West Sands - BR (SR) Electrified south coast branch terminus - MISSING PHOTOS SLOWLY BEING RESTORED

[Nick C]

They were, but then we're discussing a station rebuilt by the SR, so I doubt they would have left any, and if they had it's unlikely they'd have survived until Geep7's era.

 

Good point about calling on signals.

 

W signals can't be used for a passenger trains as they were used in conjunction with Regulation 5 warning acceptance, which itself can't be used for passenger trains - it's accepting a train when the line is only clear as far as the outermost home signal. I've never seen a photo of one though, so I don't know where they would have been used.

 

I suspect none of these are relevant to West Sands though, it'd be just normal running signals and discs...

[Nearholmer]

I also doubt that a ringed-arm signal would survive at WS, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post, but if Geep want's one, its his railway, and an excuse can surely be found. We've already had Norwood Yard (which was a LQ to boot), and Beddington Lane, and I've found another at Christchurch in Dorset in the meanwhile.

 

A terminus like this could well have calling-on signals, though, and I think both Bognor and Littlehampton had them, and Eastbourne too. Even where trains don't join-up as part of the routine service pattern, they are useful at termini, because they allow spare units to be stabled in the platforms off-peak, and service trains to arrive and depart from the remaining bit of platform, likewise parcels vans to be left at the stops. Good stuff on even quite a small layout, if you want to run a 2-HAL or a 2-HAP as the off-peak service train.

 

W signals are definitely rare, and I can't remember any on BR(S), but I bet there were some ........ places to look might be where military sidings, or carriage sidings, for instance, were connected in mid-section.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Geep7]

Thanks guys. Fascinating information there. I seem to find signalling is one of those 'dark arts' areas, I guess mainly because it depends on where it's being applied and specific to the situation.

 

Nearholmer, I think your last post has confirmed to me what I already had in mind. So a signal at the platform ends much like at Littlehampton (I'm sure I've mentioned it before), and ground discs everywhere else.

 

I'll leave the other stuff perhaps to a small ex-LSWR layout idea I have.... working semaphores and all..... 

[Nearholmer]

I can't remember exactly what your track-plan is like, but based on questionable memory, here are what I think might be two possibilities.

 

An "earlier" with ringed-arm goods home and starter, calling-on signals beneath the two homes leading to the platforms (under LBSCR these might have been distant arms), and no shunt signals (there might have been some).

 

 

And a "later", I think for your period, still having the calling-on signals, but now with shunt signals, including one yellow one, which always provokes discussion. I might have gone a bit OTT with shunt signals on this version, but I don't think so.

 

 

We'll see what others think, because I've never seen a signalling plan posted on RMWeb that didn't lead to a debate, except perhaps the ones that led to arguments.

 

PS: I think I might even argue with myself: couldn't the two shunt signals for the loco release also be yellow?

 

 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Geep7]

Thanks, Nearholmer, you got very close with the track plan.

 

I've managed to do a rough sketch of the current plan, and what I currently have in the way of signals. I currently have the disc type ground signals where marked (or will do when I put them back)

 

 

What I should say is that both platforms are in use all the time, ie platform 2 (the upper platform) isn't a bay platform, and both can be used for splitting and combining multiple units. The platforms are able to take up to 3 x 2 car units between the buffer stops and the starter signal, so in theory 3 units could be split.

 

The upper siding coming off platform 2 is usually used to stable an off duty 2-car diesel unit, as it's not currently electrified, or engineers stock.

 

The lower siding facing in the down direction is used for locomotive stabling. This potentially could be electrified.

 

The run-round loop is not electrified either, again this could be electrified, but not sure if I would want to.

 

When freight arrives, they arrive into the non-platformed side of the run-round  loop, and they also depart from this side as well.

 

With regard to the oil sidings, I regard them as private sidings, with the boundary being the London/Up side of the ungated crossing, in which case, I don't think it would appear on the diagram anyway....

 

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Geep7

[5BarVT]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

We'll see what others think, because I've never seen a signalling plan posted on RMWeb that didn't lead to a debate, except perhaps the ones that led to arguments.

