possible BLT - Signal advice

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

Afternoon all,

You may have seen my home layout 'Coalorsdale - a Shropshire Branchline' but i am currently designing a new portable layout for Uni and beyond. I am currently in second year and already have a small shunting layout at uni but i never really use it, so ive designed this blt layout so that i can run the stock from my main layout.

 

This time I've learnt from my mistakes and im considering signalling before the baseboards are even made .

 

Ive put traps wherever wagons may be left, but im unsure where signals are required. the bay track leading to the cattle dock may take goods ( livestock) or a single coach / unit. 

 

This will be a Br(WR) layout with the same era as my main layout (roughly 1959-1964) .

 

 

[Danemouth]

I see the plan has no headshunt which means shunting will take place on the "main line" preventing a passenger train arriving whilst this takes place.

 

From a purely personal point of view this would be unsatisfactory to me.

 

Dave

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

Hi Dave,

 

Yes it is a shame, but theres no room for a headshunt  if i want to have 2 coaches fit in the runnaround and have the full layout and storage yard fit on top of my bed at uni.

 

the goods traffic will be shunted in lulls between passenger services.

 

David

 

[ikcdab]

I think the danger is that you might end up with a whole forest of signals because it is essentially not prototypical for your basis.

You seem to have a lot of space at the top and all the track crammed into the lower half. Could you swing the platform and loop round to the "north" so that there is more room for a headshunt in the lower half?

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think three-way points were used in running lines, being kept for sidings. 

What size is the baseboard?

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

Hi there,

 

 all of the decisions have been made to fit a blt into the space available. the main board is 18" by 6'.

 

 It has to fit a 2nd radius curve at the end ( this is the minimum rad rtr stock is manafactured to run on) allowing storage behind.

This is beacuse at my current uni house there is no space for anything bigger than the bed, nominally about 6'x 3'.

 

here is the full plan and initial baseboard cad.

 

for full details see:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

its not WR unfortunatelley but iv'e found a few 3 way points in stations on google, seen here at Durham in 1957

 

[RailWest]

2 hours ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

 

 

Ive put traps wherever wagons may be left, but im unsure where signals are required. the bay track leading to the cattle dock may take goods ( livestock) or a single coach / unit. 

 

 

 

 

If the bay is going to be used for passenger traffic, then you will need a trap at the exit from the ES. It would be questionable then whether you would need one at all at the exit from the bay line. But I would question whether there would ever be a cattle dock right next to a passenger line anyway.

 

The two traps in the sidings will protect the exit from those lines, but you will need a third one in the run-round loop. If it were possible to re-jig that area a little and replace the 3-way by a double-slip, then the exit from the slip in the bottom RH corner (if you see what I mean) would act as your trap for both the run-round and a single connection into the sidings.

[Michael Hodgson]

That 3-way point isn't on a running line.  The train appears to crossed over onto the wrong line off the viaduct bringing ECS into the Up Main platform, presumably an excursion for which there seem to be a lot of ladies already waiting. 

The 3-way point is between bays, and is necessary because of the extremely limited space at this location because of the steepness of the Wear valley.

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

8 minutes ago, RailWest said:

 I would question whether there would ever be a cattle dock right next to a passenger line anyway.

 

The two traps in the sidings will protect the exit from those lines, but you will need a third one in the run-round loop. 

 

Thanks Railwest, 

 

To avoid Passengers next to the cattle, would it make sense to designate the bay as goods only, perhaps parcels and livestock?

 

There is very little scope to alter the track plan as its taken a  while of fiddling to get it this far, and the three way pooints are pretty critical to it fitting. Is the added Catch in the correct place on the runnaround?

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That 3-way point isn't on a running line. 

 

Thank you for correcting my ignorance, i cant find a specific rule against them, other than the requirements of facing point locks etc. 

would they be acceptable as they are on slow moving sections of line ( Terminus station limits) ?

 

[Michael Hodgson]

I don't think there's any rule against it.  Just something you come across in yards.  

Probably more difficult to build, maintain and provide locking on.

[Grovenor]

Genuine 3 way points where all the blades are together are pretty well confined to sidings but tandem points where the two sets of blades are a few timbers apart are often found in passenger lines in congested p[laces and can have facing point locks. I don't see any reason not to have yours there. More problematic are the 3 traps, a very unlikely arrangement and difficult to signal. I would suggest trying the double slip suggestion above.

[Harlequin]

Hi HRM,

 

The restrictions imposed by a small model force BLT trackplans into a few familiar patterns and the question of how to signal them comes up quite regularly. I went through the same process when I came back to the hobby.

