Jump to content
 

Ravensclyffe


Dagworth
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 05/03/2019 at 23:56, Dagworth said:

Ooops, over a year since I last posted on this thread. 

 

The layout is still being worked on, albeit very slowly. I'm suffering a really debilitating bout of depression at the moment so I'm struggling to find any enthusiasm for doing anything at all. Hopefully as the days get longer and my treatment progresses then work on the layout will resume properly.

 

Andi 

 

Hi Andi,

Hope things are improving for you - have you been able to / felt like progressing the layout at all?

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 7 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

I’ve been experimenting with the couplings and chassis arrangements on old style Hornby HAAs, I’m coming to the conclusion that despite everything I’ve said in the past, gluing the chassis rigid is the best way to get them to run reliably. Here is the first 36 with glued bogies and apart from a couple that were not glued square they do seem to be running much better. Only 218 more to do! 
 

Andi

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Gold

This diagram shows one section of Ravensclyffe, I'm happy enough with the general signal layout (and it's too late to change it now anyway) but I'm gradually upgrading the main aspect signals themselves from Eckon kits to scratchbuilt signals with OLE cages.

southjunc.jpg.79a525b4e49a1770af6da679c374d779.jpg

 

My question is quite simple, would signal 13 in the diagram have a position 1 route indicator (feather) or not? It can only give a proceed aspect for the route to the up main, there is no shunt provision to the down main. The signalling is meant to have been installed when the line was electrified in the 1960s, the layout being set in the Stoke-on-Trent area in 1983.

 

Andi

Edited by Dagworth
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, St. Simon said:,

it doesn’t need a route indicator as there’s only a single main route and there’s no chance that the driver could be confused with a non-signalled route.

I agree with Simon definitely not for your period :) On brand new installations they were requiring them ten years ago as we had to remove it in a minor resignalling plan because it would be different from the other signals at the location and be confusing! The signal in question had an associated dummy for the depot and they said it was to distinguish it from that even though it was a separate head, fortunately we had a very good signal engineer, (and top class railway modeller ;) ), from Atkins to write up the sighting review. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

I agree with Simon definitely not for your period :) On brand new installations they were requiring them ten years ago as we had to remove it in a minor resignalling plan because it would be different from the other signals at the location and be confusing! The signal in question had an associated dummy for the depot and they said it was to distinguish it from that even though it was a separate head, fortunately we had a very good signal engineer, (and top class railway modeller ;) ), from Atkins to write up the sighting review. 

 

 

Hi,

 

They aren't 'required' on new installations under even the latest standards, but can be recommended by the Sighting Committee as 'Foxhall Feathers', but only if there is an obvious non-signalled  'straight-on' route that could confuse a driver.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well I’m only going by what happened 10-12 years ago when the proposal came thru on the drawings and we removed it on the signal sighting meetings. The TOC reps, Ops and the Signal engineers all agreed so it was an easy simplification ;) 

Our view was it just added visual clutter and expense for no reason. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the facing end of 7 is a simple trap and doesn't look like a signaled route, then I agree with others no feather is necessary.  The hazard here is the train taking a turnout too fast because the driver is expecting to continue on a straight route.  Even if the driver was somehow expecting to continue past 2 in the wrong direction they would be adjusting their speed for turnout 7 which is likely to have the same speed as 6.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And departing from a goods loop in the wrong direction would usually be from a standing start anyway

Is the Stoke area not 4 aspect?  And I would not expect a bi-directional goods loop in that resignalling era, but I suppose you have a reason for signal 13 !

(I spent a few weekends helping commission Stoke box)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, Grovenor said:

And departing from a goods loop in the wrong direction would usually be from a standing start anyway

Is the Stoke area not 4 aspect?  And I would not expect a bi-directional goods loop in that resignalling era, but I suppose you have a reason for signal 13 !

(I spent a few weekends helping commission Stoke box)

All the goods line running signals in the Stoke resignalling were 3 aspect (including those reading out onto Main Lines).   Ravensclyffe 13 is actually a pretty direct equivalent of SE131 although it was the exit signal from an arrival/f departure line but the series of connections it read through were basically the same as Andi's RE 13.

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

  • RMweb Gold
 

Thank you everyone for the replies, very helpful.

 

34 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

All the goods line running signals in the Stoke resignalling were 3 aspect (including those reading out onto Main Lines).   Ravensclyffe 13 is actually a pretty direct equivalent of SE131 although it was the exit signal from an arrival/f departure line but the series of connections it read through were basically the same as Andi's RE 13.

Do you have a map that shows the layout you refer to please?

 

Andi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Will send you a PM regarding Stoke layout.

 

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

PM on its way.

Thank you both for such fantastic data! RMweb is priceless at times like this :)

 

Andi

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

All the goods line running signals in the Stoke resignalling were 3 aspect (including those reading out onto Main Lines).   Ravensclyffe 13 is actually a pretty direct equivalent of SE131 although it was the exit signal from an arrival/f departure line but the series of connections it read through were basically the same as Andi's RE 13.

But Andi has 3 aspect on the up and down main as well. Stoke was not a plan I kept so just a distant memory now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
56 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

But Andi has 3 aspect on the up and down main as well. Stoke was not a plan I kept so just a distant memory now.

Yep, Ravens is three aspect throughout. As I said, some parts of the signalling are not going to change, if I made it four aspect very few of the signals would ever show green!

 

Andi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, Grovenor said:

But Andi has 3 aspect on the up and down main as well. Stoke was not a plan I kept so just a distant memory now.

There were two 3 aspect signals at Stoke station but the rest were - as you say - four aspect on the passenger lines.  Coincidentally I did the initial, factory based, operator testing on the VH desktop type control which replaced the original panel at Stoke. - and castigated severely the very lax way in which it was (at that time) possible to reset failed axle counter sections to 'clear' - just two clicks on the mouse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

and castigated severely the very lax way in which it was (at that time) possible to reset failed axle counter sections to 'clear' - just two clicks on the mouse.


It clearly worked Mike, it’s a quite a procedure now!

 

Simon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...