Jump to content
 

Signalling Help


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Evening all,

I am seeking some help from those with far more signalling knowledge than me on a little query.  With regards to the attached track plan for a diorama style layout, what would have been the style of Signal 2.  The diorama is set on the North Eastern Railway around 1920-1922 period.  

 

2122944566_Screenshot2021-10-31at22_30_08.png.d0a870808abd0c59afdc980c6165182e.png

 

There are four possible routes from Signal 2:
- Down Main to Down Main

- Down Main to Down Goods (Direct)

- Down Main to Down Relief

- Down Main to Down Slow (via Down Relief).

 

But I cannot recall having ever seen a picture of a four-armed gantry with an entire bias one side or the other, so I am not convinced I am right in how that would have been signalled. Can anyone offer any thoughts/advice/evidence of how the NER would have dealt with it?  I think, from my currently limited knowledge, that it would all have been wooden posts with slotted lower quadrant signals at that period.

 

Apologies also if I have not got the line designations right. Down Relief may possibly have been Down Slow ... And the Down Slow / Down Goods should perhaps have been Down Goods No. 1 and Down Goods No.2!

 

Richie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminology - your choice of line names don't seem to go together.  It's probably not hard and fast rule, but on four-track routes you usually have

  • Fast and Slow lines
  • Main and Relief lines, or
  • Main and Goods.

 

A Goods Line would usually imply working under Permissive Regulations, a second line in the same direction worked under Absolute Block would usually be called a Slow or Relief.  You wouldn't ordinarily allow passenger trains, even stopping ones to use Goods lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Strikes me as an odd layout that allows you to access the Down Goods from the Down Main but can't access it from the Down Slow

Hi Michael,

A friend has returned a book he’d borrowed a few weeks ago this morning, which has allowed me to check the line designations and yes my terminology was wrong.

 

The four tracks running horizontal were all passenger lines (Up and Down Doncaster, and Up and Down Normanton), while the four curving off to the top were all freight, becoming Up and Down Doncaster Goods, and Up and Down Normanton Goods. There were further crossovers outside from this area.

 

The track layout is based on Holgate Junction at York, but with the addition of the crossover on the left side of the junction, to provide some added interest to what is a diorama.

 

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

With that many dolls to accommodate, I think that 1 & 2 would be combined on a gantry spanning the tracks. NER seemed to like gantries.

 

Hi Joseph,

I was just typing the above reply, when your response came in. Thanks, yes that is a good thought, not considered that one.  You set me thinking and another google search turned up this rmWeb post from 2010, courtesy of @micknich2003 showing a gantry at Holgate,

 

 

It’s a bit different as there were independent lines either side as well, which I have omitted, and the Main to Sliw (on my diagram) crossover wasn’t there, so the original query still stands if anyone can help?

 

Richie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have quite a few facing points which are remote from the signals protecting them and are therefore unprotected from unauthorised movement. They could be protected by track circuiting which would have been possible but perhaps still unlikely at that date but otherwise would have had to be protected by yet more signals. The NER was very fond of signalling installations and I suspect that more signals would have been installed, particularly if the layout dated back several decades as seems likely, given that the further back historically that it was installed the less likely it would have been that track circuiting provided the solution.

 

However, there are others who are far more expert than me in NER signalling and doubtless they will offer their opinions in time - and may even know of a comparable real layout.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Strikes me as an odd layout that allows you to access the Down Goods from the Down Main but can't access it from the Down Slow

 

I agree with you Micheal Hodgson. There should be a crossover so that you can get from down slow to the down goods. 

 

And there should also be one going from up Goods to up slow.

 

Terry

Edited by Trainshed Terry
Additional sentance.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, it's not really a four-track line, it's more like two double track lines which just happen to be adjacent to one another, with a double track junction from one pair which has to cross the other pair on the level.  Goods 1 & 2 sounds more likely as a designation.

 

A gantry is likely, but that doesn't really affect the signal arrangements.  Each bracket signal would become a separate group of dolls on the gantry, spaced slightly apart from a similar group for the adjacent line.  The relative height of the dolls within each group would be the same as for a bracket, and their arm lengths would also be the same.  

 

I would be inclined to agree with bécasse that a further signal* might be preferred for the crossovers after the branch curves off, so I would expect another bracket (Down line only?) just after the last diamond, and correspondingly fewer arms in 1 & 2 groups.  This would of course mean you don't have 4 different heights for signal 2.  It is useful to clarify the line designations because I suspect signals to both Goods lines curving away would be the same height as the junctions would probably all be the same speed restriction, and some railways used smaller or otherwise distinctive arms for Good lines but I'm not sure about NER practice.

