Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Got some initial track testing running Drysllyn Castle and a good pair of GWR celestial coaches on the mainline track today. Checking widths track alignment and so on. 

 

DSC_0397.JPG.d6d723b5a6437e0698ebb7f7b6acc9b5.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by THS92-GWR-NO
Re-added photos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A bit of running in between construction is great for morale. Now I've been running trains I've gotten back a lot of motivation for construction.

 

Since my top end of the layout is to be a mountain quarry it was about time to get it started properly.

 

DSC_0404.JPG.1cfbf0b142f88e26bf9d15ca87db312c.JPG

 

DSC_0406.JPG.12960160cd8ebf5ef2340439e11e1493.JPG

 

Which reminds me that I need to get some tunnel portals soon. Next on my shopping plan. Though I am uncertain what style to choose... Any thoughts guys and gals?

 

DSC_0407.JPG.21e8aca221cd66efa3ccce7ee52fad74.JPG

 

Now I need to start painting :)

Edited by THS92-GWR-NO
Re-added photos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Further more the past few days saw me fixing more on the hill to the branch-line terminus.

 

DSC_0403.JPG.70f35f789ca5581a0692279247b91455.JPG

 

Bridge is from a Faller kit I bought a year ago before there were any "concrete" layout plans ;)

 

Ever since I started reading and seeing videos of layouts I'd been dreading the next topic. Grass... 

I started hearing people talking of static grass. Figuring that this could not possibly be doable at my level, I used a mat on the terminus. Not being satisfied with that, and seeing excellent videos of layouts like Yorkshire Dales Model Railway and Stoke Courtenay, I decided to try. 

 

On a quiet nightshift a couple weeks ago, I found Marklinofsweden on YouTube and his video here which got me thinking "this could be doable"...

 

So research started into what applicator should I choose. 

I found this video regarding selecting applicators 

 

 

So after consideration I ended with the Noch Grassmaster 3.0 (Also sold under Gaugemaster).

 

DSC_0409.JPG.8f64b8fa6a02d7f70d8dfb518c4bdbaf.JPG

 

And after a quick test, I was surprised as to how easy it handles when I took it for a test

 

DSC_0408.JPG.7c92b9263f920086878f45f515ec9cc0.JPG

 

Why did I dread doing static grass?

Edited by THS92-GWR-NO
Re-added photos
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Need some advice on positioning of a signal. 

Normally all signals would be placed on the left in direction of travel shown below.

 

_20211003_161648.JPG.16505aaa8ffc6a122fc73bfdcdad768a.JPG

 

In this photo you see the end of my main station, with a small goods fiddle yard, travel to single line branch, single line mainline and furthest to the right the sheds. 

 

Signal placed is to protect the point going mainline or sheds.

 

I will be placing a similar one to protect the point going to the branch and mainline to the left of the signal in the photo.

 

Should the junction signal be placed to the right at the end of the platform instead as there will be a similar signal on the other line same direction?

 

641952864_GWRdivTroms01.png.9612434db1c9eb33a43279808b116634.png.5437289e6e2d62ebabc866230ac4644e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Thomas, when you present a layout plan here and show lots of construction taking place, you bypass what might have been quite a lot of suggestions for the track plan, as showing buildings etc suggests its too late for changes.

 

Then the problem comes when you ask about signalling, because its hard to signal correctly something that wouldnt exist in a real railway. But I hope somebody will just give you the correct positions as it is, as far as is possible.

 

Celestial coaches, I love it

Edited by RobinofLoxley
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Hello Thomas, when you present a layout plan here and show lots of construction taking place, you bypass what might have been quite a lot of suggestions for the track plan, as showing buildings etc suggests its too late for changes.

 

Then the problem comes when you ask about signalling, because its hard to signal correctly something that wouldnt exist in a real railway. But I hope somebody will just give you the correct positions as it is, as far as is possible.