 

Here's my Version 1 "Hampton Malstead" plan signalled after several rounds of revisions and learning:

 

You can see that the track plan is basically quite similar to yours. My kick back Gasworks siding comes from the yard and so there's no signalling requirement, whereas your "to future modules" connection would need some protection. If it's a private siding then no actual signal would be needed, probably just a ground frame unlocked by a key. There's a trap between the ES and the bay. From main to bay is operated as a crossover so no need for a trap. There's a stub siding at the end of the goods/run round loop and that traps that entire side of the plan, thus no need for traps in the goods sidings. As your plan stands, with the 3-way turnout feeding the loop and the goods yard, you haven't got room for a real trap or a stub siding and so you'll have to make a dummy trap.

 

Edit: In hindsight, Hampton Malstead looks slightly over-signalled. It could probably be simpler.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Harlequin

[DavidB-AU]

Something that might make more efficient use of the space and be very close to prototypical is a cut down version of Moretonhampstead. Have the cattle dock at the far end of the layout ("north" of the current goods shed) and the goods shed on the bay platform. The engine shed could kick back off the run around or even be eliminated completely  -imagine the loco shed is at the "junction" station and just have a water column at the terminus.

 

Cheers

David

[TheSignalEngineer]

7 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Genuine 3 way points where all the blades are together are pretty well confined to sidings but tandem points where the two sets of blades are a few timbers apart are often found in passenger lines in congested p[laces and can have facing point locks

Birmingham Snow Hill had at least two tandems in running lines, leaving the north ends of platforms 6 and 8. The one on number 8 was a four-way after the 1912 rebuilding but was fairly quickly replaced by a tandem and single lead.

[Nick Holliday]

Kemp Town station in Brighton had a four-way point at the entrance to the station, in a tunnel. https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/556687203913523825/ 

Although the photo dates from when the line was goods only, this point was there from opening in 1869.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Similar sort of location, Ventnor had a 3-way point.

 

Certainly plenty of 3-way/tandem points on running lines where limitation of space was a factor. But to have two at a country branch line station. No, it just looks all wrong.

 

Better to rearrange the whole station with the passenger platform and runround parallel with the baseboard edge and the goods yard on the operating well side. This should also make it possible to lengthen the run round loop. The loco shed could also come off the runround filling the right-hand corner.

 

Back to the original question, signalling is simple: A home and a starter. Goods trains would arrive and depart from the platform road. One might want to signal the yet-to-be-used extension line. In that case, a home signal on each line and a bracket with two starters.

 

The bay platform signalling would depend on whether trains run into the bay or if they just start from it. Given how small the whole station is, I think that it would look much better if the "bay" is only used for parcels/cattle. 

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

Thank you for all your feedback. I'll play with the track plan when im not in lectures today. 

 

@Harlequin Thanks for the link, it looks like its just what i need, ill have a proper look when i have more free time this evening.

 

58 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Better to rearrange the whole station with the passenger platform and runround parallel with the baseboard edge and the goods yard on the operating well side. This should also make it possible to lengthen the run round loop. The loco shed could also come off the runround filling the right-hand corner.

 

Hi there , the second radius curve really dictates the whole layout , it forces my hand with the three way points as they save the length of a normal point. The Diagonal gives the longest station possible ( Pythagoras).

 

 

4 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

Something that might make more efficient use of the space and be very close to prototypical is a cut down version of Moretonhampstead. Have the cattle dock at the far end of the layout ("north" of the current goods shed) and the goods shed on the bay platform. The engine shed could kick back off the run around or even be eliminated completely  -imagine the loco shed is at the "junction" station and just have a water column at the terminus.

 

Cheers

David

 

I do like the idea of moretonhampstead, ill have a look at if the geometry fits later, however im unsure . i am certainly thinking of moving the cattle dock , and replacing the engine shed with a siding .

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

i really should do some uni work. 

 

How does this plan look, ill look at signals later, this arrangement only loses one wagon per goods sidning so it isnt too much of a sacrifice. The bay can be parcels or used by single units/ railcars that dont need to runnaround. 

 

The 'Future Modules' section is to allow me to swap from having the storage board behind the layout and move it to the end, so the layout can go on a shelf. this might also be used to add a nother few feet of scenic section before the storage if this layout does end up as a shelf layout in a few years. another option is to leave this point out, and just relay the flexi track inside the tunnel in a few years to change the layout into an end to end run.

 

 

for those who havent seen my  planning thread for this layout, this is how it fits ontop of a single bed.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Horsehay Railway Modeller

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Danemouth said:

I see the plan has no headshunt which means shunting will take place on the "main line" preventing a passenger train arriving whilst this takes place.

 

From a purely personal point of view this would be unsatisfactory to me.

