Jump to content
 

Coalorsdale - signalling help / advice wanted.


Recommended Posts

Morning all, 

I have been advised to post in here as I really have no idea where to start with the signalling for my layout. 

 

It initially started off as a normal roundy roundy but has developed into a freelance representation of Coalbrookdale Station and the Wenlock branchline in general. Also known as the Wellington craven Arms line, amongst other names. 

 

The layout is late crest br western region, with a lot of left over gwr Infrastructure etc. 

 

I shall copy a few posts from my layout thread as they explain my current position. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... I also have these diagrams of the original track / signals. 

 

Note, I have added the Incline at the back which goes to my small version of the works. 

 

In place of the runaround loop in the bottom right that goes down an incline to the real Coalbrookdale works I have added a shed and a siding. 

20210115_105036.jpg.61b88da83a141ab1a1605b6dee53fad5.jpg20210115_104854.jpg.c2efd32e0cd253612831ded70b7ed189.jpg

Second diagram kindly provided by Northroader. 

 

My track plan for reference. 366002573_trackplan.PNG.33838c1326694df63d097106a1e4d1cf.png.b159f2ae77a4c9749ed133354d635b2d.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it is really essential for your model, the crossover should be trailing not facing. 

 

A long stretch of wrong-road running seems unlikely, it would have been more likely IMHO that the crossover would have been next to the point leading to the incline. And will that junction be controlled from a signal-box at the station - and where, as it is not marked on your plan?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

appologies for leaving out some detail. 

 

this crossover was discusssed a while ago in my layout thread... it was put in when i hadnt been in the hobby for a while and was ignorant of trailing facing etc.  I decided to leave it as i was into scenery and it makes moving in and out of the longer siding easy.

 

The box is right by the crossover and does control that junction. All of the track at the works will be controlled by groundframes. 

 

I've just gone and taken some overall shots so you can see the traack layout. (scenery very much a work in progress).

P1060700.JPG.ead409003b04b9794d4bd7ee42e44906.JPGP1060701.JPG.328698a8150ac3f15a88f5ffaef877e4.JPG

P1060702.JPG.67ed06bbe1e903ba91925cb6e8014e4f.JPG

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, I have no doubt what the reaction of the Inspecting Officer to the concept of an incline leading straight into a wrong direction running line and into a tunnel to boot. He would no doubt have used some choice words to express that reaction verbally but in writing it would simply have been "NO!".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, bécasse said:

Indeed, I have no doubt what the reaction of the Inspecting Officer to the concept of an incline leading straight into a wrong direction running line and into a tunnel to boot. He would no doubt have used some choice words to express that reaction verbally but in writing it would simply have been "NO!".

Oddly I can think of an example although there wasn't/isn't a tunnel involved - and it is on a falling gradient.   It is of course the result of layout rationalisation so would fit  the era being portrayed by this layput (assuming the traction we see is representative.

 

But in the real world it has got a proper trap point which is absent on this model although something could be added as a dummy trap (not going towards the adjacent running line of course).  And equally there has to be an imagined facing crossover beyond the tunnel.   so that is all relatovely easy to explain away.

 

Not so easy is the facing crossover by the signal box and I can't immedately think of a way round that without pulling up some track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RailWest said:

It seems to to me that all traffic in/out of your 'incline' line will have to travel some distance wrong road' into a tunnel. I'm not sure of any prototype examples on which to base the signalling :-(

 

48 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Oddly I can think of an example although there wasn't/isn't a tunnel involved - and it is on a falling gradient.   It is of course the result of layout rationalisation so would fit  the era being portrayed by this layput (assuming the traction we see is representative.

 

But in the real world it has got a proper trap point which is absent on this model although something could be added as a dummy trap (not going towards the adjacent running line of course).  And equally there has to be an imagined facing crossover beyond the tunnel.   so that is all relatovely easy to explain away.

 

Not so easy is the facing crossover by the signal box and I can't immedately think of a way round that without pulling up some track.

