Jump to content
Non-Gold users will see a video pop-up ad on most screens. This is a test. It should not appear on mobiles etc. ×

Signalling help requested - not real location - suggestions and advice welcome LNER 1938


Recommended Posts

Dear All,

 

Your comments and advice welcome on the attached track plan.  It is a station on the non-existent extension of the GNR's Stafford and Uttoxeter Railway to Market Drayton, herewith The Market Drayton and Eccelshall Extension Railway [The MDEER]  (A GWR and GNR joint venture). Running from Stafford Common Junction to Market Drayton.

 

The track was laid quite some time ago (probably 8 years), and was loosely inspired by Winchester, Fairford and a number of GNR lines.

 

The trackplan has a number of deficiencies: the positioning of the Junction is unfortunate, effectively truncating platform two, and at some point platform one has been extended North to accommodate excursion traffic.  The Junction does not comply with BoT current requirements.  However I am unwilling to change it at this point as it is all wired in.  I have not drawn the yards and canal details on the plan.

 

On the signalling diagram below there are also a number of deficiencies.  I have not included any distant signals as they are assumed off table.  The numbering of signals and points follows no proper pattern and omits the distants.  The plan is not to scale, and is actually thinner and wider.

 

The double track is run on the absolute block system with (assumed) 3 position instruments.  The branch on the Electric Token system (there is a full branch and station not shown).

There are less than 24 trains per day each way on the main, and half that on the branch.  I suppose in LMS terms it would be class 3 rail.

 

There is trip working up and down the branch and passenger services.  There is a mix of freight and passenger, including express trains passing along the main.  There are a few trains which run down the branch and onto the up main, and some limited traffic from the up main to the branch.  The East yard is served only by Up trains, The canal docks and yard only by down trains.  Wagons are moved between the two yards as required by a station pilot, but in general they handle different traffic, and it is often easier to take the wagons to the end of the line and bring them back on the next train.  A shunting horse is available at the East Yard.

 

I have put the junction signal as the Down Home since only the shortest passenger trains could use Platform Two anyway even if the Junction signal was placed as close to the points as possible allowing for clearance bars, FPL bars etc.   It is well within the recommended GNR maximum of 200 yards from the points. The volume of traffic means trains are not accepted under Warning, and likewise whilst up passenger trains will foul the junction, junction traffic is light.

 

I have tried to minimise the number of signals, especially shunt signals, but also tried to consider frequent workings which you would expect to be signaled by fixed signals.

 

Your comments welcome.

 

001.jpg.c4e17ded1632966080391633c9315866.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ColHut said:

Dear All,

 

Your comments and advice welcome on the attached track plan.  It is a station on the non-existent extension of the GNR's Stafford and Uttoxeter Railway to Market Drayton, herewith The Market Drayton and Eccelshall Extension Railway [The MDEER]  (A GWR and GNR joint venture). Running from Stafford Common Junction to Market Drayton.

 

The track was laid quite some time ago (probably 8 years), and was loosely inspired by Winchester, Fairford and a number of GNR lines.

 

The trackplan has a number of deficiencies: the positioning of the Junction is unfortunate, effectively truncating platform two, and at some point platform one has been extended North to accommodate excursion traffic.  The Junction does not comply with BoT current requirements.  However I am unwilling to change it at this point as it is all wired in.  I have not drawn the yards and canal details on the plan.

 

On the signalling diagram below there are also a number of deficiencies.  I have not included any distant signals as they are assumed off table.  The numbering of signals and points follows no proper pattern and omits the distants.  The plan is not to scale, and is actually thinner and wider.

 

The double track is run on the absolute block system with (assumed) 3 position instruments.  The branch on the Electric Token system (there is a full branch and station not shown).

There are less than 24 trains per day each way on the main, and half that on the branch.  I suppose in LMS terms it would be class 3 rail.

 

There is trip working up and down the branch and passenger services.  There is a mix of freight and passenger, including express trains passing along the main.  There are a few trains which run down the branch and onto the up main, and some limited traffic from the up main to the branch.  The East yard is served only by Up trains, The canal docks and yard only by down trains.  Wagons are moved between the two yards as required by a station pilot, but in general they handle different traffic, and it is often easier to take the wagons to the end of the line and bring them back on the next train.  A shunting horse is available at the East Yard.

