did at Hayling Island.

 

The Brighton only had three terminals off of single track lines and one of those, Kemp Town, was an oddity in that it would probably have been double track had it not been for the viaduct, long high embankment and final tunnel. Certainly the facilities at the terminal were much grander. The other two, Dyke and Hayling, were remarkably similar albeit with more goods facilities at Hayling.

 

Incidentally your "IG" code is modern-ish, say mid-1970s onward. In the most unlikely event of the station having any c/l signals in 1938 it would have had a two or three letter code starting with C which bore no resemblance to its name.

 

DykeSB.jpg

What was 14 ??

According to the SRS diagram it was a shunt signal mounted below 15.....

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RailWest said:

What was 14 ??

According to the SRS diagram it was a shunt signal mounted below 15.....

 

That must be the shunt signal on the starter!!!

The one I have been banging on about. You can't clearly make it out but there is something there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Martin Shaw said:

Mike

Bit of a sweeping generalisation that inevitably leaves it open to contradiction and I did pick something of an arbitrary date, but you will realise I was talking about the SR which in my days around there during the 70s was largely bereft of white bands. There were inevitably variations when furriners got involved. I would imagine that the introduction of a UK wide set of signalling standards would have brought the Southern in line with lesser railways, anyone care to put a date to that. In any case it wouldn't apply to the OP set as it is in 1936.

 

Regards

Martin

The white band was definitely in use on WR new work in 1961 (and no doubt on existing frames whenever they had been repainted after the date it first came to be used on the Western although I can't date that).  But Regional standards still applied then and for a lot later.  A number of changes to WR standards occurred in the mid-late 1980s but some still remained in new work in the 1990s.  As I'm sure you know the BR standard Signalling Principles document existed in the early '90s and I don't think that was the first national issue - but even then the WR was still following one or two of its own principles!

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RailWest said:

What was 14 ??

According to the SRS diagram it was a shunt signal mounted below 15.....

Yes, it was, lever 14, mounted on the RH side of the post. Sorry, I managed to miss it off my drawings (which I will correct and repost). I have now corrected the two diagrams and added a note to the effect that, if the alterations (bay siding to passenger bay) were made by the SR, the shunt signal 14 from platform 2 might well have been removed [subsequent edit].

 

The shunt signals were, of course, all LBSCR revolving types. They do show up in Wallis's book but may not be obvious if you were looking for a SR-style Westinghouse dolly.

Edited by bécasse
Update
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dock platforms were generally higher than passenger platforms so vans could be loaded and unloaded more or less on the level. Passenger platforms had a maximum height, not average, maximum height of 3ft.  Buffer centres were 3ft 5 and a bit so there was and is a fairish step up into coaches and many coaches would foul on the dock platforms even if you could get the door open.

As regards the track plan, was there any scope for two trains at the terminus?  If not why would the company bother with a signal box when a ground frame would suffice?  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

As regards the track plan, was there any scope for two trains at the terminus?  If not why would the company bother with a signal box when a ground frame would suffice?  

While it is difficult to foresee that there was ever any need for two passenger trains simultaneously at The Dyke, especially as the "bay" was only ever a siding (where the occasional goods wagon was loaded or unloaded), there must have been times when it occurred. The Southern Railway systematically eliminated signal boxes at its branch line termini as an economy measure (keeping the boxes and frames as "ground frames" to operate the points, but removing the signals) unless there was a clear need for two-train working. Furthermore on the Dyke branch the TS&T system used by the LBSCR (which uniquely operated with a "Brighton & The Dyke" staff even though the single line section started only at Dyke Junction, several double-track block sections from Brighton) was replaced by ETS (this time between Dyke Junction and The Dyke) in 1926, so the Southern obviously perceived a need for two-train working which was sufficient to justify expenditure. Incidentally, there were never separate goods trains on the branch, the first working of the day operating "mixed".

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

Hello all!

 

@DavidCBroad From what I can see of the prototype, (I should stress its based on and not a copy) the platform is arranged as an Island without differing levels - the 'bay/dock siding' was probably on used for the most minor of traffic in the 22 pictures I can see online there are 4 vans (all of which look like they are Stroudley or older) 1 Flat wagon, 6 opens of which are 2 PO's looks like one 5 plank and one 7 plank and four what look like Open A's or Open D's with one of them sheeted with a tarp rail. 

I'd imagine the vans were for farm produce or consignments each way or for perambulators for walkers to the attractions in the area. The Flat wagon has a horse & cart with what looks like logs adjacent to it so I'd imagine was a special conveyance. The covered open wagon for general merchandise and the remaining opens/PO's for a mix of uncovered loads or coal/coke respectively. 

 

None of my photos show any Brake Vans being left at the Dyke and all trains are exclusively passenger in the main platform or the railcar - again in the main platform, but no Brake Van on the end either. 

 

@bécasse your knowledge of the workings of the Dyke Branch are really fascinating! I'd seen the freight was via a mixed train just like Hayling Island. I know I am stretching the boundaries of introducing two-train working; I had planned for a daily pick-up goods on my BLT. I am wondering however if rather than a SR BLT if I really should be working on a LBSC BLT - purely because it seems to be the fortunes of the Dyke had long since passed by my established timescale of 1936 had arrived. 

 

Kind Regards,

Gary

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.