 

Celestial coaches, I love it

 

Hi Robin 

 

The only construction that affects anything has been on the branch terminus, which already has the only signal it is going to have. 

As for the main the only building that isn't moving is the engine shed in the top left corner on the plan. Most can be changed still :)

 

If you have any ideas, feel free to come with them :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Hello Thomas, when you present a layout plan here and show lots of construction taking place, you bypass what might have been quite a lot of suggestions for the track plan, as showing buildings etc suggests its too late for changes.

 

Then the problem comes when you ask about signalling, because its hard to signal correctly something that wouldn't exist in a real railway. But I hope somebody will just give you the correct positions as it is, as far as is possible.

 

As @RobinofLoxley has intimated, the real signalling experts are unlikely to comment, as there are quite a few things that probably would not occur on the real thing. I am not an expert on signalling, but, as they say, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", so I'll try to make a few, possibly, helpful suggestions.

I notice from your video that there is a scissors crossover in the bottom left corner, where the harbour branch leads off.  Is this staying? If it is, it is a better solution than  your current plan shows, as the double track mainline will serve both platforms before singling, but it means several changes to the signalling plan in that area.

If the scissors are staying, the crossover to the right of the platforms becomes a bit redundant, and should really be turned so that it is trailing.

Regarding the station platforms, the curved end ramps are a toy train feature - in real life the edge of the platform would run parallel with the nearest rail, for safety.

The location of signals depended on many factors, including visibility.  In general they tended to be to the left of the running track they referred to, but could, in reality, be almost anywhere that suited. I believe the GWR was a right-hand drive line, which meant that they often favoured signals on the right side of tracks, where that gave the best sighting. One position that was not common was in the six-foot space between pairs of running tracks, at the standard spacing, as the post would present a potential obstruction. However, they could appear in the ten-foot space between pairs of running tracks, or between sidings and the main line, and, on parts of the Great Western, as a legacy of the Broad Gauge, there might be enough space to squeeze a post in between the tracks.  In some instances the tracks were moved apart to avoid a signal or other installation in the centre of the tracks, but only if absolutely necessary.

On junction signals like those under discussion, the protocol generally was that the highest doll/post referred to the main line, and the lower doll(s) would control any 'branch' line, working from left to right. So, the post under discussion, controlling the access to the engine shed, is roughly correct, as in your photo (but not in your drawing), although I suspect it would have smaller shunting-type arms, at least for the shed line, as the movements are not likely to be running moves, although you may be thinking of terminating services at the upper platform, and then running them in reverse past this signal. I also think it would be placed at the end of the upper platform, or even in the middle of the ramp, a position I would also suggest for the main starters on the other, lower, platform.

Unless you intend to run both of the parallel mainline tracks as bi-directional, very unusual in the days of steam and on a line which is partly single track anyway, there is probably too much signalling around the crossover and level crossing top right, with several of the running line signals replaced by ground shunting signals, and the level crossing would be protected by having the lower junction signal moved to its right.

 

I'm pretty sure my comments will flush out a few signalling experts out of the undergrowth to point out the many errors of my ways.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

As @RobinofLoxley has intimated, the real signalling experts are unlikely to comment, as there are quite a few things that probably would not occur on the real thing. I am not an expert on signalling, but, as they say, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", so I'll try to make a few, possibly, helpful suggestions.

I notice from your video that there is a scissors crossover in the bottom left corner, where the harbour branch leads off.  Is this staying? If it is, it is a better solution than  your current plan shows, as the double track mainline will serve both platforms before singling, but it means several changes to the signalling plan in that area.

If the scissors are staying, the crossover to the right of the platforms becomes a bit redundant, and should really be turned so that it is trailing.

Regarding the station platforms, the curved end ramps are a toy train feature - in real life the edge of the platform would run parallel with the nearest rail, for safety.

