GWR Signals and where they go?

[XN593]

Thank you Mike. You have cleared up some of my misconceptions, which were:-

I had assumed the farm crossing would need protecting so the route indicator will move.

My thoughts for the double ground signal was for one to enter the yard or go straight (a white light) no.22 and one to indicate that the trap was clear, no23. Thinking about it, if route 3 is cleared for the loop then the only options are to either stay on the loop (trap reversed) or enter the yard.

My original position of the frame in the box was the other way round but I changed it to to reflect the way I operate the layout and the position of my lever frame. So the station signals start at the left of the frame and work to the right. I think I was influenced by the box at Buckfastleigh which I seem to recall has the frame at the back of the box. Easy to correct.

 

Would you mind if I kept the route indicator, I do like it?

 

The bay is as you say, a passenger line. So have I understood correctly that I need four facing point locks but operated not as a double compound? As per the new sketch.

 

 

Ah, Slough. I'm tempted by your picture as I went to school in Slough. I seem to remember there was a turntable near to that spot. On the other hand Helston looks nice (and I worked for Helston Garages for a while). I know, stupid reasons to chose a signal!  You used signals in plural so I assume two signals are needed to the dock, one from the bay and one from platform 1 (main)?

 

I'm most grateful.

 

Peter

 

[RailWest]

>>>I think I was influenced by the box at Buckfastleigh which I seem to recall has the frame at the back of the box...

 

But that is a preservation era installation :-)

 

I'll leave Stationmaster to sort out your point/FPL numbering, but I would have though that 9A and 7 should work together?

[Grovenor]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Generally agree with this.  

 

As far as the double slip etc is confirmed you have separately numbered the point ends in the only possible way which allows them to be worked properly - 14 has to be on its own lever because of the way 11 works.  But if you regard the bay as a passenger line being used by passenger trains then 11B needs an FPL. (your signals suggest that it is a passenger line).

Your general agreement was to the double slip having  2 levers rather than 3. But then you go on to agree with the 3 lever version!

I would eliminate 11 altogether so the slip is worked by 9B and 14. The two 9B FPLs can then be worked by one lever.

Setting up model double slips to have independent blade sets at one end is fraught with difficulty, Peco etc come with a common tiebar. Why be a masochist if its not neccessary.

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, XN593 said:

Thank you Mike. You have cleared up some of my misconceptions, which were:-

I had assumed the farm crossing would need protecting so the route indicator will move.

My thoughts for the double ground signal was for one to enter the yard or go straight (a white light) no.22 and one to indicate that the trap was clear, no23. Thinking about it, if route 3 is cleared for the loop then the only options are to either stay on the loop (trap reversed) or enter the yard.

My original position of the frame in the box was the other way round but I changed it to to reflect the way I operate the layout and the position of my lever frame. So the station signals start at the left of the frame and work to the right. I think I was influenced by the box at Buckfastleigh which I seem to recall has the frame at the back of the box. Easy to correct.

 

Would you mind if I kept the route indicator, I do like it?

 

The bay is as you say, a passenger line. So have I understood correctly that I need four facing point locks but operated not as a double compound? As per the new sketch.

 

 

Ah, Slough. I'm tempted by your picture as I went to school in Slough. I seem to remember there was a turntable near to that spot. On the other hand Helston looks nice (and I worked for Helston Garages for a while). I know, stupid reasons to chose a signal!  You used signals in plural so I assume two signals are needed to the dock, one from the bay and one from platform 1 (main)?

 

I'm most grateful.

 

Peter

 

 

Keep the route indicator!!.  Now there is a possible solution which will sound odd but which definitely existed at one GW 'box and, without doing a lot of delving, probably more than one - it is that one of the indicted routes from the Home Signal reads to both the loop and the sidings.  This the indicator would read something like 'SDGS' which would include the loop.  So then no need at all for the disc signal.

 

And yesw - the signals from both platforms would have to have an arm to read towards the siding.  

[RobinofLoxley]

I have been lurking on this thread with a great deal of inerest as my knowlede of signals is less than zero and at some point my new layout will get signalling. It will be a mission and is realistically years away. But whilst researching the mostly imaginary route my layout represents in the West Midlands I came across this oddity

 

Ref: gwrbsh1743
Great Western Railway
An electrically operated double dwarf ground signal at the north end of Snow Hill station.

[XN593]

A final note to say thank you for your help. I'm relieved that my flight of fancy didn't crash and burn and with a few tweaks should look the business.

