Cwmhir signaling - Attempting a somersault and rotating discs

[Darwinian]

I'm trying to get my head around the signaling for my Cwmhir ex Rhymney railway (now GWR) branch line terminus layout. I think that most signals in the 1929-32 period I model would still be Rhymney, so McKenzie and Holland somersault signals (fun).

I am assuming the colliery branch has running powers for colliery owned locos or GWR. Would both be likely and does it make a difference to the signaling?

However I'm not sure what the placing should be so is the diagram below correct? 

Should there be more ground signals? I'm assuming some moves would be hand signaled.

Would the GWR have installed token exchange apparatus?

I have the Adrian Vaughan book on GWR signaling practice but that's about all on this subject.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated before I embark on building the signals.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Darwinian
Restore image

[The Stationmaster]

One oddity is the access to the goods yard - could the connection be turned round (as it would seem to have been at all of the RR's very few branch termini)?

 

While decent information on RR signalling seems pretty sparse I think you havea few nice juicy signals you could include that late.  

1.  The signal reading from the colliery Arr/Dep line could be an RR somersault witha typicalRR elevated rotating disc signal mounted part way up the post to readtthe colliery line.  There are indications from photos that the RR had a ring on the arm of goods line signals and an equivalent example to this signal definitely had one.

2. The signal reading from the colliery could be an elevated (rotating0 disc signal as would the signal from the goods yard (those at Senghenydd lasted until 1944.

3. The signal from the runround would be a ground mounted rotating disc signal.

$.  i'm not so sure about the signals reading to the arrival line but I suspect - judging by photos - that it would be a full size semaphore arm in Rhymney prpractice..

5. as for other discs I'm not entirely sure = what is shown on old photos of Senghenydd (probably the best recorded RR branch terminus) show no ground signals where you might expect to find them but what is claimed in one publication as the 1928 signalling there does shosuch signals.  As there is definitely one error on that drawing where it disagrees with an official GWR notice shown in the same book I'm inclined not ot to be too trusting of the drawing.

6.  I would move to your signal box to the opposite side of the running line immediately adjacent to the connection into the colliery etc group of sidings.

7.  Judging by official GWR information from the late 1920s I very much doubt they would have got round to installing Electric Token machines on an RR branch by 1929.  it would still be the original system installed by the RR's contractors so either Electric Tablet or Electric Train Staff and probably hand exchange.

8.  The colliery engine(s) would have been authorised to run(not running powers as such)  to the arrival/departure line and possibly some other sidings  on tthat side or alternatively a GWr engine would be authorised to run to the colliery.  a case of 'either or' - no need for both.

[Darwinian]

Thanks Mike I will have to investigate RR rotating signals. I only have parts from MSE for the somersault type (and some GWR signals too).

 

Unfortunately I cannot move the signal box as most of the layout is already built and I put it there because it seemed to give the best sighting of the routes for the signalman given the gradients involved.

 

The main line falls away quite steeply down the valley and so the station and good yard side is basically "Highbridge" which has  a level headshunt like this presumably to avoid runaways down the hill.

 

Adrian

[Darwinian]

Oh forgot to add. My original intention was to have GWR panniers work the colliery line as that seemed to be the norm so I will stick to that, with possibly an occasional rule 1 foray of an odd industrial loco now and again.

[RailWest]

1 hour ago, Darwinian said:

 

The main line falls away quite steeply down the valley and so the station and good yard side is basically "Highbridge" which has  a level headshunt like this presumably to avoid runaways down the hill.

 

 

Hills? At Highbridge? It's not called the 'Somerset Levels' for nothing :-)

[Darwinian]

25 minutes ago, RailWest said:

Hills? At Highbridge? It's not called the 'Somerset Levels' for nothing :-)

 

Ooops, that should have been Highworth not Highbridge.

[RailWest]

7 minutes ago, Darwinian said:

 

Ooops, that should have been Highworth not Highbridge.

Ah yes, that make more sense :-)

 

Years ago a friend with whom I used to stay occasionally lived in a house in what was then a new-ish estate built on the station site. We never did work out exactly where his house was in relation to the railway, but I reckoned that I was sleeping somewhere in the goods yard (as it were) !

[Darwinian]

I find I have in my stash an MSE kit for McKenzie Holland rotating ground discs (two signals) which can be made to work. However I'm not convinced this could be realistically done on a post mounted signal as the turning crank would need to be very small and below the signal.

 

Could I get away with saying the GWR replaced them with short arm semaphores? That would give an unusual combination of lower quadrant semaphore and somersault on some posts? Presumably the secondary route would be on a bracketed doll rather than on the main post?

 

My Cwmhir location is fictitious so anything with a prototype on the Rhymney will do.

