Single track branch passing loop signal

[wasdavetheroad]

This will be part of my next layout. A passing loop on a single track branch line. The loops contain up and down platforms. There is also a small goods yard with maybe 3 pick up goods per day.

 

My question is where to put the up starter semaphore. 'A' looks logical and 'B' probably dangerous if there are trains awaiting to depart the UP loop and the Yard. Maybe 'A' and another stop signal at 'X'?. The Yard will need a signal at 'C' and could this be a ground signal?

 

I have now added a plain image of the current AnyRail plan. OO scale, just under 5 metres long and Kato Unitrack

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by wasdavetheroad

[Rivercider]

I am no signalling expert, but in order for others to advise it will be useful to know

where the branch line is located and which company built or operated the line, 

and also the era you intend to portray as signalling policy changed over the years,

 

cheers 

[ITG]

Can’t answer the signalling question, but hope you don’t mind another observation…..

The arriving goods train, from either direction, will have to pull or reverse into one of your two goods roads, in order to access what I assume is a headshunt. So that goods road will not be able to hold wagons, and neither will the headshunt. Meaning wagons can only stand on a single road. Might it be better to reverse the roads, so that the train pulls first into the headshunt, and can then shunt into the two roads?

[Michael Hodgson]

You would put it at A, perhaps with a shunt ahead arm below it authorising a goods to pull forward as far as necessary to shunt the yard, but requiring the main arm to be cleared for the train to proceed.  A shunt disc might be provided instead of a shunt-ahead signal. 

 

Or you might have an advanced starter at X, although this would be relatively unusual.

 

You most definitely need a signal at C.  This could be a full size arm if trains are expected to enter the section from the yard.

However a shunt signal would be more likely as the yard would typically be worked by a train which stops in the Up platform, detaches vehicles to be dropped off and outgoing traffic is shunted back onto the main train before resuming the journey (under authority of the platform starter).  A shunt disc at C would not authorise a train to enter the section.

[wasdavetheroad]

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

I am no signalling expert, but in order for others to advise it will be useful to know

where the branch line is located and which company built or operated the line, 

and also the era you intend to portray as signalling policy changed over the years,

 

cheers 

Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith 1950's

 

ITG - I have not included all the track and the goods yard has 4 sidings plus an additional head shunt which is not on the inspirational original Troutbeck. . There is other track on the DOWN side but I wanted to clear up the UP starter position first

[wasdavetheroad]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

You would put it at A, perhaps with a shunt ahead arm below it authorising a goods to pull forward as far as necessary to shunt the yard, but requiring the main arm to be cleared for the train to proceed.  A shunt disc might be provided instead of a shunt-ahead signal. 

 

Or you might have an advanced starter at X, although this would be relatively unusual.

 

You most definitely need a signal at C.  This could be a full size arm if trains are expected to enter the section from the yard.

However a shunt signal would be more likely as the yard would typically be worked by a train which stops in the Up platform, detaches vehicles to be dropped off and outgoing traffic is shunted back onto the main train before resuming the journey (under authority of the platform starter).  A shunt disc at C would not authorise a train to enter the section.

Thanks for the info and yes, the yard would be shunted using the UP platform road as well. However as there was several miles of steep hill to the west apparently mineral trains hauled by the small goods engines would sometimes split the load and  use a long siding in the goods yard as a refuge while they went back down the bank for the other half. Because of this there was also a water tank provided.

I am going to use modellers licence to include some pre war trains for operational interest.

 

I need to provide another diagram showing the complete layout with the quarry exchange loop and sidings behind the down platform

[ITG]

23 minutes ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith 1950's

 

ITG - I have not included all the track and the goods yard has 4 sidings plus an additional head shunt which is not on the inspirational original Troutbeck. . There is other track on the DOWN side but I wanted to clear up the UP starter position first

Aha. Point taken! Good luck with it.

[Michael Hodgson]

If the sidings are more in the nature of refuge sidings and trains will start from there, a main signal at C might be more appropriate than a disc, as there is little point in having to shunt the train back into the platform just to depart. 

 

 However a goods train needs a brake van, especially going up a steep hill, so dividing the train means the loco must bring the brake back again so that both portions have a manned van at the rear in case a coupling snaps.  Loco will need to be able to run round the van at both stations.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

 

1 hour ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith 1950's

Have you seen the signalling plans for Cockermouth and Penruddock on the excellent https://signalbox.org site?

Cockermouth 1965: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 887

Penruddock 1960: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1178

 

The Penrith/Blencow end of the Penruddock plan looks to be just thing you are looking for, with a starter at the platform end (which happens to be a long way from the loop points) and an advanced starter mounted on the same post as the down home.