 

 

Ive allways worked on the assumption that there is a crossover just off scene for anything coming down the incline. There is another facing crossover on the non scenic storage board i can use for this.

The incline is protected at the top by a headshunt, do i still need a catch point at the bottom?  I have plenty of spare rail so i could add something just after the girder bridge?

 

my track plan ignorrance aside, do these signals make sense?

 

A starter on each platform. The one on the right releases the train based on the block ahead through the tunnel, as well as protecting the level crossing . 

a home signal and distant signal by the viaduct. the home stopping ionbound traffic if there is shunting occuring or if the station is occupied , and the distant warning that the block after the station is occupied. 

Finally a junction arm by the start of the incline.

 

ive got no clue how to organise the shunt signals around all the sidings.

 

signals1.PNG.41fee20e1f1eca263a3a9385beba7873.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

also, would the box stop things at the bottom of the incline or would they wait at the top (in the works) and get permission somehow to go down the incline?

 

501841067_signal2.PNG.d2497b6001509df2479e2e3911b37758.PNG

 

It depends how you organise things.  If you use the siding at the top as the trap point  - a good idea but it has some potential (real world) problems with the signal box in that position - you would need a stop signal there to hold a descending train at that location.  You could not let such a train go any further towards the main line unless you also have a trap point lower down as well (or instead of the one at the top).   But in the real world in view of the steep gradient there would still have to be something near the bottom of the gradient to catch a runaway wagon should it breakaway as the train goes up the bank.

 

Before we go any further what do you regard as the purpose of the facing crossover by the signal box?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Before we go any further what do you regard as the purpose of the facing crossover by the signal box?

 

It allows traffic in and out of the goods siding. Allows movement between the small sidings and the engine shed. And allows a pannier from the shed to cross over and remove wagons from the station (taken from the back of a longer through train). 

20210116_160506.jpg.8021565f58bd70190e2b8adcfdb0c3d7.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, I would suggest a trap-point leading to a substantial sand-drag, to avoid the risk of anything running away down the incline, derailing on the trap ,but then being carried forward by its momentum and fouling the main line.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think you should relay the crossover. I know it’s painful to take what might seem to be a backwards step but in the long run but it might be better to fix the fundamental problem now and avoid years and years of niggles and questions. In fact if you lifted more of the track you could fix one or two other issues such as the kinks that can be seen in your curves and the large gaps in the rails that appear to be visible in several places.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I think you should relay the crossover. I know it’s painful to take what might seem to be a backwards step but in the long run but it might be better to fix the fundamental problem now and avoid years and years of niggles and questions. In fact if you lifted more of the track you could fix one or two other issues such as the kinks that can be seen in your curves and the large gaps in the rails that appear to be visible in several places.

 

 

I understand your recommendation, however I'm not too bothered by the kinks etc. The track was layed in summer and has kinked in the cold ( I'm Now Insulating the garage). But thankfully it all still runs well *touch wood* as I think the camera makes it look a little worse than it is. 

 

The layout will have a short life as there only a year and a half until my Dartmouth start date, after which I will be away and will take the layout apart and start afresh with all my locos, buildings and scenics etc. wherever I wind up living. 

 

As for the crossover it was debated several months ago on my forum thread and it was decided to ignore it and move on as I make use of it in running sessions and no one who veiws the layout will know its wrong. 

 

 Appologies, I don't mean to ignore recommendations, but I'd rather not rip anything up when I'm only with the layout whilst not at university I. E. Only a few months a year. 

 

 

Do my signalling proposals make sense if I add the catch point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing some more research, I understand more now where people are coming from with comments on feasability, however I drew this plan up when I had been away from the hobby for a few years and I was never really experienced enough to pay attention to the feasability of the plan. 

 

Hopefully these signals make sense. 

 

Starting at the left hand side of the layout. 

