Jump to content
 

1930s GWR Layout Signalling help


Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

 

I have what I hope is a layout plan that is semi-decent!

 

Fictional layout based in 1930-35 GWR somewhere between High Wycombe and West Ruislip on the Paddington to Birmingham route.

Double track main line leading to four lane fiddle yard in a loop, I envison eventually setting this up for block detection to take care of the main line.

The 2 main boards pictured are 2 1/2 x 5ft(due to size constraints.).

 

A couple things I'm not sure about:

 

  • The placement of Signal Box
  • If the factory siding or the  halt are necessary
  • Should/can there be a passing loop on the main line or in the goods yard ie does it need one? (I left it off due to being unsure about having a facing point on a main line)
  • Should there be a separate siding for the guards vans?

 

I haven't been able to find any pictures of this stretch (maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?) of track apart from present day but I am speculating it would have been semaphone?


 

If it passes as a "Model Railway" as opposed to a model of a railway would there be someone who could be so kind as to assist me with signalling it?  :unsure:

 

Thanks,

Kegan

Capture Final2.JPG

Edited by Keegs
Clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Keegs,

 

Nothing wrong with the factory siding as far as I can see. A halt on a double track main line seems unlikely, but maybe someone will be able to cite a real example.

 

You only need any kind of loop if you want to change direction on scene. I.e. enter Down, swap ends of engine and brake van probably after shunting the yard and leave Up. Or vice versa of course. But you haven't got a crossover between Up and Down so that's not possible. The yard would be shunted by Down trains only. No need for a loop.

 

What is the intended purpose of the Loco Release spur?

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Keegs said:

I haven't been able to find any pictures of this stretch (maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?) of track apart from present day but I am speculating it would have been semaphone?

Semaphore signalling remained in use on this stretch of line until 1990/1. Probably colour light distants and possibly the odd colour light stop signal, but mainly semaphore signals.

Back in 30s, semaphore throughout.

Paul.

Edited by 5BarVT
Added 30s comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

A halt on a double track main line seems unlikely, but maybe someone will be able to cite a real example.


Not GWR, but the LT&SR had Gale Street Halt on the double track mainline. It was later redeveloped into Becontree Station. Purfleet Rifle Range, may also have been a halt, but I can’t remember

 

Edit: didn’t notice that the OP’s halt only has one platform

Edited by Titanius Anglesmith
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Semaphore signalling remained in use on this stretch of line until 1990/1. Probably colour light distants and possibly the odd colour light stop signal, but mainly semaphore signals.

Back in 30s, semaphore throughout.

Paul.

Absolutely the case at larger stations and locations where more extensive sidings remained but there was a succession of Intermediate Block colour light signals north of Gerrards Cross in the vicinity of Seer Green and Beaconsfield by the early 1980s.  So a location like thos would be 100% sempaphre for visible signals.

 

The GWR definitely had halts on double track main lines including the 'northern line' (as we knew it) with four halts between Old Oak Common West and Aynho Jcn - Old Oak Common, Perivale, Ilmer,  and Horton.  However almost all the GWR double line halts which I know anything of had a platform face for each running line.  The normal arrangement was two platforms with one each side of the running lines however Churn Halt on the DN&S had an island platform.   Thus the proposed layout won't work with only the single platform for the halt - it's best lost.

 

The signal box is in the best place.

 

As far as the track layout is concerned private sidings, including one directly trailing out of a running line, were not unknown on the Joint Line section between Ruislip and Wycombe so having one is not an impossibility although it would need a trap point and a gate.  But it could only be served by an Up train unless you provided a trailing crossover between the main Lines (which such a location would inevitably have had) although equally inevitably all your sidings on the Down side then face the opposite direction so a run round  would be needed in order to shunt the siding from that  side.  

 

So still best perhaps to shunt that siding with an Up train  or, much better, turn the factory siding round the opposite way and shunt it via a trailing connection from the Down line across the Up line incorporating a single slip in the Up line to create the trailing crossover

 

As far as the yard itself is concerned the loco release siding is basically irrelevant - you have the spur (which you have called 'headshunt') where you can stand an engine aside if the need arises.  I would also take out the coal merchant siding nearest to the shed siding as there is room for road vehicles to access those sidings which is impossible as your plan currently stands.