 

I have put the junction signal as the Down Home since only the shortest passenger trains could use Platform Two anyway even if the Junction signal was placed as close to the points as possible allowing for clearance bars, FPL bars etc.   It is well within the recommended GNR maximum of 200 yards from the points. The volume of traffic means trains are not accepted under Warning, and likewise whilst up passenger trains will foul the junction, junction traffic is light.

 

I have tried to minimise the number of signals, especially shunt signals, but also tried to consider frequent workings which you would expect to be signaled by fixed signals.

 

Your comments welcome.

 

001.jpg.c4e17ded1632966080391633c9315866.jpg

Operationally, wouldit be better to place signals 1, 2 and 3 at the north end of platform 2?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iands said:

Operationally, wouldit be better to place signals 1, 2 and 3 at the north end of platform 2?

Thankyou iands.

 

Only if I have really short trains that can use the platform, unfortunately including an engine, space in rear of the points for fpl bars, and avoiding fouling potential traffic on the  the toe of the up main points at 10, I think I get just under 3 coaches and engine.  So maybe not worth it.  I would need  a small gantry to carry the signals over the line there too but that could be done.  So I suppose in most/many  cases 3 would have to cleared to fully access the platform anyway and the junction fouled and that seemed little gain.  Certainly an option though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still move it, and you wouldn't need the call on if the signal is moved.

Double slip on the Main seems improbable, and I'm not sure about the normal lie/pulling sequence for the two slips - looks wrong.

I suspect the main route from branch would be to platform 3 rather than the Main or at least equal height arms.  

 

Doesn't look as though you have enough length on headshunt to get anything into the rightmost siding on the Down side.

The position of the main crossovers in the middle of the station is the reason you are length restricted in Plaltform 2 and it also means oonly run round the shortest of trains in both platforms 1 &2 also.

 

You haven't shown the location of the box - I would expect it to be close to 22/23 signals.

The taper to left hand end of platform seems a bit odd, unless you were planning to have a track from Down main to Platform 3 there, but that case the signal there makes perfect sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I would still move it, and you wouldn't need the call on if the signal is moved.

Double slip on the Main seems improbable, and I'm not sure about the normal lie/pulling sequence for the two slips - looks wrong.

I suspect the main route from branch would be to platform 3 rather than the Main or at least equal height arms.  

 

Doesn't look as though you have enough length on headshunt to get anything into the rightmost siding on the Down side.

The position of the main crossovers in the middle of the station is the reason you are length restricted in Plaltform 2 and it also means oonly run round the shortest of trains in both platforms 1 &2 also.

 

You haven't shown the location of the box - I would expect it to be close to 22/23 signals.

The taper to left hand end of platform seems a bit odd, unless you were planning to have a track from Down main to Platform 3 there, but that case the signal there makes perfect sense.

Thankyou Michael,

 

1 is the siding signal reading to the west sidings not a calling on signal, should have made that clear.

 

Yes, the double slip is improbable.

 

Good thought on the branch junction signal, I just assumed the most important would be to the main, but most common would be to platform 3, thankyou.

 

The headshunt is much longer on the table so that one is all good.

 

The crossover I think is not much of an issue, but it does serve to allow moving a couple of eagons from the East to West sidings.  I nearly just assumed it was worked by a GF locked from the signal box.

 

Whoops, signal box about where 23 is.

 

Thankyou

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ColHut said:

The crossover I think is not much of an issue, but it does serve to allow moving a couple of eagons from the East to West sidings.  

 

Why do you need an additional crossover for that?  Don't points 12 provide a route between the yards?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Grovenor said:

For passenger moves, branch to main, you are missing an FPL on 10.

Well spotted, thankyou.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Why do you need an additional crossover for that?  Don't points 12 provide a route between the yards?

Thankyou, I don’t really need them, they are too hard to get out with the platforms glued in and track wired in.  It does allow me to run around on the main with a wagon or three to shunt between the yards more easilly.   I could just have them controlled by a GF locked by the box for use only as required under verbal instructions from the signalman...

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I agree with iands regarding 1/2/3 - if you don't move you will either need an impossiobly long facing point locking bar or a track circuit between the signal and the point toe (and I doubt there'd be a track circuit in this location).

 

The relative lie of the double slips needs sorting out but as the numbering makes sense it might just be the way the sketch looks to my eyes.