Guilty . . . .

but in defence, prototypical!

Paul.

[Mike Storey]

45 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

Thanks, Nearholmer, you got very close with the track plan.

 

I've managed to do a rough sketch of the current plan, and what I currently have in the way of signals. I currently have the disc type ground signals where marked (or will do when I put them back)

 

 

What I should say is that both platforms are in use all the time, ie platform 2 (the upper platform) isn't a bay platform, and both can be used for splitting and combining multiple units. The platforms are able to take up to 3 x 2 car units between the buffer stops and the starter signal, so in theory 3 units could be split.

 

The upper siding coming off platform 2 is usually used to stable an off duty 2-car diesel unit, as it's not currently electrified, or engineers stock.

 

The lower siding facing in the down direction is used for locomotive stabling. This potentially could be electrified.

 

The run-round loop is not electrified either.

 

When freight arrives, they arrive into the non-platformed side of the loop, and they also depart from this side as well.

 

With regard to the oil sidings, I regard them as private sidings, with the boundary being the London/Up side of the ungated crossing, in which case, I don't think it would appear on the diagram anyway....

 

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

 

All fine as far as it goes. But, if the double crossover is either powered, or moved manually from a ground frame with a signalman's release, then it needs to be signalled (a ground signal) on to the passenger line both from the loop and the siding.

 

If it is manually operated, with no release, then one would assume that the release crossover would be the same? But that would be very unusual for SR signalling. Nothing to stop the shunter or train crew to move the points when another train was arriving, unless clipped and padlocked with the key held by the Bobby. That would be fine if they needed to be moved only once a day, but that does not sound like what you have in mind.

 

Other than that, you could assume everything else is moved under control of the shunter and/or signaller.

 

[Geep7]

10 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

All fine as far as it goes. But, if the double crossover is either powered, or moved manually from a ground frame with a signalman's release, then it needs to be signalled (a ground signal) on to the passenger line both from the loop and the siding.

 

If it is manually operated, with no release, then one would assume that the release crossover would be the same? But that would be very unusual for SR signalling. Nothing to stop the shunter or train crew to move the points when another train was arriving, unless clipped and padlocked with the key held by the Bobby. That would be fine if they needed to be moved only once a day, but that does not sound like what you have in mind.

 

Other than that, you could assume everything else is moved under control of the shunter and/or signaller.

 

 

Thanks Mike. For the run-round crossover I was going to put a ground frame, so as you suggest, will put ground signals from the loop and siding.

 

Would there also be one from the good sidings on the right onto the loop and siding?

[Nearholmer]

I hemmed and hawed about that last question, and initially decided that only moves to/from sidings to/from the running line, and shunts on the running lines, should get shunt signals ......... but then I wobbled, and signalled the loco release and  a move between two sidings at the front, with the idea in mind that the double-slip and the loco release were operated from the signalbox and that not signalling the move between sidings at the front could result in frequent minor derailments or damaged points due to drivers thinking that they could trail through when the points were set against them. I didn’t signal it the other way, because the risk of derailment or damage going that way is less.

 

But I’m making this up as I go along, or trying to extrapolate from what I’ve seen in practice, when it comes to shunt signals ...... I’m an electrical engineer, not a signalling engineer!

 

Is there an MIRSE in the house? 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Nick C]

Here's my take. Please excuse the crappy drawing! I may have gone slightly overboard with the ground signals...

 

The yellow discs can be passed in the direction to which they don't apply when 'on' - i.e. back and forth along the sidings. The SR used quite a lot of yellow discs (or miniature arms), but didn't have multiple discs - you'd frequently have one disc for several routes.

 

All three crossovers would be operated as pairs - i.e. both ends on the same lever.

 

The inner home would be an impressive beastie - the disc might not be needed as it's role is probably covered by the calling-on arms. The leftmost doll would be a short arm only.

 

IMHO you don't need secondary arms on the platform starters - the line will always be clear to the next stop signal (the advanced starter) so you can use the main arm for all movements.

[Geep7]

Would the advanced starter be so close to the station?

