Advice sought on a few signalling questions.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Gentlemen,

 

Next to all hostilities, spelling errors and layout objects or not, even if the discussion is an interesting one, we seem to get a little side tracked, on track we may or may not even see ........

 

I'm almost done with my questions, regarding the signalling, and that's about a numbering to adopt, for the track diagram and the signal box. Can anyone of you put in a last effort for this please?

 

With regards to Templot. I have struggled to get going, and a hastily organised small training session with Martin Wynne did not get me and my mate very far unfortunately, due to start up issues I can't remember. No Templot track for me, unfortunately. But ...... This layout plan was started in a group of layouts or rather short diorama sections, of multiple builders, with the intention to have group running sessions. Peco Code 75 track was mandatory for this, and even though it's now a stand alone layout, the track is still all Peco. However, I want to improve the look of it, by spacing out the sleepers, as was done on here, in a topic, started by Andy York himself. I am getting a lasercut tool send, that allows for an easy re-spacing at 8 mm and 9 mm intervals. This is for the plain track. I have 13 points to convert as well. 4 straight long/large ones and 9 curved ones. I want to change sleepers out for PCB sleepers, a few at a time, to keep point geometry in tact. For this task, I actually need Templot point templates drawn up in 2 varieties, with either an 8 mm sleeper spacing throughout and also a 9 mmv version. Is there anyone able and willing to assist? The track needs to be exactly like the large Peco code 75 point and the curved Peco code 75 point, of course in left and right variety, but that can surely be an easy flipover. The one sleeper that will remain in situ, is the one with the hinges of the pointblades on it. All others will need to become new PCB sleepers at either the 8mm or 9mm interval, measured from that single one.

 

Any volunteers? Please speak up. Thanks in advance, any help greatly appreciated. It will help getting my layout looking a bit more like 4mm scale as standard Peco track will do, as it's basically H0, sleeperwise.

 

Of the plain track, the Slow lines will be layed with wooden sleepers, whereas the Fast lines will be layed with concrete sleepers and a little newer ballast, to show the track renewal of some time ago.

 

Regards,

Michel

[Derekstuart]

As someone who has had a huge amount of support and help from Martin and others regarding Templot, I think it is only right and proper that those of us who have had such help in turn go on to help others.

 

I don't have any Peco turnouts so I have no idea what size they are. If you can provide that info then it's easy enough.

 

However, if you are trying to re-space sleepers on rigid Peco turnouts then I take my hat off to you...

[martin_wynne]

I don't have any Peco turnouts so I have no idea what size they are. If you can provide that info then it's easy enough.

 

Hi Derek,

 

You can download Templot files containing templates matching Peco from: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=294&forum_id=10

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Hi Derek,

 

Thanks for your offer to help out. I can scan the points at 600dpi, 300dpi or even lower if desired. No idea what would suite you best. I will scan them both from the top and from the bottom. Do you need both a LH and a RH scan, or can you easily flip them over? I need a version with 8 mm centre to centre sleepers spacing and a 9 mm as well, as the outcome and look of it will allow me to determine which spacing looks best. The sleeper with the hinges will be the zero point to where the other sleepers need to be positioned.

 

Yes, the respacing will be quite some job. Not sure if I can re-use all the plastic Peco sleepers, will need all bar one in PCB or if a few PCB and the rest re-used plastic ones.

 

I'm not sure if the ones in the link from Martin will suite me, as the sleeper spacing and size is not clear, nor if the sleeper with the hinged blades is in its original position. Intention is to fully match the appearance of plain track, simply respaced to 8 mm or 9 mm (centre to centre) sleeper spacing.

 

Peco provides these templates/scans/prints:

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c75/SL-E186,E187%20plan%20sheet.pdf

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c75/SL-E188,E189%20plan%20sheet.pdf

 

Regards, Michel

[Derekstuart]

Hello Michel

 

The templates Martin supplied are set at 7.33mm spacing.

 

To set them to 9mm spacing is really easy. Real>>timbering>>Timbering data then press enter 4 times until you reach fill timber spacing (maximum, full-size inches) and then enter 27.

 

Templot is worked on British Imperial measurements. 9mm scaled up 1:76.2 is 228.6mm, which didived by 25.4mm per inch is 9mm that you are looking for.

 

I can email them to you if you wish, though if Martin's reading this I would ask if he could confirm I have done this right.