As to the compound point, the jury is still out but I now have a few spare levers, in roughly the right place on the frame, just in case. I wasn't my intention to have independent blades but to use three levers to control two servos via a Megapoints controller. The compound lever's microswitch providing current to the other two levers depending on whether any of the three are normal or reversed. As an aside,on the unofficial Severn Valley S&T website (svrsig) provides a simulator for Kidderminster. It is a bit dated and has an old fashioned MSdos feel about it but it worked on my version of Window.

 

As things have changed a bit I have attached a revised layout plan and lever list

 

Kind regards

 

[MoonMonkey]

Well this has been a good find - a very informative thread, thanks to all the contributors to date!  

[MoonMonkey]

If I may, I'd like to test my understanding and then ask a few further questions.  In the illustration, there is a simple pair of points to allow a mainline train to switch to the other track, should that ever be required, for opposite line working (as I believe it's called).  Perhaps to get around a blockage or something. 

In this case, am I right in thinking that each line would have a stop signal close to the points, and a distant signal preceeding it some distance away?  

 

Assuming that is correct, I plan to put the stop signal immediately before the points start.  Would that be reasonable?  

 

I also suspect the distance between a distant and stop would be greater than the length of a layout?  Would a distant signal need to be more than, say, a few feet away? 

 

 

ALSO - as a modification to this... what if the points were also used to allow goods train on on the Up line to reverse (set back?) onto the down line and then onto an access line to a goods yard?  Would I need ground signals for this? 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Very unlikely that you would finda layout quite like that as most of the 'break section signal boxes' which wetre provided were only there to split up existing block section (and thus increase line capaciity) so didn't have any pointwortk.

 

But you have the basics although the reality would probably be motre pointwork and more stop signals.  As far distant signas are concerned you need either a very long railway room for you layout or an extension which goes out into the garden as the normal minimum distance the GWR used between a distant and the first stop signal it applied to (but on a rising gradient steeper than 1 in 200) was 600 yards and a minimum of 800 yards where the line was level - which is something over 30 feet in old money.  On fast main line the distance would be much greater at 1200 - 1300 or so yards.  So on a model railway - unless you are modellinga stretch of open country - an individual distant signal would be a rare bird indeed.  However a lower arm distant could be a possibility.

 

Moving to your other question on the (G)WR it would be very unusual to find a 'box worked crossover without ground signals - even if it was just the simple situation in your sketch.  And those ground signals would be worked for trains crossing over in the event of Single Line Working (not 'opposite line working' because that implies something very different although it is still not a correct term.

 

I hope that helps.

[Michael Hodgson]

57 minutes ago, MoonMonkey said:

ALSO - as a modification to this... what if the points were also used to allow goods train on on the Up line to reverse (set back?) onto the down line and then onto an access line to a goods yard?  Would I need ground signals for this? 

If you had a simple siding accessed from the Down line it would normally point to the right so that the point was trailing rather than facing - that is, a train running on the Down Line would be able to pass the Home Signal and set back into the siding, leaving his brake van on the main line while attaching or detaching wagons.  A train on the Up Line would have problems shunting into such a siding because the loco would be at the wrong end.  So traffic to and from the siding would only be worked by Down Line services. 

 

Alternatively if it was necessary that the siding faced the other way, that point on the Down Line would be a single slip so that an Up train could shunt right across the Down Line, but Down trains would find it difficult to shunt.  Obviously this was inconvenient because all shunting blocked both running lines to other trains.

 

Ground signals would be provided for all regular shunt movements.  Companies other than the GWR tended not to provide ground signals where an emergency crossover was provided only to enable single line working, and hand-signals would be given instead when required.  Such working entailed the appointment of a Pilotman and special forms.

 

"Break-section" boxes like this tended to work quite limited hours and could be switched out of circuit in periods of low traffic, leaving the signals in the off position.  They also tended to be abolished rather earlier than more complex boxes, as they could be replaced by Intermediate Block Signals (the same set-up, but without the crossover) and track-circuited from the signal box in rear and power worked from there.

[MoonMonkey]

Many thanks for the comments.  The points are a functional necessity for the layout, at the end of the board (as there is no fiddle yard (yet)).  My thinking is to blend them in and look more like a protoytpe set up if possible.   Noted that this crossover in the middle of nowhere would have been highly unlikely in the real world.  But taking that and playing with the concept for the benefit of interest on the layout, it sounds like a stop signal in each direction just short of the points would be sensible.  The distants aren't going to fit in any prototype way due to space.   