The location of signals depended on many factors, including visibility.  In general they tended to be to the left of the running track they referred to, but could, in reality, be almost anywhere that suited. I believe the GWR was a right-hand drive line, which meant that they often favoured signals on the right side of tracks, where that gave the best sighting. One position that was not common was in the six-foot space between pairs of running tracks, at the standard spacing, as the post would present a potential obstruction. However, they could appear in the ten-foot space between pairs of running tracks, or between sidings and the main line, and, on parts of the Great Western, as a legacy of the Broad Gauge, there might be enough space to squeeze a post in between the tracks.  In some instances the tracks were moved apart to avoid a signal or other installation in the centre of the tracks, but only if absolutely necessary.

On junction signals like those under discussion, the protocol generally was that the highest doll/post referred to the main line, and the lower doll(s) would control any 'branch' line, working from left to right. So, the post under discussion, controlling the access to the engine shed, is roughly correct, as in your photo (but not in your drawing), although I suspect it would have smaller shunting-type arms, at least for the shed line, as the movements are not likely to be running moves, although you may be thinking of terminating services at the upper platform, and then running them in reverse past this signal. I also think it would be placed at the end of the upper platform, or even in the middle of the ramp, a position I would also suggest for the main starters on the other, lower, platform.

Unless you intend to run both of the parallel mainline tracks as bi-directional, very unusual in the days of steam and on a line which is partly single track anyway, there is probably too much signalling around the crossover and level crossing top right, with several of the running line signals replaced by ground shunting signals, and the level crossing would be protected by having the lower junction signal moved to its right.

 

I'm pretty sure my comments will flush out a few signalling experts out of the undergrowth to point out the many errors of my ways.

 

Hey Nick! Thank you for these good questions and comments.

 

Well, to start with your last question, I intended to run bi-directional on all tracks. Has also a bit to do with me being in Norway so that I could run Norwegian stock on the right side and still have signals as well as the lower platform being the one that serves services to the branch. So basically the lower would serve goods and branch.

 

Platform is only temporary. I used it on the branch initially too to get started before I found better stuff.

 

Scissors are staying, only discovered after the initial plan was made, and can't find any to put into the software for an updated version.

 

Do you know of any working signals with shorter arms?

 

When I created this plan, I had never heard of shunting signals (having read a bit more since creating this initially)

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

Hey Nick! Thank you for these good questions and comments.

 

Well, to start with your last question, I intended to run bi-directional on all tracks. Has also a bit to do with me being in Norway so that I could run Norwegian stock on the right side and still have signals as well as the lower platform being the one that serves services to the branch. So basically the lower would serve goods and branch.

 

Do you know of any working signals with shorter arms?

 

 

When I created this plan, I had never heard of shunting signals (having read a bit more since creating this initially)

The Norway side of things will make the experts twitchy! 

As for working signals, I don't think any come ready-made with anything other than standard arms.  I don't know anything about the ones you have (Dapol?) but it might be fairly easy to shorten an arm suitably. Or you might source some etched arms from Wizard or Scalelinkfretcetera which might be compatible with the Dapol design, or shorten an arm from the Ration signal kits and replace the one on the RTP signal.

There was an excellent thread on RMweb about 10 years ago, I think, regarding the placement of GWR signals, which went into a lot of detail regarding different types of signal and their various functions. I found it on a Google search!

Edited by Nick Holliday
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

(I wrote this about 10 hours ago....)

 

Thanks Nick for starting the signals thing going.

 

Thomas, I'm a bit suprised (despite what I said above) that some of the regulars here with an interest in layout planning like myelf haven't commented. Generally I prefer to ask questions about how the layout will operate so that the designer makes their own decisions, but some people are quite happy to get a complete re-design, which can be the outcome.

 

If we start at the top, I dont quite know what has happened in drafting the plan but you have lost gauge (tracks not parallel) through the station which is going to look very odd at certain angles as the platforms will appear to converge. It may be a consequence of choosing Y-points at one end and handed points at the other, Im not sure.