 

* at which you never want to actually stop a train, because that obstructs the junction preventing most other movements, so signals in rear (relevant dolls within 1& 2) would probably be released by it.

 

As it's based on Holgate, I'm wondering whether there are pictures or drawings in Richard Pulleyn's excellent book on York signalling.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Gold

My thoughts are that you have used semaphore signals in a colour light manner and ended up with a colourlight problem!

I would expect separate signals protecting each set of double crossovers and the junction (in each direction).

 

13 hours ago, MarshLane said:

 

 

2122944566_Screenshot2021-10-31at22_30_08.png.d0a870808abd0c59afdc980c6165182e.png

 

So:

1:Straight post as 6 above.

2: LH bracket as 3 above.

New signals DR DM for junction: LH bracket as 3 above.

New signal DR for RH double crossovers: RH bracket as 4 above.

New signal DM protecting RH double crossovers: straight post as 6 above.

3:Straight post as 6 above.

4, 5, 6: As shown.

New signals UM UR protecting junction: straight post as 6 above.

New signal UR for LH double crossovers: LH bracket as 3 above.

New signal UM protecting LH double crossovers: straight post as 6 above.

That way, each divergence has its own signal showing routing information.

 

Interestingly, your initial query reflects an issue that exists with present day colourlight signalling too.  Signal two with 3 PLJI (feathers) to the left is not interpretable clearly by a driver: pos 1 and pos 2 could be either DR or DG depending on how you look at it (i.e. is it defined by first divergence or final destination) and is an issue because the two routes ‘cross’ on the diamond.  (The current solution is that PLJIs would be avoided if possible.)

 

Paul.

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

  • RMweb Gold

Wow, thank you all for your input so far!  Fascinating, I had realised that semaphore installations were more complicated than colour light, but had in my mind discounted the idea of separate signals for each junction on the basis of signal sighting and avoiding confusion. However, having now redrawn the plan, taking the comments here into account, the confusion aspect is probably reduced by each signal only referring to the junction or track immediately ahead of it.

 

2 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

I agree with you Micheal Hodgson. There should be a crossover so that you can get from down slow to the down goods. 

 

And there should also be one going from up Goods to up slow.

 

Terry

 

Hi Terry,

That my have been my line designations that confused the situation.  The track layout is based on that at Holgate Junction York, but without the independent lines (which were either side of the formation) and with the ability to move freight from the Doncaster to the Normanton lines.  In reality I suspect such movements would have been done further round the corner, closer to York Yard South.  For this (potentially) diorama however, I wanted to create something that had additional interest, rather than just four lines passing through the scene, hence why I added the Down Doncaster to Down Normanton and Up Normanton to Up Doncaster double crossover.

 

1 hour ago, micknich2003 said:

Do you have the books published by the North Eastern Rly Assoc,?  "A History of NERly Signalling and Richard Pulleyn's book on the history of York Signalling, if not you will find them a big help. See the NERA Website, you don't have to be a member.

 

Hi Mick,

Yes I do - both were with friends, although the York Signalling book has been returned this morning.  That helped sort out the line designations!  It didn't answer the full question tho, because of the slightly revised layout I have come up with, but its one that is back on my reading list again!

 

@5BarVT 

Thanks for the detailed response (and everyone elses).  Looking at all the various comments and suggestions, I have redrawn the track layout, which I think now looks like this.

 

559752156_Screenshot2021-11-01at12_19_04.png.03d56214d12a786b0b23bea4560c9edd.png

 

To avoid confusion, I have yet to renumber to signals - the new ones have letters.  Next task, other than actually building it, is to go through and number all the turnouts and signals and facing point locks, for the lever frame.

 

Richie

Link to post
Share on other sites

C could share a gantry with  E&F facing the other way, as could G&H with B & D repositioned as per Grovenor's posting

 

 

5 hours ago, MarshLane said:

For this (potentially) diorama however, I wanted to create something that had additional interest, rather than just four lines passing through the scene, hence why I added the Down Doncaster to Down Normanton and Up Normanton to Up Doncaster double crossover.

 

 

I think your added double junction explains why the layout looks odd. It isn't a full quadruple track junction (which must in any case be pretty rare).  Freight trains starting from rest (because a conflicting passenger has taken precedence) are bad news over a four-track junction because they are so slow in clearing the junction.