 

The relative elevation of 22/23 is correct - the elevation relates to the relative importance of the routes in advance of the signal and usually the connection to a main running line tends to be the most important (unless the GNR did that differently from other?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I agree with iands regarding 1/2/3 - if you don't move you will either need an impossiobly long facing point locking bar or a track circuit between the signal and the point toe (and I doubt there'd be a track circuit in this location).

 

The relative lie of the double slips needs sorting out but as the numbering makes sense it might just be the way the sketch looks to my eyes.

 

The relative elevation of 22/23 is correct - the elevation relates to the relative importance of the routes in advance of the signal and usually the connection to a main running line tends to be the most important (unless the GNR did that differently from other?)

Thankyou Mike,

 

I see your point.  Looking at various track plans many use track circuit where there is a considerable length between junction signal and points.  Bollo Lane had interlaced track .  Still others do seem some distance without much protection, Chesterton is on such odd place https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 700 Mablethorpe another https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 378 .

 

Would you hazard a guess why these might not have such protection?  Perhaps to do with the signal box locations?  Just curious.

 

I seem to struggle with drawing the slips correctly, the numbers yes are a better guide.

 

Thankyou.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, ColHut said:

Thankyou Mike,

 

I see your point.  Looking at various track plans many use track circuit where there is a considerable length between junction signal and points.  Bollo Lane had interlaced track .  Still others do seem some distance without much protection, Chesterton is on such odd place https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 700 Mablethorpe another https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 378 .

 

Would you hazard a guess why these might not have such protection?  Perhaps to do with the signal box locations?  Just curious.

 

I seem to struggle with drawing the slips correctly, the numbers yes are a better guide.

 

Thankyou.

I suspect Chesterton was down to where the splitting signal had to go for siting purposes although I wonder how far it was from the points in reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your signal layout is fine.

 

The branch homes are in the correct formation.


The placing of the down main home signals are okay when considering the problems that you state. There were once many places like this in reality. The main concern is if a train stops in the platform and the signalman puts the home signal back behind it. There is then nothing to stop him unlocking and moving the points by mistake but there are ways of preventing this from happening. The usual method before the use of track circuits was to install an intermediate locking bar (also known as a lock retaining bar). This would be  approximately midway between the signal and the facing points. The GNR would almost certainly work this from the same lever as the FPL so both bars would work in unison. Thus if a train was in the platform it would almost certainly stand on one of the bars and prevent the points being unlocked.

 

Don’t forget - The signal box would face the main line and the frame would certainly be in the front so if the box is facing you the numbering needs to go right to left!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReTyerd Signalman said:

The placing of the down main home signals are okay when considering the problems that you state. There were once many places like this in reality. The main concern is if a train stops in the platform and the signalman puts the home signal back behind it. There is then nothing to stop him unlocking and moving the points by mistake but there are ways of preventing this from happening. The usual method before the use of track circuits was to install an intermediate locking bar (also known as a lock retaining bar). This would be  approximately midway between the signal and the facing points. The GNR would almost certainly work this from the same lever as the FPL so both bars would work in unison. Thus if a train was in the platform it would almost certainly stand on one of the bars and prevent the points being unlocked.

 

If you do that, what you then can't do is bring a train for the Branch into Platform 2 to wait for and Up train to run clear of the branch.  You'd have to hold the down train at the Home Signal.  Hopefully the timetable would be such that that situation would be extremely rare.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you do that, what you then can't do is bring a train for the Branch into Platform 2 to wait for and Up train to run clear of the branch.  You'd have to hold the down train at the Home Signal.  Hopefully the timetable would be such that that situation would be extremely rare.

Agreed but going by the description given by the OP I don’t think the platform would be long enough to do that anyway.  If a signal was provided to hold the down train clear of the fouling point most of the train would be outside the platform.  Just as inconvenient on a non-corridor train!

Edited by ReTyerd Signalman
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ReTyerd Signalman said:

Agreed but going by the description given by the OP I don’t think the platform would be long enough to do that anyway.  If a signal was provided to hold the down train clear of the fouling point most of the train would be outside the platform.  Just as inconvenient on a non-corridor train!

Yes thankyou both.  That is the problem.  I have been carefully working out the WTT to fit, (And integrate it into the Historical GWR and LNER WTTs).  Also I would probably need to provide an outer home so that station duties could be performed within the protection of a home signal and Train out of section given to the signal box in rear if a train was otherwise only partially occupying platform 2.  Certainly some negatives either way.  Fortunately not a very busy line especially in terms of passenger movements.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ColHut said:

Yes thankyou both.  That is the problem.  I have been carefully working out the WTT to fit, (And integrate it into the Historical GWR and LNER WTTs).  Also I would probably need to provide an outer home so that station duties could be performed within the protection of a home signal and Train out of section given to the signal box in rear if a train was otherwise only partially occupying platform 2.  Certainly some negatives either way.  Fortunately not a very busy line especially in terms of passenger movements.