 

The MPD zone top left might well have a headshunt (another point facing the opposite direction, set so that operations can take place without risking something going onto the main track).

 

Just a question this, the track piece showing at the end of the branch line section is very short - just enough for a tank loco. Thats intentional?  You would never be able to shunt a full length loco on it but it is an easy fix.

 

Then comes the question of what I guess is to be a good yard, highlighted light green on the plan. For me, there is too much track there, and not all of it is useful. Its a point often made that its easy to get 'busy' with track when drawing on Anyrail. I would draft a variation with the uppermost light green track removed and the associated pointwork (all four on the left hand side). This will work much better as a shunting section, but is still possible to improve. The same loss of gauge occurred there too.

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

(I wrote this about 10 hours ago....)

 

Thanks Nick for starting the signals thing going.

 

Thomas, I'm a bit suprised (despite what I said above) that some of the regulars here with an interest in layout planning like myelf haven't commented. Generally I prefer to ask questions about how the layout will operate so that the designer makes their own decisions, but some people are quite happy to get a complete re-design, which can be the outcome.

 

If we start at the top, I dont quite know what has happened in drafting the plan but you have lost gauge (tracks not parallel) through the station which is going to look very odd at certain angles as the platforms will appear to converge. It may be a consequence of choosing Y-points at one end and handed points at the other, Im not sure.

 

The MPD zone top left might well have a headshunt (another point facing the opposite direction, set so that operations can take place without risking something going onto the main track).

 

Just a question this, the track piece showing at the end of the branch line section is very short - just enough for a tank loco. Thats intentional?  You would never be able to shunt a full length loco on it but it is an easy fix.

 

Then comes the question of what I guess is to be a good yard, highlighted light green on the plan. For me, there is too much track there, and not all of it is useful. Its a point often made that its easy to get 'busy' with track when drawing on Anyrail. I would draft a variation with the uppermost light green track removed and the associated pointwork (all four on the left hand side). This will work much better as a shunting section, but is still possible to improve. The same loss of gauge occurred there too.

Hey Robin, thanks for getting back to me here with good comments and questions :)

 

I'd heard that too straight lines weren't really realistic, so I've used more flexible track than I normally would. Have had some issues with getting curves good enough for larger locos and stock, but as I've now finally found myself a viaduct, that part of the mainline will need redesigning, which might make getting another entrance to the MPD area. Thanks for the tip :)

 

The branch is designed for tank locos, so intentionally. Had to do with the board size I started with, and the branch terminus is designed so it can be moved and brought to exhibitions (if I ever get to one).

 

As for the yard, I was thinking it might be sensible to make it possible to use in both directions. Rakes on my layout will be short so I was figuring it would make it possible to store and use 4 rakes at least. I won't have any fiddle yard out of sight, so would need to lift stock off the rails of not enough sidings are available. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated here

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This weekend has been full of night shifts, which has been so calm that I ended up thinking about locomotives and stock.

After way too many hours of looking over "Mouldy Raspberry's Yorkshire Dales Model Railway" on YouTube, 've realised that I absolutely want something else than standard tension locks on my layout. 

 

With this in mind, last night ended up going through various sites looking for a good coupler. Reading and looking at various solutions for Kadees I've really grown facinated by its many configurations and the opportunities it gives. 

 

Thinking Kadees as a primary, then maybe hunts or shapeways threelink for stock not changing. 

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/8X963ZBED/nem-oo-3-link-couplings-sample-set?optionId=63280468&li=marketplace 

 

Any thoughts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi all 

 

So I updated the current trackplan. 

 

Any comments, please feel free to come with them. 

 

Signalling is also something I'd like feedback on :)

 

1210733592_GWRdivTromsv2.jpg.348a8039414c1e5a2461248ee7be00d5.jpg

Edited by THS92-GWR-NO
Re-added photos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In fact it is relatively easy to signal that layout although the trackplan does include a couple of potentially awkward glitches but they might not be insoluble.