 

 

In terms of re-construction, I wonder if you have thought out how you are actually going to achieve this. You mention PCB timbers (sleepers)- have you considered building the whole turnout with PCB (using recycled common crossing (frog) and switches (blades) from the Peco item if you prefer?)

 

The reason I say this is if you have a timber that has, for example, 2mm between the main stock rail and the diverging closure rail, you won't be able to slide this timber along because it's position will be fixed by the relative spacing between the 4 rails.

 

What track are you trying to match up to?

[Grovenor]

 

What track are you trying to match up to?

Post #51

Regards

[Derekstuart]

Thank you Keith.

 

I did in fact read that, but I'm puzzled why the Peco turnout timber spacing doesn't match the plain track in the first place.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

This sleeper re-spacing was initiated through a topic started by Andy York, to re-space plain Peco code 75 track. A few other modellers in the Netherlands are doing the same, and have settled on either 8 mm or 9 mm spacing. For plain track, someone has made a lasercut template, that can do both sizes. A fellow DEMU modeller has done the same, but with standard Peco points, and this looks odd IMHO. Therefor, the points need sleeper re-spacing as well. There was another topic in here, showing this proces, a few sleepers changed out at a time, so point geometry is never in danger and no need for gauges. The sleeper with the hinges has to stay where it is, as a 0 point, and from there lefthand side and righthand side need shifting. If plastic sleepers are going to be re-used, the chairs have to be taken off, otherwise it won't fit. PCB sleepers and thus Templot sleepers need to match the Peco sleeper width and also length outside the rail. Does Templot draw the sleeper lines outside of the intended sleeper, at the centre of the edge of inside the intended size?

 

If I can find a way to re-use/re-attach the original sleepers, then that's what I prefer. Possibly with the odd PCB sleeper for extra strength safety.

 

The templates in the link give by Martin do not show the sleeper with the hinges of the blades attached to it, so no idea if they are of use to me. Besides, the sleeper spacing is not what I'm after. Apparently that's easily fixed, when you know your way in Templot. If I get files, I can of course print myself from Templot. My version is 0.91c.

 

Regards, Michel

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

The Peco Code 75 plain track and points matches, but has 1:87 sizes and spacing rather then 1:76 spacing. Full 1:76 spacing will not look correct either, as sleeper width and length plus the track gauge is off. Andy York did re-space the sleepers, at a spacing that's an intermediate to 1:87 and 1:76 spacing, as a compromise, because of the sleeper sizes and scale narrow gauge. But it looks a lot better as the spacing, as produced. It's mainly produced for the 1:87 market.

 

I want to do the same, but match the point accordingly.

 

Regards, Michel

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

I have yet to decide to go for 8 mm spacing or 9 mm spacing. I prefer to determine this, not only by checking this on plain track, but also on the points, hence my request for 2 differently spaced versions.

 

Regards, Michel

[martin_wynne]

though if Martin's reading this I would ask if he could confirm I have done this right.

 

Hi Derek,

 

Well that's done the switch timbering and closure space, although it has moved the switch-heel timber which Michel wants to remain fixed.

 

But you still need to do the wing rail front section, and the crossing section. That needs some careful calculations. There is plenty about customizing crossings on the Templot Club forum.

 

But quite frankly Michel I think this whole idea is crazy. You are using code 75 rail, so you can easily build some matching bullhead copper-clad turnouts in a fraction of the time and trouble instead of using bits of Peco blade stampings. At the same time you could improve on the daft Peco geometry.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Hi Martin,

 

Yes, it may be daft. Luckily I'm not the only one. All track for the layout, bot FY/off scene as on scene has been bought. All track is FB. The track between the points, of the 2 Fast lines, will be concrete sleepered, the rest wood sleepered. BH points would be a bit odd. On the trackplan, the geometry doesn't look odd, and I have no intention to suddenly start building my own track, so late in the proces. I'd like to improve the Peco appearance to better match 4mm scale, albeit with 3.5 mm sleeper sizes as well as 3.5mm gauge. I might opt for blades from rail, and not hinged but sprung, but the pointy end is not easy to make without jigs. All I need is 13 points with altered sleeper spacing, of 2 types really, the large and the curved variety.

 

Regards, Michel

[martin_wynne]

I'd like to improve the Peco appearance to better match 4mm scale, albeit with 3.5 mm sleeper sizes as well as 3.5mm gauge.

 

Hi Michel,

 

Peco timbers are too short and too narrow. If you space them wider they are going to look even more spindly. 4mm scale stock running on Peco track already looks like it is running on matchsticks, it will look even worse.