 

regards

The real benefit of an outer home is being able to accept a train on the down main while another comes off the branch.  You don’t really need one to carry out station duties.  If a train is shunting and partially occupying the down platform there is not much point in being able to accept another train as it has nowhere else to go.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

... and if the line isn't that busy, it probably wouldn't justify the cost of installing outer homes anyway.

Thankyou Gentlemen.

 

whilst this line was probably approved in about 1880, I note that the branch home signal (2) is also effectively the Branch starter.  Whilst this seems not uncommon, would this be of particular concern in my set up?

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, ColHut said:

Thankyou Gentlemen.

 

whilst this line was probably approved in about 1880, I note that the branch home signal (2) is also effectively the Branch starter.  Whilst this seems not uncommon, would this be of particular concern in my set up?

regards

No.   If the branch was occupied preventing Signal No. 2 being cleared because the route couldn't be set a Signalman would be quite in order to accept a train provided a Clearing Point was available in advance of Signal No.3.  The train would duly stop at the splitting signal and once he was able to do so the Signalman would reset the route and offer the train forwards to allw him to clear Signal No.2.

 

That's another good reason for having teh signal at the point toe because the train would be able to carry out station duties while waiting for the route to be set etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

No.   If the branch was occupied preventing Signal No. 2 being cleared because the route couldn't be set a Signalman would be quite in order to accept a train provided a Clearing Point was available in advance of Signal No.3.  The train would duly stop at the splitting signal and once he was able to do so the Signalman would reset the route and offer the train forwards to allw him to clear Signal No.2.

 

That's another good reason for having teh signal at the point toe because the train would be able to carry out station duties while waiting for the route to be set etc.

and conversely, having accepted the Down train with the route set towards the main, the Up branch train can't be run clear even if it happens to  arrive first and thus could have been run over the junction without having to hold the Down train as described. 

 

The signalman would want to know which train was expected to arrive first.  If he expects the train from the branch to arrive first, he would refuse the down train in the absence of an outer home to avoid having to hold it outside his station.  Moving the junction signal to the actual junction and provision of an outer home does make it much easier to minimise delays at the point where there routes conflict.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, ReTyerd Signalman said:

Agreed but going by the description given by the OP I don’t think the platform would be long enough to do that anyway.  If a signal was provided to hold the down train clear of the fouling point most of the train would be outside the platform.  Just as inconvenient on a non-corridor train!

And your point is?  Numerous passemger trains regularly  called at stations where the train was longer than the station platform.   The only alternative is simply for the Signalman not to accept the train on the main line until the train on the. branch (if there is one crpssing to the Up Line) has arrived and passed clear of the points.   but that was not the question which was asked - the question was 'if the branch was occupied?'.  So in other words if there was a train on the branch going in either direction and not necessarily crossing from the branch to the Up Line. - and that is ai suspecta far more likely possibility than one coming off teh branch and crossing.   So the obvious thing to do is to accept the train for the branch towards a Clearing point in advance of s Signal No.3 - that is basic junction working.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

and conversely, having accepted the Down train with the route set towards the main, the Up branch train can't be run clear even if it happens to  arrive first and thus could have been run over the junction without having to hold the Down train as described. 

 

The signalman would want to know which train was expected to arrive first.  If he expects the train from the branch to arrive first, he would refuse the down train in the absence of an outer home to avoid having to hold it outside his station.  Moving the junction signal to the actual junction and provision of an outer home does make it much easier to minimise delays at the point where there routes conflict.

But that is of course a different question as we're not just talking abouta train on the branch but one which is booked to cross from the branch.  and as you have said providng an acceptance hHome Signal on the Down line would be of benefit in that situation (with the splitting signal of course being at the toe, or close to it) of the junction points.   But we go back then to previous point about whether or not the intensity and nature of the service makes such a provisiona worthwhile expenditure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou both.

 

one related question:  If the junction signals  1-3  were moved closer to the toe of the junction, wouldn’t this uncover the crossover 5 requiring an outer home in rear to protect them?

 

regards

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...