 

There are several pictures on the Disused Stations website: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/p/penruddock/index.shtml. However, I haven't found a picture of the down home that clearly shows the up advanced starter arm.

[wasdavetheroad]

42 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

 

Have you seen the signalling plans for Cockermouth and Penruddock on the excellent https://signalbox.org site?

Cockermouth 1965: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 887

Penruddock 1960: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1178

 

The Penrith/Blencow end of the Penruddock plan looks to be just thing you are looking for, with a starter at the platform end (which happens to be a long way from the loop points) and an advanced starter mounted on the same post as the down home.

 

There are several pictures on the Disused Stations website: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/p/penruddock/index.shtml. However, I haven't found a picture of the down home that clearly shows the up advanced starter arm.

Thanks, those diagrams are useful

 

Here is a more complete track plan. OO scale, 16 foot baseboard, Track is Kato Unitrack HO, not laid yet as railway room under refurbishment. 

 

I am trying to keep things as simple as possible as my old hands just can't deal with the fiddly stuff anymore. I am going to try Dapol GWR square post home signals, at least they are lower quadrant and I can mod the finial. Maybe I can get away with just 4 of them. BTW the UP and Down are reversed. Penrith is now in the DOWN direction

 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by wasdavetheroad

[Nick C]

I'd agree with @Jeremy C regarding that end. At the other end, You'll need a fixed signal at F rather than a banner, in order to protect the crossover out of the exchange sidings. You'll also want something protecting the exit from the Quarry line, although that of course could be offstage. The signal at C would be either a yellow shunt signal (Penruddock), or two seperate normal ones (Cockermouth), in order to allow access to the headshunt. Yellow shunts can be passed at danger, as long as you're on the route to which they don't apply (in this case, into the headshunt). The same would apply to the shunt signal from the exchange sidings to the headshunt at the up end - the one at the quarry end would need two normal routes (for which I think the LMS would have used two stacked discs).

 

It might be worth getting this moved to the signalling section, as there are quite a few experts there who might not read the questions bit.

[wasdavetheroad]

Thanks, how do get a topic moved?

[Nearholmer]

13 minutes ago, Nick C said:

You'll also want something protecting the exit from the Quarry line, although that of course could be offstage

Doesn’t a great deal depend upon the status of the loop/exchange road?

 

I read it as being non-passenger, in which case all that might be needed to protect it from the (private siding/branch) to the quarry would be a trap point and probably a gate, no signal(s). The trap could be interlocked with the crossover at the far end of the Down platform to prevent a runaway from the quarry making it all the way to the passenger line.

[Michael Hodgson]

Trying to get my head round how this quarry would work.   I am assuming this place could not justify a station pilot.

 

Loaded wagons presumably brought into the exchange sidings by quarry company loco. 

That is allowed into exchange sidings/loop but not the main lines nor the goods yard on the opposite side of the line. 

So it can't run round, which means the only place it can leave the wagons is the exchange siding to the right; if it used those on the left it would be trapped at the buffer stop until released by the railway company's engine.

Similarly any empties it collects have to come from the sidings to the left.

 

The railway company can leave empties easily there from the Up road, and collect loaded ones easily using a Down line train.

 

Your time table needs a daily Down pick-up collect loaded stones from the quarry (and maybe sometimes dropping off a gunpowder wagon or other quarrying supplies), and an Up pick-up dropping off empty stone wagons and also shunting general goods in the Yard.  

[Nearholmer]

I’m imagining the quarry company loco hauling fulls downhill from the quarry, tucking them into the RH siding, then picking up empties from the LH siding, which it then hauls back up to the quarry.

 

All of which implies a runaround loop at the quarry, which is very plausible.

 

But, TBH, it would be safer to propel the empties up hill, so better with two RH sidings.

 

The logic behind all this is that private industrial railways rarely used brake vans, tried to keep the loco at the downhill end, and weren’t afraid of propelling moves, or of ‘taking a run at it’.

[micknich2003]

Here are two real life single to double line layouts. both ex NERly Withernses Branch.

[micknich2003]

Here is Ryehill and Burstwick, the other end of the Hedon Single Line.

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Thanks, how do get a topic moved?

Use the 'report' button on the first post, and pop in a suitable message for the mods.

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Doesn’t a great deal depend upon the status of the loop/exchange road?