 

If you want to re-use the Peco rail parts and geometry, at least build them on proper UK 12" wide timbering on 8ft base length (for 00). In 4mm/ft scale that is 4mm wide copper-clad strip (readily available) and 32mm base length.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Derekstuart]

Michel,

Sorry, I thought I understood how to do it. I shall stand in the corner with a dunce hat on (for a change). You're obviously a chap who knows his own mind and what he wants, and I respect that.

 

Martin,

Sorry for giving out incorrect information, I was getting ahead of myself.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Hi Martin, Derek and others,

 

The sleeper respacing, on both plain track AND points, was boosted by this topic started by Andy Y, for the plain track sleeper respacing, and Mike Knowles added the point with respaced sleepers to it.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/23129-improving-peco-code-75/

 

 

 

Somw other questions also with regards to the signalling, as I'm missing a few details yet.

 

If there's no diverging route to take, and no speed control by signals, and say way ahead no train, is the sequence then always G, G, G, G, YY, Y, R?

And what if there is a diverging route with lower speed control, this is R up to the train approaching, but will it have been red from the last train passing before, or can it go from G to R, if a train appears that needs to take the diverging route?

In other words, does the signalling need to know the next train and its route, even if it comes a considerable time after the preceeding one?

 

 

Regards, Michel

[ForestPines]

Under normal circumstances, where possible, signals only go from G to R when a train passes them. (Experts: I know there are exceptions but ideally they shouldn't apply here). Junction signals then stay red until the signalman knows for certain what route the next train will be taking.

[phil-b259]

Hi Martin, Derek and others,

 

The sleeper respacing, on both plain track AND points, was boosted by this topic started by Andy Y, for the plain track sleeper respacing, and Mike Knowles added the point with respaced sleepers to it.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/23129-improving-peco-code-75/

 

 

 

Somw other questions also with regards to the signalling, as I'm missing a few details yet.

 

If there's no diverging route to take, and no speed control by signals, and say way ahead no train, is the sequence then always G, G, G, G, YY, Y, R?

And what if there is a diverging route with lower speed control, this is R up to the train approaching, but will it have been red from the last train passing before, or can it go from G to R, if a train appears that needs to take the diverging route?

In other words, does the signalling need to know the next train and its route, even if it comes a considerable time after the preceeding one?

 

 

Regards, Michel

 

The sequence in 4 aspect areas on the approach to a Red signal is always G, YY, Y and then Red.

 

However that amuses everything stays static. In reality a driver may well see a G, YY, Y, G, G, YY, G, etc or a G, YY, G, G, G sequence if he (or she) starts to catch up with the train in front. Naturally as he/ she sees the cautionary aspects the driver will slacken their speed, thus increasing the distance between the two trains and causing him / her to go back to getting Greens again. Another situation where this scenario might occur is where the signalman is a bit late in setting the routes and thus holding 'controlled' signals at red with the driver encountering cautionary aspects on the as a result, only for the signalman to set the route before the driver reaches the red signal.

 

'Controlled' signals require positive action from the signalman to change up to a proceed aspect  from red - as opposed to automatic ones that simply use a combination of the status of the next signal and the section of track between them to be proved clear for them to automatically change up to a proceed aspect with no intervention from the signalman. Controlled signals are used to protect junctions, level crossing etc and will sit at red if no route has been set between them and the next signal. 'Automatic' signals are not suitable for sections of track which have any form of point work or some types of level crossing between the automatic signal and the next one by the way

 

The other thing to consider is station working - at busy stations the signalman may not give a proceed on the signals giving exit from the platform until they have received the 'Train Ready To Start' indication from the platform staff. This prevents the signalman setting the route only to have the train not move thus locking up other routes - possibly with serious repercussions if timetabling is tight.

 

Moving to junctions a train proceeding along the straight route would receive a Green at all signals - unless (1) the signaller was a bit tardy in clearing the junction signal for the straight route or (2) The station call was an extended one and TRTS is employed to prevent premature route setting leaving the platforms.

 

Now lets consider the scenario where the signalman sets the wrong route at the junction. If no trains are approaching then he / she can simply replace the signal to red and set a new route BUT what if a train is approaching? Clearly a train having previously received a green signal will not be able to stop in time if it suddenly finds a signal at red (particularly in 4 aspect areas where drivers usually receive a YY & Y indication before coming across a red signal). In such a situation it is obviously dangerous to allow points to move or conflicting routes to be set so the signal engineers fit something called approach locking to the signals. What this means is that the route remains 'locked in' and cannot be destroyed for 2 minutes after the signal has been put back to red by the signalman.