[MoonMonkey]

My pondering about the addition of goods yard access is because I have a similar crossover (pair of points) between the mainline tracks elsewhere, and an associated point to access a line into the goods yard.  This is indeed a facing point on the down line.  This is less prototypical but again it is a functional necessity to make the layout work.  I thought about a diamond crossing in lieu of a slip (I'm using bog standard Hornby track) but the layout isn't wide enough unfortunately... so points it was.  So, taking it for what it is in my case, it sounds like a stop signal in each direction would be appropriate, plus ground discs/signals for shunting.  That should add some visual interest, which would be nice.  

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, MoonMonkey said:

My pondering about the addition of goods yard access is because I have a similar crossover (pair of points) between the mainline tracks elsewhere, and an associated point to access a line into the goods yard.  This is indeed a facing point on the down line.  This is less prototypical but again it is a functional necessity to make the layout work.  I thought about a diamond crossing in lieu of a slip (I'm using bog standard Hornby track) but the layout isn't wide enough unfortunately... so points it was.  So, taking it for what it is in my case, it sounds like a stop signal in each direction would be appropriate, plus ground discs/signals for shunting.  That should add some visual interest, which would be nice.  

A diamond crossing would be perfectly acceptable and indeed prototypically accurate for a number of GWR locations.    However I'm not at all sure why using a diamond crossing would make the layout wider and it would definitely make the total formation shorter (and, although you've already got the points, cheaper because it would use two points and the diamond instead of four points - but no mainline crossover then of course

 

I'm not at all sure how you would shunt a facing connection unless you cross from the wrong road which I presume is what you are doing?  What sort of date is your layout set in because if it represents a later period then you can justify the track layout against a number of locations in the real world on the WR.

[MoonMonkey]

Thanks Stationmaster, 

The board is only 28cm deep (front to back), and the mainlines had to line up with the adjacent module.  From recollection, I think I worked out that using a diamond crossing would have added a bit to much, such that the siding was then too close to the front edge of the board.  That said, I may have got that wrong, but the track is glued down now.  It has therefore become a case of a compromise I need to live with, but I'm hapy with it.  If I build another layout in future, then I'll be wiser and more experienced.  

 

In terms of the shunting, it's a facing point on the down line, so no shunting for down trains.

 

For a train on the up line (and apologies if the terminology is incorrect, I'm still learning, including from your excellent posts on this thread for which I thank you), it moves forward of the points, reverses back onto the down line and then immediately onto the facing point into the goods siding.  

 

The date is VE day, 1945, on a GWR mainline passing a small rural goods yard.  The goods yard is notionally associated with a minor station on that mainline, but the station and related trackwork isn't modelled due to space constraints.  

[MoonMonkey]

Ah, I just remembered, I didn't use a diamond crossing, because I needed the points to work for both the up and down lines onto the siding, so I used staggered points, instead of a diamond which would only have allowed movement to the siding from the up line.  

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, MoonMonkey said:

Thanks Stationmaster, 

The board is only 28cm deep (front to back), and the mainlines had to line up with the adjacent module.  From recollection, I think I worked out that using a diamond crossing would have added a bit to much, such that the siding was then too close to the front edge of the board.  That said, I may have got that wrong, but the track is glued down now.  It has therefore become a case of a compromise I need to live with, but I'm hapy with it.  If I build another layout in future, then I'll be wiser and more experienced.  

 

In terms of the shunting, it's a facing point on the down line, so no shunting for down trains.

 

For a train on the up line (and apologies if the terminology is incorrect, I'm still learning, including from your excellent posts on this thread for which I thank you), it moves forward of the points, reverses back onto the down line and then immediately onto the facing point into the goods siding.  

 

The date is VE day, 1945, on a GWR mainline passing a small rural goods yard.  The goods yard is notionally associated with a minor station on that mainline, but the station and related trackwork isn't modelled due to space constraints.  

Terminology spot on so no worries there.  Such a situation would have been very unusual on a GWR main line in 1945 but there were by that date 6 signalled facing connections into goods yards on the Taunton - Barnstaple secondary route although most of those would have been shunted in the way you describe.  So there were definitely some prototypes for your everything 

[MoonMonkey]

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Terminology spot on so no worries there.  Such a situation would have been very unusual on a GWR main line in 1945 but there were by that date 6 signalled facing connections into goods yards on the Taunton - Barnstaple secondary route although most of those would have been shunted in the way you describe.  So there were definitely some prototypes for your everything 

Many thanks again. Stationmaster, much appreciated!