 

The reason for asking, is that there is only about 3ft of modelled layout length between the platform starter and the bridge. I know we do compress distances when modelling, but would it be realistic for it to be this close? The same with the inner home. I would imagine it would be the other side of the road bridge, would it not?

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Is there an MIRSE in the house? 

Sorry, no, only FIRSE!

I have been given other tasks for today the the ‘authority’ but I’ll try to come back with something. I’ve recently invested in a cd of ex SR plans which may give me some ideas.  Could do it easily for ex GWR practice!

Paul. 

[Geep7]

I may have just answered my own question. I have just looked at a photo of Tunbridge Wells West station looking towards Grove tunnel (not uploaded he due to copyright. Just before the Grove tunnel entrance is the Advanced starter, with an additional calling on signal on the same post. I don't think the distance is much further than on my layout, so I may have found a prototype....

[Geep7]

I may have just answered my own question. I have just looked at a photo of Tunbridge Wells West station looking towards Grove tunnel (not uploaded he due to copyright. Just before the Grove tunnel entrance is the Advanced starter, with an additional calling on signal on the same post. I don't think the distance is much further than on my layout, so I may have found a prototype....

[5BarVT]

2 hours ago, Nick C said:

Here's my take. Please excuse the crappy drawing! I may have gone slightly overboard with the ground signals...

 

The yellow discs can be passed in the direction to which they don't apply when 'on' - i.e. back and forth along the sidings. The SR used quite a lot of yellow discs (or miniature arms), but didn't have multiple discs - you'd frequently have one disc for several routes.

 

All three crossovers would be operated as pairs - i.e. both ends on the same lever.

 

The inner home would be an impressive beastie - the disc might not be needed as it's role is probably covered by the calling-on arms. The leftmost doll would be a short arm only.

 

IMHO you don't need secondary arms on the platform starters - the line will always be clear to the next stop signal (the advanced starter) so you can use the main arm for all movements.

 

1 minute ago, Geep7 said:

I may have just answered my own question. I have just looked at a photo of Tunbridge Wells West station looking towards Grove tunnel (not uploaded he due to copyright. Just before the Grove tunnel entrance is the Advanced starter, with an additional calling on signal on the same post. I don't think the distance is much further than on my layout, so I may have found a prototype....

My take on the (advance) starter is pushed right up to the bridge will be fine. That gives a loco length (hopefully) between it and the home signal on the toes of the points.  Means you can get an engine out of one road and into another without worrying about getting tokens etc.  I’ll come back later on shunt signals. If you’re going to have a ground frame for the run round crossover you shouldn’t need shunt signals there ‘cos GF operator is in charge of movements once the release has been given.

Paul.

[Nearholmer]

I remember that signal at TWW, and I think the subsidiary arm was S, to allow trains to pull forward clear of the points, then reverse into the other platforms/yard.

 

It was weirdly located, and I can only think that an advanced starter was put there to allow locos to run-round without going into section ahead, and because the tunnel got in the way of putting it further out.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Geep7]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I remember that signal at TWW, and I think the subsidiary arm was S, to allow trains to pull forward clear of the points, then reverse into the other platforms/yard.

I'll most likely need that for the odd occasion when an excursion train needs its loco releasing and the stock moved from one platform to the other. Oh, and for shunting parcels stock as well.

 

Paul/5BarVT, there is enough room for at least a 2-car unit between the toe of the points and the bridge (I think), if that makes any difference.

[Nick C]

I'd say having the advanced starter by the bridge will be fine - as long as there's room to get a loco between it and the inner homes. If you're wanting to regularly shunt EMUs from one road to the other then it ought to be further, but as you say you could always have a shunt-ahead arm on it - I think that would be unusual though, it's more likely they'd put it the other side of the bridge so that it's far enough away to get the longest train in that you'd want to regularly shunt. I'm guessing they did it like that at TWW because of the tunnel.

[5BarVT]

Finished the allocated task!

I've had fun this afternoon looking into this.  I now know that LB&SC signalled TWW but Grove Jn was SER.

TWW plan dated 1972 still had semaphores coming from Grove Jn but by ‘84 it was a colour light with JI and position light shunt.