[Stephen Freeman]

Making them work is not a problem, adding illumination though would be challenging.

[tomparryharry]

Just an observation, but there might have been a  simple trap point following the colliery line home signal.  It would protect the slip points from conflicting movements. Additionally, the home signal at that location might be a disc signal. 

 

Your layout has a touch of Maerdy about it. Quite similar. Nice.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

Edited February 28, 2021 by tomparryharry
correction & addition.

[Darwinian]

12 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Just an observation, but there might have been a  simple trap point following the colliery line home signal.  It would protect the slip points from conflicting movements. Additionally, the home signal at that location might be a disc signal. 

 

Your layout has a touch of Maerdy about it. Quite similar. Nice.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

Thanks Ian, Maerdy was one of the locations that influenced the layout design.

I haven't shown them on the plan but there is a trap point and sand drag on the line out of the colliery and also a simple one-rail trap protecting the slip on the arrival/departure  road.

 

Adrian

Edited March 1, 2021 by Darwinian
typo

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Darwinian said:

I find I have in my stash an MSE kit for McKenzie Holland rotating ground discs (two signals) which can be made to work. However I'm not convinced this could be realistically done on a post mounted signal as the turning crank would need to be very small and below the signal.

 

Could I get away with saying the GWR replaced them with short arm semaphores? That would give an unusual combination of lower quadrant semaphore and somersault on some posts? Presumably the secondary route would be on a bracketed doll rather than on the main post?

 

My Cwmhir location is fictitious so anything with a prototype on the Rhymney will do.

You could but judging by all the photos I can find (which isn't many) the whole signal was replaced, not just part of it.  

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, Darwinian said:

 

Thanks Ian, Maerdy was one of the locations that influenced the layout design.

I haven't shown them on the plan but there is a trap pint and sand drag on the line out of the colliery and also a simple one-rail trap protecting the slip on the arrival/departure  road.

 

Adrian

The slip forms the trap  - and protects the passenger line from all the sidings including the arrival/departure line.

[Darwinian]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The slip forms the trap  - and protects the passenger line from all the sidings including the arrival/departure line.

 

That had crossed my mind but I thought perhaps I should include protection for locomotive movements using the run around across the slip. I'd envisaged a colliery train being held in the arrival/departure while a passenger train loco runs around. 

Maybe my trap point are a bit OTT then.

[tomparryharry]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The slip forms the trap  - and protects the passenger line from all the sidings including the arrival/departure line.

 

Hello Mike, yes indeed regarding the slip to trap location. However, local conditions might dictate the trap onto the Big Railway side of things. It does depend on boundary where we go from Private to Railway. By my reckoning, the double slip might be a fouling point at the point where the colliery line fouls the run-around,  arrival & departure loops. 

 

Maerdy (example ) kept the colliery traffic away by putting the junction in before the station, diverting the traffic away from the passenger side. 

 

That said, the section Maerdy-Ferndale had AFAIK comprised two single lines, one for passenger, and one for colliery work. 

 

I couldn't see the RI passing the layout without protecting the slip, purely for the fouling movement. 

 

I think I've got this right.....

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Hello Mike, yes indeed regarding the slip to trap location. However, local conditions might dictate the trap onto the Big Railway side of things. It does depend on boundary where we go from Private to Railway. By my reckoning, the double slip might be a fouling point at the point where the colliery line fouls the run-around,  arrival & departure loops. 

 

Maerdy (example ) kept the colliery traffic away by putting the junction in before the station, diverting the traffic away from the passenger side. 

 

That said, the section Maerdy-Ferndale had AFAIK comprised two single lines, one for passenger, and one for colliery work. 

 

I couldn't see the RI passing the layout without protecting the slip, purely for the fouling movement. 

 

I think I've got this right.....

 

Cheers,

Ian.

Definitely ok to use the slip as a trap.   There were several examples in the Rhondda some of which lasted quite late with one of the most significant in terms of movement being at Gyfeillon Lower (removed in 1944).  

 

Incidentally my comment about teh trap was not trapping the colliery line - which would need to be trapped - but the one in the arrival/departure line which only reproduces the trapping offered by the double slip.  Inevitably with the signal box controlling the connections, including the run round all the lines in that area would be railway owned and not colliery owned - at Maerdy for example the very extensive colliery sidings were reached by a connection off the through siding which served the goods shed and more private sidings beyond the colliery sidings.

[tomparryharry]

Ah well, young Stationmaster, I can't remember Gyfeillon Lower, which if I remember, was the  down release from Tymawr Colliery, and (what was ) Coke Ovens.  My principal observation was (as you've noted ) was to protect the slip from having a runaway  fouling there. 