 

I shall call the stations Top, Middle and Bottom and refer to the latest trackplan immediately above.  First question is whether the apparently double track section on the right hand (r.h.) end between Top and Bottom is meant to be double line or two parallel single lines.  Double line would be more likely for an 'earlier' (i.e. steam) era layout.    

If it is double line then we have a facing crossover at the level crossing (rh) end of Top which isn't needed and shouldn't be there but could, ideally, be a trailing crossover.  However the fact that it is a facing crossover isn't the end of the world and it can still be signalled.  

Similarly the arrangement of crossovers at Bottom - where we go from double to single line is slightly excessive and the facing crossover at the r.h. end - by the level crossing - isn't needed but it could reasonably be a trailing crossover.

At both stations the layout with these two facing crossovers is far more 'continental practice' than British practice - perhaps understandable for a layout built in Norway.

 

The extensive sidings at Top might be a bit awkward to use but at least they effectively have trap points which is a darned sight more realistic than many layouts we see on RMweb, But the loco siding isn't trapped and the quarry siding at Bottom also isn't trapped and both need to be.

 

Middle is perfectly ok as the layout stands although, again, there isn't a trap point where the loop rejoins the platform line.

 

Apart from the above (and even including them if there is no alternative) the layout can readily be signalled the only potential problem being a forest of signals because of the compressed distances and some otherwise unnecessary ground discs to take account of those facing crossovers.  there is - even within the layout as it stands - some potential to simplify the signalling and still keep it looking fairly realistic.  The earlier drawing with the added signals can in fact get us part way towards that

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

In fact it is relatively easy to signal that layout although the trackplan does include a couple of potentially awkward glitches but they might not be insoluble.

 

I shall call the stations Top, Middle and Bottom and refer to the latest trackplan immediately above.  First question is whether the apparently double track section on the right hand (r.h.) end between Top and Bottom is meant to be double line or two parallel single lines.  Double line would be more likely for an 'earlier' (i.e. steam) era layout.    

If it is double line then we have a facing crossover at the level crossing (rh) end of Top which isn't needed and shouldn't be there but could, ideally, be a trailing crossover.  However the fact that it is a facing crossover isn't the end of the world and it can still be signalled.  

Similarly the arrangement of crossovers at Bottom - where we go from double to single line is slightly excessive and the facing crossover at the r.h. end - by the level crossing - isn't needed but it could reasonably be a trailing crossover.

At both stations the layout with these two facing crossovers is far more 'continental practice' than British practice - perhaps understandable for a layout built in Norway.

 

The extensive sidings at Top might be a bit awkward to use but at least they effectively have trap points which is a darned sight more realistic than many layouts we see on RMweb, But the loco siding isn't trapped and the quarry siding at Bottom also isn't trapped and both need to be.

 

Middle is perfectly ok as the layout stands although, again, there isn't a trap point where the loop rejoins the platform line.

 

Apart from the above (and even including them if there is no alternative) the layout can readily be signalled the only potential problem being a forest of signals because of the compressed distances and some otherwise unnecessary ground discs to take account of those facing crossovers.  there is - even within the layout as it stands - some potential to simplify the signalling and still keep it looking fairly realistic.  The earlier drawing with the added signals can in fact get us part way towards that

 

Hi Stationmaster! 

I'm so gratefull you could share your expertise with me. 

 

To answer your questions in order:

*The layout is meant to be double line through the tunnel and to the stations, where you have the down on each going to the Harbour (bottom siding) and the branch (top station) 

*I made the stations with the intent that one could run around trains and make for some interesting shunting opportunities. 

*The thought was also that a train from the harbour could easely cross over to the mainline up at the bottom station, and when comming to the top station could continue to the branch terminus with a goods for instance. 

 

I have a slight problem understanding what you mean with facing and trailing - could you give me a reference point? 