 

The signalling, even with teh layout alteration I have suggested, would be very simple as the plan has already been drawn operationally correctly in railway terms.    There will a running stop signal in each direction just in rear of the fouling point of the pointwork (just in rear of the signal box on the Down line).  Another stop signal (the Starting Signal) should definitely be provided at the end of the scenic section on the Down Line - ideally with a Shunt Ahead subsidiary arm) and you culd reasonably provide a stop signal where the Up line leaves the scenic section.  With the possible exception of the exit signal from the sidings on heh Down side everything else would be covered by ground discs.

Edited by The Stationmaster
Correct typos
  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly nothing wrong with having a factory, there were plenty between Paddington and Wycombe. Park Royal had Guinness (I was clambering over a Guinness loco yesterday!) and AEC, amongst others, High Wycombe had furniture factories etc.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, Keegs said:

If the factory siding or the  halt are necessary

 

 

None of it is necessary - it's a model railway :) On the other hand, if the factory siding and the halt increase the play value, they're performing a useful function.  FWIW my opinions on the track layout:

 

- lose the loco spur: I'm guessing you're thinking of a goods train arriving and the loco dropping off while another loco shunts the wagons, but in nearly all cases at a station like this, the shunting would be done by the train engine of the stopping goods before the train proceeded to it's next calling point;

 

- use the space saved to move most or all of the siding points onto the left hand board and get longer sidings;

 

- with longer sidings, reduce to three or four sidings with more space between for loading and unloading;

 

- add a second halt platform on the other line: it doesn't matter if looks a little crammed in as halts were a often later adddition adapting to new traffic pattterns, in this case perhaps serving the factory;

 

- add a trailing crossover, possibly even with points recovered from the sidings.

 

I doubt the resulting layout will need more than a very few signals, but I'll leave the specifics to those who know GWR practice.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Absolutely the case at larger stations and locations where more extensive sidings remained but there was a succession of Intermediate Block colour light signals north of Gerrards Cross in the vicinity of Seer Green and Beaconsfield by the early 1980s.  So a location like thos would be 100% sempaphre for visible signals.

 

The GWR definitely had halts on double track main lines including the 'northern line' (as we knew it) with four halts between Old Oak Common West and Aynho Jcn - Old Oak Common, Perivale, Ilmer,  and Horton.  However almost all the GWR double line halts which I know anything of had a platform face for each running line.  The normal arrangement was two platforms with one each side of the running lines however Churn Halt on the DN&S had an island platform.   Thus the proposed layout won't work with only the single platform for the halt - it's best lost.

 

The signal box is in the best place.

 

As far as the track layout is concerned private sidings, including one directly trailing out of a running line, were not unknown on the Joint Line section between Ruislip and Wycombe so having one is not an impossibility although it would need a trap point and a gate.  But it could only be served by an Up train unless you provided a trailing crossover between the main Lines (which such a location would inevitably have had) although equally inevitably all your sidings on the Down side then face the opposite direction so a run round  would be needed in order to shunt the siding from that  side.  

 

So still best perhaps to shunt that siding with an Up train  or, much better, turn the factory siding round the opposite way and shunt it via a trailing connection from the Down line across the Up line incorporating a single slip in the Up line to create the trailing crossover

 

As far as the yard itself is concerned the loco release siding is basically irrelevant - you have the spur (which you have called 'headshunt') where you can stand an engine aside if the need arises.  I would also take out the coal merchant siding nearest to the shed siding as there is room for road vehicles to access those sidings which is impossible as your plan currently stands.

 

The signalling, even with teh layout alteration I have suggested, would be very simple as the plan has already been drawn operationally correctly in railway terms.    There will a running stop signal in each direction just in rear of the fouling point of the pointwork (just in rear of the signal box on the Down line).  Another stop signal (the Starting Signal) should definitely be provided at the end of the scenic section on the Down Line - ideally with a Shunt Ahead subsidiary arm) and you culd reasonably provide a stop signal where the Up line leaves the scenic section.  With the possible exception of the exit signal from the sidings on heh Down side everything else would be covered by ground discs.