 

That said, it does depend on the local arrangements....  The private siding at Treforest Tinplate  to the down loop at Maesmawr was protected by  Home 49, and no trap... The incline was against the home signal, so it would normally run back.  I'm pretty sure that most ( most ) exits from private sidings were trapped, hence my earlier posts. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[Darwinian]

Thanks to both The stationmaster and Tomparryharry for your input on traps. For now I’ll leave the contested trap in place.

Glad I was right to put the trap on the colliery line. 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 02/03/2021 at 13:53, tomparryharry said:

Ah well, young Stationmaster, I can't remember Gyfeillon Lower, which if I remember, was the  down release from Tymawr Colliery, and (what was ) Coke Ovens.  My principal observation was (as you've noted ) was to protect the slip from having a runaway  fouling there. 

 

That said, it does depend on the local arrangements....  The private siding at Treforest Tinplate  to the down loop at Maesmawr was protected by  Home 49, and no trap... The incline was against the home signal, so it would normally run back.  I'm pretty sure that most ( most ) exits from private sidings were trapped, hence my earlier posts. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

My memories of Maesmawr are from Sunday turns in 1973 at which time everything was trapped against the running lines (post 1970 alterations)

[tomparryharry]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

My memories of Maesmawr are from Sunday turns in 1973 at which time everything was trapped against the running lines (post 1970 alterations)

 Yes indeed. The up relief had a full trap,  (with FPL )  and the down loop had a run-off to Treforest Estate.  ( point 32 ? ).  By your time,  the tinplate sidings had long been severed, just under 64 home.

 

Mind you, it's been a long time, and I've been to bed since then....

 

Late edit. Just had a quick look at the SRS diagram, and Maesmawr did indeed have a trap under 64/49 home.  I also  remember the traps, and the incline trap rising up from Upper Boat transfer siding. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by tomparryharry
More information.

[Darwinian]

I have been pondering illumination of the rotating disks. I need to experiment but am thinking:

Use two concentric micro brass tube sizes as the lamp support with a .25mm fibre optic as the core.

Lamp body drilled out internally with holes drilled out for the lenses.

The outer tube is fixed to lamp body and operating crank this rotating around the core.

 

No idea when I might get around to trying.

[Darwinian]

Great help all. Can I clarify a few things?

 

Is this the what is meant by rotating disk on the post type?

https://bbr.org.au/our-collection/  image of their preserved signal under the "signaling & safe working" "-lower quadrant" section.

 

Then we have:

1. Main line into station. Twin somersault with one reading to the goods arrivals (with a hoop on the arm like GWR goods lines?) I assume the platform line would be on the main post and the secondary on a shorter bracketed doll.

 

2. Colliery into arrivals. Either disc on post only or single somersault.

 

3. Platform end exit signal / yard entrance. I am assuming there would be a FPL here so would this be a full somersault starter for the platform and a raised disc again for the yard (or a ground disc)?

 

4. Colliery Arrival/departure somersault for main line and post mounted rotating disc for colliery.

 

5. Exchange sidings exit? A ground disc or just hand signals from the signalman in the nearby cabin?

 

Also when working the yard with the pickup goods would the arriving train be more likely to be routed into the Colliery arrivals/departures loop or the platform line? With the headshunt length limited I assume the wagons out would be taken out first and put onto the brakevan in the unoccupied road then goods-in moved into the yard.

 

I appreciate I should have worked all this out before I got this far!

 

I have checked my stash and have enough bits from Wizard models to make a start on these but have whitemetal posts so hiding fibre-optic filaments or wires for lighting would be tricky.

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Darwinian
Improve reference detail

[The Stationmaster]

That rotating disc looks pretty similar to the type used on the Rymney when pounted on a signal post in that manner.

 

Now we have a slight layout problem as originally drawn.  The  arrival/departure line doesn't appear to end in it is own stop block but actually curves back to join the platform line. If you want to use it as an arrival line it really needs to be self contained to the extent that it doesn't share a stop block with the platform line  - especially is your No.1 item is how it would be signalled.  All the others are ok and I think a ground signal would be perfectly ok for No. 3 while a separate ground signal for a move from the exchange sidings would be preferable.

 

The arriving goods trip would most likely run to the platform line which also means that it could immediately get on with some shunting of the goods sidings..

[Darwinian]

Thanks for your generous advice, it is much appreciated. I realised a while ago that there should be a spur (?) to a stop block for the colliery arrival line but I’d have to rebuild that end of the layout to do it.

 

I have also found a picture in John Hutton’s Rhymney book 1 of one of these signals at Aber junction which although rather silhouetted looks very like the Aussie version.

[Stephen Freeman]

It is much easier to hide wires etc in a hollow brass post