 

I would think a more probable way of doing this would be for the four goods lines to merge down to double track in an additional double junction at the top of the diagram, and that double track would join the Normanton lines by a standard double junction.  So  instead of six diamond crossings, you would have need to invest one on each double junction.  Whilst this would not allow certain parallel moves that are possible with your layout, it probably doesn't impact line capacity that badly, since trains between the Doncaster lines and the goods lines conflict with from train between the Normanton to Main route.  It might prove easier to route all goods via the Normanton lines at this junction and sort out the choice between the two routes a short distance further up the line.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Grovenor said:

D should be moved back so it applies to the junction with the Down Doncaster Goods, so D would have a left hand bracket.

 

Thanks Grovenor, yes I'd missed that, now amended.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

C could share a gantry with  E&F facing the other way, as could G&H with B & D repositioned as per Grovenor's posting

 

Hmm, interesting through that would certainly add to the interest for CEF at least. I'll give that some thought as to how the various 'pegs' on the gantry and can be servo operated.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I think your added double junction explains why the layout looks odd. It isn't a full quadruple track junction (which must in any case be pretty rare).  Freight trains starting from rest (because a conflicting passenger has taken precedence) are bad news over a four-track junction because they are so slow in clearing the junction.

 

I would think a more probable way of doing this would be for the four goods lines to merge down to double track in an additional double junction at the top of the diagram, and that double track would join the Normanton lines by a standard double junction.  So  instead of six diamond crossings, you would have need to invest one on each double junction.  Whilst this would not allow certain parallel moves that are possible with your layout, it probably doesn't impact line capacity that badly, since trains between the Doncaster lines and the goods lines conflict with from train between the Normanton to Main route.  It might prove easier to route all goods via the Normanton lines at this junction and sort out the choice between the two routes a short distance further up the line.

 

The attached picture shows the four goods lines on the quadruple junction as it was the 1950s at York, courtesy of Brian Morrison (from whom I have permission to post):
1044822526_BW-BK62York60050.jpg.17c4f9792bb5b1041375ee962b9a0d05.jpg

 

What I had not realised until looking for the above image is that by the 1970s, a double crossover behind the photographer in the above picture, existed where I have it on my diagram!

 

9001_york_11.9.71_kh.jpg.1690ccbc6afe1466bb4470729f95d5bc.jpg

 

Apologies in advance to the photographer - this is an image I had on my system and I have no idea where it came from, whether its a scanned image I have or possibly off the net, but if it causes any problem I'll remove it.

 

However, it shows that in 1971, the double cross over was in place.  The line nearest the camera (off which a spur trails off at the left) is the Down Independent, missing on my plan, next two across are the Down and Up Normanton, then the Down and Up Doncaster (Deltic is on the UD) and then the Up Independent.  Must have been a wonderful sight back in NER days.

 

Richie

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

The attached picture shows the four goods lines on the quadruple junction

Wow - if you are going to model that junction, it looks like it is something like 2 complete train lengths long in all. You must have quite a bit of space available to be able to contemplate building it!

 

Yours,  Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

Wow - if you are going to model that junction, it looks like it is something like 2 complete train lengths long in all. You must have quite a bit of space available to be able to contemplate building it!

 

Hi Mike,

That unfortunately is another reason why I have paired things down a bit!  The intention is that this is going to be more of a photo diorama (but one capable of being extended and operated in the future).  It is an idea that I am currently playing around with to see if it ticks all the boxes - it does so far :)

 

24 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

This is the track layout as it was in 1951 when the full colour light signalling was commissioned -

Thanks mike, that's useful.  The plan is for the diorama to be pre-grouping - around 1920-22, but I doubt the track layout changed that much (perhaps with the addition of Holgate Sidings in the intervening period).

 

Richie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Michael,

Oh I hadn't spotted that.  Presumably they would have been standard diamond crossings in NER days?  Trap points noted, thank you!

 

Thanks to everyone for their help and advice.  I think we seem to have nailed it down!

 

Richie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 01/11/2021 at 23:33, MarshLane said:

Thanks mike, that's useful.  The plan is for the diorama to be pre-grouping - around 1920-22, but I doubt the track layout changed that much (perhaps with the addition of Holgate Sidings in the intervening period).

 

The signalling diagram for York Locomotive Yard, which closed with the 1951 re-signalling, is on the page linked below and it's slightly different from the post-1951 layout @The Stationmaster posted; unfortunately I can't see a date on the SRS thumbnail.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/LNERDiagrams.htm#XN

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

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The signalling diagram for York Locomotive Yard, which closed with the 1951 re-signalling, is on the page linked below and it's slightly different from the post-1951 layout @The Stationmaster posted; unfortunately I can't see a date on the SRS thumbnail.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/LNERDiagrams.htm#XN

That layout can be seen (partially) in various photos taken between the wars but the running line double junction in the 1951 layout was present in late semaphore days.

  • Informative/Useful 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...