 

*The yard at the top was designed so that it could be used in both directions, and for maximum stock storage capacity (fictive design) 

 

Do you have a suggestion for how to create traps? 

 

Got any recommendations for improving the layout trackplan? 

 

The initial plan I made with signals was based on only using full semaphore signals, but I did try to use home and starter signals and divide to blocks where appropriate. 

 

After getting through a bit on your impressive lection in "GWR signals and where they go" I see that a setup with stop signals, fixed distants, ground discs and maybe a couple shunt ahead signals are appropriate? I've decided to use Dapol motorized for stop signals in general. 

 

I have been considering doing a full double line circle, but I sort of want the single as a scenic part of the design - after seeing a lot of good examples on other (including Stoke Cortenay and Yorkshire Dales) 

 

The layout itself is about 1,5 meters by 3,5 meters

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

Hi Stationmaster! 

I'm so gratefull you could share your expertise with me. 

 

To answer your questions in order:

*The layout is meant to be double line through the tunnel and to the stations, where you have the down on each going to the Harbour (bottom siding) and the branch (top station) 

*I made the stations with the intent that one could run around trains and make for some interesting shunting opportunities. 

*The thought was also that a train from the harbour could easely cross over to the mainline up at the bottom station, and when comming to the top station could continue to the branch terminus with a goods for instance. 

 

I have a slight problem understanding what you mean with facing and trailing - could you give me a reference point? 

A facing point is one where a train using a line in the right direction has a choice of routes through the point.  A trailing point is where a line going in the right direction is joined by another line.  Don't forget that we have left hand running in Britain.   In traditional British track layouts in britain facing points were uncommon and wereofficially frowned on thus they would only be for und at termin and junctions and on single lines.

23 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

*The yard at the top was designed so that it could be used in both directions, and for maximum stock storage capacity (fictive design) 

 

Do you have a suggestion for how to create traps? 

This can be done very simply by fixing a single piece of shaped rail onto the edge of teh existing track in the right plac e - the right place being far enough back to ensure that something which derails at the trap goes onto the ground clear of the line the siding is joining - look for pictires of Bodmin engine shed on the 'net.  St Enodic has madea working one on. part of his layoi ut but a non-working dummy is perfectly ok.

23 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

Got any recommendations for improving the layout trackplan? 

Get rid of the two facing crossovers and ideally make them trailing crossovers (i.e instead of using two right hand points replace them with two left hand points)

23 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

The initial plan I made with signals was based on only using full semaphore signals, but I did try to use home and starter signals and divide to blocks where appropriate. 

 

After getting through a bit on your impressive lection in "GWR signals and where they go" I see that a setup with stop signals, fixed distants, ground discs and maybe a couple shunt ahead signals are appropriate? I've decided to use Dapol motorized for stop signals in general. 

Perfectly ok to go that way.  what I would do for simplicity is use the Ratio kit for GWR ground signals (non0-working) where you need ground discs - an easy way to cover that area.  You can use the Raytion working signals with their kit or the Peco servo system or Dapol signals for the running signals 

23 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

I have been considering doing a full double line circle, but I sort of want the single as a scenic part of the design - after seeing a lot of good examples on other (including Stoke Cortenay and Yorkshire Dales) 

 

The layout itself is about 1,5 meters by 3,5 meters

I think your mix of single and double line is perfectly ok and will in fact make the layout look a better larger because it is a single line at one end in the space you have available.

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

A facing point is one where a train using a line in the right direction has a choice of routes through the point.  A trailing point is where a line going in the right direction is joined by another line.  Don't forget that we have left hand running in Britain.   In traditional British track layouts in britain facing points were uncommon and wereofficially frowned on thus they would only be for und at termin and junctions and on single lines.