Hi Mike,

 

I've added the loop as Miss Prism suggested, as this allows an up goods to run around.

I've vanquished the halt and the siding due to it looking too busy, I can always add one of these in at a later date when I have more space by inserting another board in between the existing two!

 

Moved signalbox due to loop, is it still in the right place?

 

Hopefully some of the signalling I have added is correct!

 

Thanks everyone for you thoughts and assistance, it's difficult trying to model something from the other side of the world that you haven't seen in person! :lol:

 

CaptureFinal3Signalled.JPG

Edited by Keegs
Wrong picture
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sorry Keegs,


I think you’re heading in the wrong direction - your first version was better, mirrored or not 

 

Trains run on the left in the UK. Signals are usually on the left unless they would be difficult to site or sight. In your period facing connections in main lines were usually avoided as far as possible.

 

Your loop is not long enough to be useful.

 

It’s a shame to lose the factory siding, which added some valuable operational interest.

 

Sorry.

 

What happens off-scene? Is there a fiddle yard opposite? How far away and how long are the storage loops? The reason I’m asking is because I notice the end curves are quite tight radii and I wonder if they need to be and if some of the off scene loop length could be traded for extra scenic length. (This discussion should be in the Layout and Track design area, really.)

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keegs said:

 

 

CaptureFinal3Signalled.JPG

Double slip on a running line at a wayside station?  Most unlikely.  As single slip would be OK, allowing trailing move into yard, and facing point into a running loop (used as a relief where thorough goods trains can be overtaken) would be plausible, but not into a goods yard.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Your loop is not long enough to be useful.

 

 

It's actually fine when understood correctly.  It isn't really a loop and it isn't for running locos around, so it doesn't need to match the length of the goods train.  As I understand it, it's a siding with access from both running lines over trailing points, which allows it to be shunted by a train passing in either direction without the loco running round. 

 

This arrangement was extremely common at wayside goods yards in Britain, as a perusal of the usual signal plan sites (see pinned thread in this section for links) will show.  Usually the two crossovers were some distance apart, forming what looks like a loop between them, but sometimes they could be very close together with the siding extended outside the crossovers to get a useful length.

 

Thus on the OP's layout, there should be a simple trailing crossover to the down line on the left and a crossover via a diamond or single slip to the up line on the right.  I believe the way of working would be for an up stopping goods simply to exchange wagons over the slip, where the down goods could also shunt the sidings as required.  Presumably, the down goods could also be recessed while shunting to clear the main line.

 

I'm happy to be corrected as regards operation by them as really knows, but this very common formation seems to be widely misunderstood.

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It's actually fine when understood correctly.  It isn't really a loop and it isn't for running locos around, so it doesn't need to match the length of the goods train.  As I understand it, it's a siding with access from both running lines over trailing points, which allows it to be shunted by a train passing in either direction without the loco running round. 

 

This arrangement was extremely common at wayside goods yards in Britain, as a perusal of the usual signal plan sites (see pinned thread in this section for links) will show.  Usually the two crossovers were some distance apart, forming what looks like a loop between them, but sometimes they could be very close together with the siding extended outside the crossovers to get a useful length.

 

Thus on the OP's layout, there should be a simple trailing crossover to the down line on the left and a crossover via a diamond or single slip to the up line on the right.  I believe the way of working would be for an up stopping goods simply to exchange wagons over the slip, where the down goods could also shunt the sidings as required.  Presumably, the down goods could also be recessed while shunting to clear the main line.

 

I'm happy to be corrected as regards operation by them as really knows, but this very common formation seems to be widely misunderstood.

 

It’s an interesting point, that might make the formation work better but the OP specifically said:

Quote

I've added the loop as Miss Prism suggested, as this allows an up goods to run around.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, yes it makes sense the connections should be trailing! I'll probably remove the loop seeing as it's not really long enough.