 

I read it as being non-passenger, in which case all that might be needed to protect it from the (private siding/branch) to the quarry would be a trap point and probably a gate, no signal(s). The trap could be interlocked with the crossover at the far end of the Down platform to prevent a runaway from the quarry making it all the way to the passenger line.

Hmm, OK. I was assuming you'd want to protect the box worked crossover at the right hand end.

[Nearholmer]

The trap would, I think need to be interlocked with both crossovers, I rather took the right-hand one for granted.

 

We could do with a MIRSE, but I’m going from observations of private industrial sidings/branches connecting into exchange sidings, and I can’t readily recall ever seeing a signal on the industrial line. From what I recall, if the trap was closed, and the gate open if there was one, that effectively gave authority for the move - sometimes under the control of a BR Shunter, but in other cases with no BR personnel present.

 

I’ve unofficially driven a loco from a cement works to and from the exchange sidings under the supervision of the real driver, and I’m 99% sure no signal existed - it was as if the cement works “owned” the exchange sidings once everything was locked in their favour, and there were no BR personnel present.

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Nearholmer

[wasdavetheroad]

This is getting interesting and I need to explain the quarry line working.

 

The quarries are at a lower altitude than the station and there is a steep graded section somewhere off the layout. I imagine the company loco as a 0-4-0 saddle tank  propelling several small groups of wagons into the exchange sidings with those for the UP goods going into the left hand siding and those for the DOWN goods being left in the exchange loop. There is enough room for 6 wagons in the loop without fouling the left hand siding. The loaded wagons are collected by the evening goods trains and the empties arrive in the morning. The company loco collects the wagons and pulls them down the quarry line in larger groups because they are empty. 

 

Still problems with the sequence though as I did not realise the company loco would not be allowed to run around.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

It might be, in that there were places where private locos were authorised to go onto the passenger railway within station limits, but that was unusual. 
 

Given that the quarry is lower than the main line, it might be better to have two sidings to the left, or one siding to the left, but starting as far right as possible, and put fulls in the siding and empties in the loop, or, best of all, two loops, which is how a lot of exchange sidings were arranged.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Nearholmer

[wasdavetheroad]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It might be, in that there were places where private locos were authorised to go onto the passenger railway within station limits, but that was unusual. 
 

Given that the quarry is lower than the main line, it might be better to have two sidings to the left, or one siding to the left, but starting as far right as possible, and put fulls in the siding and empties in the loop, or, best of all, two loops, which is how a lot of exchange sidings were arranged.

 

 

Good points, unfortunately as we all are I am constrained by the available space and the point geometry which has a 10 degree diverge angle. If I had another metre that double track curve at the DOWN end would not be there. and the idea of two stop signal less than 100 yards apart worries me. I like your idea of a run around loop somewhere on the quarry line as DOWN wagons could go in the right hand siding and UP wagons in the left. 

 

I will get the topic moved but may start again with a plain track diagram ask for advice on signalling given the constraints of the model.

[Nick C]

22 minutes ago, wasdavetheroad said:

and the idea of two stop signal less than 100 yards apart worries me.

Here's one at Williton, WSR: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5409347

[Michael Hodgson]

10 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Still problems with the sequence though as I did not realise the company loco would not be allowed to run around.

 

There were places where it was allowed but they would be exceptional cases.   If running round were operationally necessary, I would expect the facility to be provided within the exchange sidings - typically an engine release crossover between two adjacent sidings.

 

One of the problems is that the quarry company's driver isn't deemed qualified to drive by the railway company whose own drivers have been trained/promoted through the ranks of cleaner/fireman and are required to know the rules.  So they (and probably also the unions) don't want him on company metals - exchange sidings of course being a necessary exception.

 

In general the loco wouldn't be overhauled in railway company workshops or serviced according to their inspection schedules, so if may not conform to their standards and could potentially be unsafe.  If an accident were to happen on company metals, the question arises as to which company is liable; anybody injured would sue the railway company as they are more likely to able to pay any compensation than a small quarry company.   The public of course don't have access to the exchange sidings, the legal position would be different in case of a trespasser injured while the sidings were in use by the quarry loco.

 

If a private loco has to be delivered to or from the quarry, I would expect it to be hauled in a freight train, and I assume a suitably qualified railway employee would have to inspect it to ensure it was fit to travel. 

 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, private locos had to pass a main line ‘MOT’ if they were to go outside of exchange sidings, and they carried a plate with their BR register number and possibly the expiry date. Drivers had to pass a limited rules test, not the full monty, covering what they needed to know to operate within station limits, although I have an inkling that a few collieries operated through sections, so their drivers presumably had to pass a bigger rules test.