 

Dave

But at the same time exactly like many (most?) small branch termini where the freight train would be dealt with during a lull in the passenger service. OR for even more operating fun there could be Mixed Trains to deal with the freight traffic.

 

40 minutes ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

 

How does this plan look, ill look at signals later, this arrangement only loses one wagon per goods sidning so it isnt too much of a sacrifice. The bay can be parcels or used by single units/ railcars that dont need to runnaround. 

 

The 'Future Modules' section is to allow me to swap from having the storage board behind the layout and move it to the end, so the layout can go on a shelf. this might also be used to add a nother few feet of scenic section before the storage if this layout does end up as a shelf layout in a few years. another option is to leave this point out, and just relay the flexi track inside the tunnel in a few years to change the layout into an end to end run.

 

 

for those who havent seen my  planning thread for this layout, this is how it fits ontop of a single bed.

 

 

 

This is a much better idea than the first plan.  For a start it also ensures that the runround road is trapped (which it should be and wasn't in the original).   I'm not over keen on the 3 way point but as already noted upthread examples did exist in cramped situations so you can explain it away.  Using the double slip is an excellent idea in a cramped situation although one prototype example I know in fact uses half a double slip being just a turnout at one end but a double slip at the other end in order to create the trapping.   A surviving example I know of was relaid in brand new flat bottom rail about 16/17  years ago.  In model form unless you are really into track building you could quite reasonably use an off-the-shelf double slip, great idea.

 

I'm not so sure about the junction on a bridge - very much a US idea  rather than UK outline although somebody will no doubt immediately wheel out an example.  But it does start to lead towards a forest of signals which will, I think, overpower, the visual simplicity of the layout.

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But at the same time exactly like many (most?) small branch termini where the freight train would be dealt with during a lull in the passenger service. OR for even more operating fun there could be Mixed Trains to deal with the freight traffic.

 

This is a much better idea than the first plan.  For a start it also ensures that the runround road is trapped (which it should be and wasn't in the original).   I'm not over keen on the 3 way point but as already noted upthread examples did exist in cramped situations so you can explain it away.  Using the double slip is an excellent idea in a cramped situation although one prototype example I know in fact uses half a double slip being just a turnout at one end but a double slip at the other end in order to create the trapping.   A surviving example I know of was relaid in brand new flat bottom rail about 16/17  years ago.  In model form unless you are really into track building you could quite reasonably use an off-the-shelf double slip, great idea.

 

I'm not so sure about the junction on a bridge - very much a US idea  rather than UK outline although somebody will no doubt immediately wheel out an example.  But it does start to lead towards a forest of signals which will, I think, overpower, the visual simplicity of the layout.

 

Thanks for the feedback mike. I'm now leaning towards removing the point on the bridge and when I graduate uni and get a little more space for an end to end shelf, Ill just lift and relay the curve so the layout can continue to the right.

 

 

[Harlequin]

Just a quick note: The 3-way turnout you are using is only available in Streamline Code 100. The Streamline Code 75 version is asymmetric.

 

[Horsehay Railway Modeller]

 

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Just a quick note: The 3-way turnout you are using is only available in Streamline Code 100. The Streamline Code 75 version is asymmetric.

 

cheers for the note, i was thinking of going for code 100 anyway as its a little more robust and im less likely to damage track when transporting and storing it. I'm not to bothered about the rail height either, my current (now doomed) uni shunting layout is code 75 and i think the added robustness outweighs the appearence. each to their own.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

i really should do some uni work. 

 

How does this plan look, ill look at signals later, this arrangement only loses one wagon per goods sidning so it isnt too much of a sacrifice. The bay can be parcels or used by single units/ railcars that dont need to runnaround. 

 

The 'Future Modules' section is to allow me to swap from having the storage board behind the layout and move it to the end, so the layout can go on a shelf. this might also be used to add a nother few feet of scenic section before the storage if this layout does end up as a shelf layout in a few years. another option is to leave this point out, and just relay the flexi track inside the tunnel in a few years to change the layout into an end to end run.

 

 

for those who havent seen my  planning thread for this layout, this is how it fits ontop of a single bed.

 

 

 

You' need a hole in the foot of the bed to reach the future modules 

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Horsehay Railway Modeller said:

Hi there , the second radius curve really dictates the whole layout , it forces my hand with the three way points as they save the length of a normal point. The Diagonal gives the longest station possible ( Pythagoras).

 

 

I am confused now (not unusual). If the 180 degree curve to the fiddleyard is 2nd radius, how wide is that gap. I know that young students are probably a bit thinner than me but.....

Perhaps we should have a bit more detail about the room that this is going in.

I used to find that doodling layouts was quite a good way to get through some lectures.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Grovenor]

I don't think Horsehay has ever suggested that he expects to fit on the bed with the layout!