This can be done very simply by fixing a single piece of shaped rail onto the edge of teh existing track in the right plac e - the right place being far enough back to ensure that something which derails at the trap goes onto the ground clear of the line the siding is joining - look for pictires of Bodmin engine shed on the 'net.  St Enodic has madea working one on. part of his layoi ut but a non-working dummy is perfectly ok.

Get rid of the two facing crossovers and ideally make them trailing crossovers (i.e instead of using two right hand points replace them with two left hand points)

Perfectly ok to go that way.  what I would do for simplicity is use the Ratio kit for GWR ground signals (non0-working) where you need ground discs - an easy way to cover that area.  You can use the Raytion working signals with their kit or the Peco servo system or Dapol signals for the running signals 

I think your mix of single and double line is perfectly ok and will in fact make the layout look a better larger because it is a single line at one end in the space you have available.

 

Great, thanks!

 

So would you place ground discs at all points? :scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

Great, thanks!

 

So would you place ground discs at all points? :scratchhead:

No.  Ground discs would be placed at the points an exit from a siding omnt the main lines and at crossovers or connections from the main lines where where there isn't a semaphore signal for the movement.  Try putting some signalling in again on your latest version of the plan and give the signals numbers if there is room then we vcan see if you're getting the idea of how it would be done. 

 

From your earlier post yu seem to have already understood that principle of British signalling is very different from Norwegian signalling (which is based on the principles used in Germany)

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

No.  Ground discs would be placed at the points an exit from a siding omnt the main lines and at crossovers or connections from the main lines where where there isn't a semaphore signal for the movement.  Try putting some signalling in again on your latest version of the plan and give the signals numbers if there is room then we vcan see if you're getting the idea of how it would be done. 

 

From your earlier post yu seem to have already understood that principle of British signalling is very different from Norwegian signalling (which is based on the principles used in Germany)

Will do tomorrow :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Greetings - so a few days overdue due to an immense workload and overload

 

But here signals v.1.1. Either I've managed the system fairly well, or I have gone completely crazy :help:

 

Single semaphore used where needed, double also indicates junction signals and the small lights are to indicate ground signals (which I may have gone crazy with on the branch at least) 

 

1500220208_GWRdivTromsv2signalv1.1.jpg.1471c62c00dad5a1aff918e3af135185.jpg

Edited by THS92-GWR-NO
Re-added photos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

Been a long time since I posted here last. Christmas got me busy in real life. 

 

Now things has happened though.

DSC_0646.JPG.61f7097801d8028b152e30ff9f841063.JPG

 

DSC_0647.JPG.2d259142f664cb7f8280e8b1a4d02efd.JPG

Two new locomotives has arrived - sound fitted Caledonian Railways 812 in as built and BR late. 

 

Also I finally managed to make my decision on the viaduct and slope to the branch line. 

 

DSC_0648.JPG.c4b856b363909ad096919c2d141e360e.JPG

 

DSC_0649.JPG.47e5fb76a924f0fe793ac325fe185efc.JPG

 

Also gotten to try the rail aligners from Model Tech.

DSC_0650.JPG.672acb87d1fe5e656f46a650312c6821.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Gold

Thomas,

 

At  last I have had a good chance to look at it really closely.  

Now my main point is that you seem to have over complicated things for reasons which are still far from clear to me.  

 

1. I would make the double line at the east end  exactly that - a double line with ordinary left hand running as running it as two parallel single lines effectively delivers nothing extra that I can see.  you therefore dispense with S157 (which would become a ground level shunting signal instead) and S256 ( (which would also become a ground level shunting signal instead).  The same goes for S253 and S254, again replaced by shunting signals.  S251 would become a straight post signal instead of a splitting signal.

 

2.  The main station needs a few immediate changes plus one or two questions - the most important of the latter being is the platform loop going to be used for passenger (the signals imply that it probably won't be)?   And do you really need both of the other platforms for trains in more than one direction?   Your answer on these questions will affect the signals you need so I'll ignore those areas for now.