 

If a diverging route is to be taken at the junction AND approach control is in operation (which you said in a earlier post was likely) then the driver will always get the standard G, YY, Y, R sequence on approach (remember, the whole point of approach control is to slow the train down - it doesn't matter if the signalman sets the onward route 30 minutes or 30 seconds before the train arrives at the junction - the sequence will allays follow this pattern). If we assume for the moment though that the route is indeed set before the train reaches the junction, then when the track circuit on final approach to the junction signal becomes occupied by the train the interlocking will automatically clear the signal to a proceed as aspect. The exact aspect shown will depend on the state of the next signal and as such it could go straight from R to Y or YY or G. If the signalman has not set the route over the junction by the time the train arrives it the signal will stay at red until they do. However because the interlocking will have proved the train is now going extremely slowly or is at a stand the signal will change up to a proceed aspect immediately the route is correctly set.  Note that as before which proceed aspect is shown (Y, YY & G all being proceed aspects, is governed by the state of subsequent signals).

 

Finally up until the early 90s (when Automatic Route Setting started to come in with IECCs) it was up to the signalman to ensure routes were set in good time. To keep trains moving at the highest permissible speed (and arguably as a safety measure given the limitations of AWS) this meant giving drivers green signals wherever possible. Details of which train was going where appeared in the working timetables and signalmen would use these in conjunction with the train describers to determine when to set routes.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

All very clear Phil. Thanks a lot. With the contributions of you and the others, I should be able to work out my signalling control and translate this to the software and hardware.

 

Regards, Michel

(A Dutch trainee train driver, for 5.5 weeks only, as they didn't want hobbyists on board .... )

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Apoligies, but a few more question cropped up.

 

Lets say there's a passenger WTT with a few freights also diagrammed in. How well in advance will the signaller know in advance if trains are not running on time?

For the next train needing to stop and/or take a diverging route, setting the signals in advance is easy.

And for the non stopping/non diverging route as well.

But what if train orders get messed up and signals are set for them, but another is showing up?

 

And are the power levers wired to point motors or connected to motors inside the signal box with point rodding?

And if the former, when was point rodding and manual lever control abandoned?

Was there space for point rodding and 3rd rail?

 

Regards,

Michel

[The Stationmaster]

Apoligies, but a few more question cropped up.

 

Lets say there's a passenger WTT with a few freights also diagrammed in. How well in advance will the signaller know in advance if trains are not running on time?

For the next train needing to stop and/or take a diverging route, setting the signals in advance is easy.

And for the non stopping/non diverging route as well.

But what if train orders get messed up and signals are set for them, but another is showing up?

 

And are the power levers wired to point motors or connected to motors inside the signal box with point rodding?

And if the former, when was point rodding and manual lever control abandoned?

Was there space for point rodding and 3rd rail?

 

Regards,

Michel

I understand the Southern 1950s and early '60s resignalling schemes generally used what are known as 'magazine' train describers - these let the Signalman know which trains (by route and or classification and in what order) are approaching his control area.  If trains are running out of order the Signalman would normally receive telephone advice from either Control or another signalbox.  Equally he would be advised of changes to the timetable by printed notice.

 

As far as power frames are concerned the methods varied - some used electric interlocking, some a mixture of electric and mechanical - but that only applies to the working and control of the levers themselves.  What the levers then caused to happen at the outdoor equipment was by a signal sent electrically from a contact on the lever or from that contact via relay controls.  For example point machines aren't driven directly by the contacts on the lever but that lever operates a relay or contact unit which operates the point machine.

 

The sort of era you are modelling would have no point rodding, the point machines were (and still are) connected directly to the switch rails.  But rodding to points was very common in 3rd rail areas where, of course, mechanical signalboxes were (are?) in use.

[martin_wynne]

The sleeper respacing, on both plain track AND points, was boosted by this topic started by Andy Y, for the plain track sleeper respacing, and Mike Knowles added the point with respaced sleepers to it.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/23129-improving-peco-code-75/

 

 

Hi Michel,

 

Is this the post and result you are looking for:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/23129-improving-peco-code-75/&do=findComment&comment=233642

 

 

I will do you a Templot file for this, if you have decided what timber spacing you want (centre-to-centre) and the timber length and width? I'm assuming the base turnout is Peco Large Radius? And the flangeway gap as 00-BF (1.3mm)?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks for that generous offer.