 

RE Harlequin, I know they are a bit tight, unfortunately I've only got 10x9ft and really only 10x 5.5ft usable due to doorway+ storage (It's the 2nd bedroom of a 2 door flat!) It has r4 on the outside line and R3 on the inside + easements. As for the fiddle yard: It's 4 lane (2 each track) The outer oval can accommodate a 4-6-0 + x5 57' coaches and the inner the same but 4 coaches, I want to setup block detection to semi-automate the main line.

 

I'll come back with some improvements! =)

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

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It’s an interesting point, that might make the formation work better but the OP specifically said:

 

 

Yes I know, but I think that's based on misunderstanding of how that formation works.  It is too short to be used for running round, but I don't believe it would be used like that in real life anyway.  However if used correctly it is not too small to appear on the layout.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It's actually fine when understood correctly.  It isn't really a loop and it isn't for running locos around, so it doesn't need to match the length of the goods train.  As I understand it, it's a siding with access from both running lines over trailing points, which allows it to be shunted by a train passing in either direction without the loco running round. 

 

This arrangement was extremely common at wayside goods yards in Britain, as a perusal of the usual signal plan sites (see pinned thread in this section for links) will show.  Usually the two crossovers were some distance apart, forming what looks like a loop between them, but sometimes they could be very close together with the siding extended outside the crossovers to get a useful length.

 

Thus on the OP's layout, there should be a simple trailing crossover to the down line on the left and a crossover via a diamond or single slip to the up line on the right.  I believe the way of working would be for an up stopping goods simply to exchange wagons over the slip, where the down goods could also shunt the sidings as required.  Presumably, the down goods could also be recessed while shunting to clear the main line.

 

I'm happy to be corrected as regards operation by them as really knows, but this very common formation seems to be widely misunderstood.

 

A looped siding which allows access (trailing of course) from either running line was indeed pretty common.  But it seems the idea - as 'Harlequin' has noted - was to provide a loop for run-round purposes and this one is far too short for that apart from probably being unnecessary at a small passing location such as this.

 

Nowt wrong with the double slip in the sidings because it acts as a space a saver although they weren't so common in such a situation in the real world because the railways usually had plenty of room in which to lay out their yards and connections.  But - as alrready pointed out - a double slip in a running line situation like that was very much a rarity and definitely would not have been used in a siding situation such as this one.   Flipping the new layout - as suggested by 'Miss Prism' definitely improves things by making the main line connections trailing instead of facing however like Harlequin' I much prefrerred the simplicity of the original plan - witha few changes along the lines I suggested on order to provide a running lines trailing crossover and keep the private siding.  

 

If the OP wishes to stick with his latest plan, and it's Keegs railway of course, at teh very least the main line double slip needs to be reduced to a single slip and the whole layout needs to be flipped to make the running line connections trailing instead of facing.  That in turn would allow the layout to be correctly signalled without creating a forest of signals to cater for the unusual use of facing running line connections in the second plan.

 

Incidentally in the second plan the signal box is now on the wrong side of the running lines.

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

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Double slip on a running line at a wayside station?  Most unlikely.  As single slip would be OK, allowing trailing move into yard, and facing point into a running loop (used as a relief where thorough goods trains can be overtaken) would be plausible, but not into a goods yard.  

There is a double and a single slip in this version the single is at the top, I'll fix up the plan now anyways

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

I think I'm on the right track (Pun intended!) now, complete with (single) slips and catch points!

Wherever I put the trailing connection in I realise that it is facing for the other line... and there is now a loop created in the factory plan due to both the trailing connections...

 

Two versions, one with a halt on each side and one with a factory.

Hopefully nothing too seriously wrong with either! :lol:

 

Side note: the town is representative, detail to come later.

 

I'm thinking of "Wycombe Green" as a name, would that be pronounced "wickim"?

 

I may drop one of the sidings in the factory version (There will be fence + gate on the factory too.).

 

Mike, what is it that dictates placement of a signal box, I realise it should be close to the majority of point work for shortest rodding etc but I am curious! =)

 

If all looks ok can someone signal it for me? In paint or similar preferably....

 

EDIT: Added signalling as suggested by Miss Prism.

 

 

 

 

Wycombe Green Halt.JPG

Wycombe Green Factory Flipped.JPG

Edited by Keegs
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...