 

On exiting the tunnel there will be a junction signal. With a lower arm for the incline route as it has a lower speed. The main post could act as an outer home allowing shunting moves to occur in the wrong direction on the line if absolutely needed. There will be  a fixed distant as the speed limit of this line is less than 40mph through the station, so drivers should always be cautioned. 20210117_104821.jpg.d505618c004c97e55678d4b8364c866c.jpg

 

The next signal to be met when heading towards the station is the home signal. Just after the viaduct and just before the box and pointwork. This will be a standard round post home signal.

 

The final signal In This direction of travel is the starter at the end of the platform. This will release trains towards the next block under the works. 

 

Coming in the other direction, from the right of the layout. We can assume the home signal is  the other side of the off scene section, as there is little space to Warrent modeling it at this end of the layout. The only signal met in this direction is therefore the starter at the end of the platform. 

 

For the sidings within station limits there will be ground signals controlling the normal shunting routes as well as verbal and hand signals direct with the box as the station is not too big. 

 

For the incline I will add a trap point and some sort of sand drag just after the girder bridge. Here there will be a signal protecting the junction from the incline .This will be controlled by the box.  Traffic coming down the incline would be assumed to crossover to the correct track somewhere off scene. 

 

As for the facing crossover I will probably leave it for now but if I ever really feel the need I will either swap it out for a trailing crossing or add a trailing crossing in the station to make it a runaround loop. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are assuming that the signals and points at/near the tunnel are controlled from the signal-box at the station, then the lower distant arm that you propose is irrelevant as it would be applying to the next box along the line to the right (not the one at the stateion) and assuming that it was quite close.

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

1 minute ago, RailWest said:

If you are assuming that the signals and points at/near the tunnel are controlled from the signal-box at the station, then the lower distant arm that you propose is irrelevant as it would be applying to the next box along the line to the right (not the one at the stateion) and assuming that it was quite close.

So no distant needed on the line? 

 

Other than that are my proposals OK? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The first thing you need to do with your signal ideas is to lose that lower arm distant - it serves absolutely no purpose at all.

 

Your other running signals are basically ok but you do need a signal on the 'main line' to protect the imagined crossover where the incline line joins the main.  You need a single ground disc at the exit from each set of sidings (and a dummy trap point at each of those siding exits as well); the points within the sidings would be worked by adjacent hand levers with no fixed signals of any sort.  There will also be a ground disc at the toe of each of the two points that lead into sidings.

 

All of that is the easy stuff but then we come to a big problem which fully illustrates why signalling has to be thought about when planning a track layout because the facing crossover is very difficult to signal properly - because it is a facing crossover.   The only way I can see of doing half a job on it is to provide a ground disc at each of the two running signals which protect it and to provide 'Limit of Shunt' boards for those signals to read towards.  It is a very simple matter to signal a trailing crossover in a traditional type of track layout but not at all easy with a facing crossover in such a layout.

 

In fact in exchange for some signalling complication the facing crossover delivers absolutely nothing which a trailing crossover would do far more easily.  For example if you bring an engine from shed to detach something from the rear of a train standing on the inner running line the protecting running signal needs a Calling On arm.  But why use an engine when the train could set back into the sidings to detach?  The reason the railways made so much use of trailing points and crossovers wasn't just to do with strictures against the use of facing points but to make shunting easier, quicker, and cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

The new crossover has been ordered. 

(yellow). I can use the old one to add some more storage off scene.are the signals above correct now? 

Provided you follow my most recent posts -all you will ow need to add once you have teh trailing crossover in position is a ground disc at the toe end of each point in that crossover.

 

You also need to make sure that your'starting signal' at the platform end is not foul of the newly sited crossover.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still working on a few other things for the layout but I've been taking some photos on my lockdown walks. 

 

This is at the steam Trust (formerly part of the branchline I'm basing the layout on.) 

 

I'm assuming the colour light signal was added recently, but the semaphore is original and is a good prototype to help pick which signals I buy and kitbash. P1080068.JPG.e06a411eb965ad3417a9d46f7ef9fbc6.JPG

Edited by Horsehay Railway Modeller
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...