Yes, this is what I'm after.

I need Peco Code 75 Large Point (left and right) and Peco Code 75 Curved Point (left and right).

 

Today I've received a plastic lasercut jig to use for plain track 8 mm sleeper spacing and plain track 9 mm sleeper spacing.

I will have a go with some trial, to see what look I prefer.

I will also fiddle around graphically, with a point scanned in, to alter the sleeper spacing to 8 mm and 9 mm, and see how this looks in comparison to/with the plain track.

 

Once I know if it'll be 8 mm or 9 mm, and have settled on sleeper sizes (to be made from sleeper PCB strips supplied by C&L), I will let you know, so you can have a go on my behalf.

The only thing to watch out for, is keeping the sleeper with the switch blade hinges where Peco has it, and respace all others to the left and right from that zero point.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Regards, Michel

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Not have had time yet, to have a play with resleepering, but that can wait a bit, while I've changed my mind, by stock options and availability, to swap from BR(s) 1967 to NSE 1987.

With this change, I've also decided on some cost cutting on stock and boards, plus making a the trackplan a little more viable, with a combined through/terminus station and also adding a small stabling point.

 

The tram tracks and roads have partially changed as well.

 

These changes require a part change on the signalling as well, of course.

 

The 2-track line top left has been taken off the plan.

The 2-track line bottom left has the DOWN track now connected with Platform 4B, with no changes to the signalling.

The UP track remains unchanged, so no change to the signalling there as well.

 

The terminating trains coming from the UP Slow and departing to the DOWN Slow now have 2 platform tracks, to be used alternating, Platform 2a/2b and 3a/3b.

A scissors crossover has been put in place just before these platforms.

I guess I could do a double feather on the signal outside of the tunnel, but a double feather on Eckon signals is probably difficult to do.

Alternative could be a gantry in front of the scissors crossover, to signal either Platform 2 or 3.

Is there a need for a full 4-aspect signal here?

The platform tracks 2 and 3 comprise of 3 portions each.

Platform b side, Platform a side and the stabling section after the platform.

2-car trains are intended to either only use the b side, or centre over the a and b side, with the whole train closest to the stairs, that are in the centre of the platforms.

4-car trains are intended to use Platform a and b simultaniously.

Part of the day, both stabling sections will have the Peak-Hour extra trains stabling there.

At night, both Platforms, and both a and b sections, will have 2-car trains stabling there.

The first 2 trains leaving will be from the b sides, then the units stabled on the a sides.

End of the day, the third to last and the second to last trains will stop at the a sides and stable there.

The first to last and last train will stop at the b sides and stable there.

Off-Peak-Hours, the stabling section of 2 and 3 will have a 2x 2H and a Cl.33+3coaches+Cl.33 stabled there.

The four 2EPB units will run the service, all as 2-car trains.

During Peak-Hours, the 2EPB units will combine to two trains of 2x 2EPB and the other trains will step in on the now open diagrams.

 

How do I need to signal tracks 2 and 3, in the UP and in the DOWN direction?

 

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable responses.

 

Regards, Michel

 

 

 

[Grovenor]

For the terminating platforms I would suggest a fixed red with shunt below at the left end of each platform and a shunt to come back into the platform from each siding.

 

Also you still have all of the feathers with their left/rights interchanged as per previous comments. The departure signals from platforms 2 and 3 would more likely be theatre indicators rather than feathers as feathers are long range signals and there are no through trains at these platforms.

Regards

[59004 ( was Shedcombe....)]

Hi Keith,

 

Thanks for your swift response.

 

• The permanent red with shunt below at the platform ends is indeed a good solution. I have placed these. But what kind of main signal heads please?
   
• What solution for the end of service, when a second unit needs to enter the platform at the B end, while the platform A end already contains a stabled unit?
   
• I have swapped the tunnel exit feathers around. The Slow terminating trains and Fast continueing trains will now see a lit feather. The Semi-Fast trains will now see no lit feather.
   
• Same thing applies now for the feather of the signal at Plaform 4B, which shows a lit feather for the Fast trains and no lit feather for the Semi-Fast trains.
   
• I have changed the feathers from 2B and 3B in to theatre indicatorboxes. These signals should remain 4-Aspect types?
   
• What about signalling for entering either Platform 2 or 3? Is there a need for this, as it's always a slow movement. If yes, then what/where? If in front of the scissors crossover, it'll be a permanently yellow or yellow/red?

 

Regards,

Michel