 

3.  There is a need to correct the signalling for the engine sidings -3a, 

3a. M2 is in the wrong place and needs to be at the toe end of the point which leads to the turntable.

3b. M4 isn't needed at all

3c.  There will be change needed to S154 but that also depends on your answer to the questions.

 

Hope that is all clear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

Hi all - I'm back. 

Private life really got in my way - and I had a serious motivation problem. 

 

Have spent the past week looking at Hornby Magazine videos - Building GCR and Topley Dale.

Found a lot of my basic design flaws which has given me grief on the removable section I've built with the viaduct and the branchline. Primarily doing with track alignment as I placed track directly on foam - without a solid surface. 

 

So here is what is happening: 

A) I've been spending the past few days redesigning the removable section (single mainline and branchline) to make track alignment possible. 

B) Mainline and sidings have been getting new PECO flexitrack - now that I have a tool for cutting track easy, it's been a breeze. 

C) Have gotten new points (well, used track, facebook buy and sell is a gold mine) to supplement and get the right directions on the points

D) Points have been replanned around station one to reflect changes mentioned further up in this thread and a few design issues when I added track to the board. 

E) Construction has started on a GWR Didcot coaling stage. 

 

With that -  I'm back on track (pun intended ;) )

 

Mike - here is my answers - sorry it took so long. 

 

1) I concur - S1S7 is removed. S5S6 controls the branchline junction - so that will need to remain as far as I see. The branchline goods for instance comes into the main station lower platform, and goes over the revised points for the double mainline heading for the harbour (H1 area) on the lower platform at station two. 

 

If a goods train from station two goes comes from the west into station one and is destined for the sidings they will need to pass S1S1 signal - so I think it needs to remain a splitting signal? 

 

2) I imagene that the lower platform on Station one will need to be working in both directions as it serves both directions with the branchline junction., similar, if a branchline train is at that platform, the other platform will need to be unidirectional too. 

 

3A) I was thinking M2 would protect the unidirectional access to the mainline from the shed section? 

3B) Should there not be a ground signal indicating the three way split? 

 

Photos to come :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

 

Mike - here is my answers - sorry it took so long. 

 

1) I concur - S1S7 is removed. S5S6 controls the branchline junction - so that will need to remain as far as I see. The branchline goods for instance comes into the main station lower platform, and goes over the revised points for the double mainline heading for the harbour (H1 area) on the lower platform at station two. 

Not needed   Surely the branch line goods comes into the top station and runs wrong line through the plartforms to regain the correct line through the crossover by the level crossing now that the east end  is ordinary doube track.

 

13 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

 

If a goods train from station two goes comes from the west into station one and is destined for the sidings they will need to pass S1S1 signal - so I think it needs to remain a splitting signal? 

 No just adda ground disc - as it should be for such a move at S151

2) I imagene that the lower platform on Station one will need to be working in both directions as it serves both directions with the branchline junction., similar, if a branchline train is at that platform, the other platform will need to be unidirectional too. 

The branch line train will only arrive and depart at one end while trains will only enter the platform, from the east, at the other end BUT if it is going to be a passenger line then several additional signals are needed - one at each end of it plus grounds signals reading from the sidings to it.

 

3A) I was thinking M2 would protect the unidirectional access to the mainline from the shed section? 

It doesn't in that position - it needs to be at the far end of the yard point leading towards the single line

13 hours ago, THS92-GWR-NO said:

3B) Should there not be a ground signal indicating the three way split? 

 

Photos to come :) 

No, it's  handpoints not worked by the signal box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not needed   Surely the branch line goods comes into the top station and runs wrong line through the plartforms to regain the correct line through the crossover by the level crossing now that the east end  is ordinary doube track.

 

It doesn't in that position - it needs to be at the far end of the yard point leading towards the single line

No, it's  handpoints not worked by the signal box.

Okay, making a new mock-up and posting the revised signalling here in the morning :)

 

Really appreciate your feedback 😃

  • 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...