Nearholmer is correct in remembering that the subsidiary mentioned above was S not C. Both it and the main arm required the token for the single line. The starting signals from the bay and the Up line both have shunt discs: interestingly the disc cannot be used with the main arm off on the advance starter i.e. forces use of the shunt arm if the move is longer than the 43 yards between the signals.

Seems to fit West Sands very well if you want.

Sez who I can’t learn new stuff when I’m nearly retired!

Paul.

[Nearholmer]

I think that Grove was resignalled for the Hastings Line electrification, but The West never was. IIRC, the home signal for TWW B, coming from GJ was a truly ancient lattice-post thing, which was forever on the brink of falling down into someone’s garden.

 

PS: Thinking about it more, I may have this wrong ...... the lattice post signal was possibly the Grove Junction home, coming from TWW ........ I remember it was part way round the curve between the two, on the southern side of the track, probably on the "wrong" side to allow sighting on the sharp curve which had verdant shrubbery on both sides of it which obstructed the view.

 

Anyway: relevance to Geep's layout? That the odd very old signal post can survive among much newer signals, the rest being SR rail-built in the TW area.

 

BTW, there is a photo of the signal replacement that 5BarVT refers to here http://www.kentrail.org.uk/tunbridge_wells_west_3_1.htm

Edited November 19, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Geep7]

Ok, as I promised a few days ago, I have done a couple of videos of my father's sound fitted steam locos to show the difference between the Soundtraxx Econami and Zimo with Youchoos sound chips. Neither are particularly great videos, it's a bit difficult to hold the phone and the DCC handset at the same time. Both just short videos to show the basic sound. Please be kind, they're my first YouTube videos.

 

 

 

I should point out that neither of these locos came sound equipped. The Std 4 4-6-0 has had the sound chip hard wired with the chip and speaker both in the tender, whereas the 2-6-4T is just plugged into the socket. Both were done by my father.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Geep7

[Nearholmer]

For what little it's worth, I've yet to be truly impressed by any steam loco sounds for model locos but, of the two, I'd say that the second is better. I hope your father won't be offended by that lukewarm review!

 

IMO, diesels fare better with sound, and I've heard some really very realistic ones. Loco size doesn't seem to come into it, because I've heard a truly astoundingly good Sulzer Tye 2 in N scale, and a very disappointing EE 350hp shunter in 0 ...... it seems to be down to the quality of the sound files, and the skill in picking speakers of the person who who does the job. The tiny little N gauge loco had a sugar cube probably c10mm in it, and quite how it managed to get the breadth of frequencies that it did beats me.

 

Mass might have something to do with it, in that the ideal speaker diaphragm would have an infinite mass to work against, so maybe firmly anchoring the speaker to a heavy Muzak casting in the loco helps ..... is that what people do?

 

And, if you can create a truly realistic sounding Class 33, which differentiates between ETH on and off, I will travel to hear it.

[Geep7]

I wouldn't worry, it seems to be a common opinion. I'll be the first to say that the diesel sounds are better and it's probably something to do with a digital chip being able to replicate a diesel engines more mechanical sounds, than a steam engine which is much more living, breathing entity than a machine. That said the steam sound chips are definitely improving, and I think the YouChoos ones are one of the better ones at the moment.

 

To get decent sound, you have to create a decent pressure wave coming out of the front of the speaker, not the back, so sealing a speaker is very important. This is why a sugar cube is so good, as it is a fully sealed speaker. I won't pretend I understand much more about sound waves, as I've forgotten most of my A-level and GCSE physics.... something to do with peaks and troughs if I remember correctly.

 

I'll have to do some more videos with some of my Diesel with sound. I currently only have 3, the Thumper, Class 73 and Class 47, all with LokSound chips.

 

And now I've broken my YouTube duck, perhaps I'll actually upload some proper videos of the layout. That is if I can persuade my glamorous assistant to help out.

[leopardml2341]

Thanks Chris.

 

I'm not sure that the youchoos one is £30 ish better than the econami, but I suppose it also depends on the speaker with each?

[Geep7]

12 minutes ago, leopardml2341 said:

Thanks Chris.

 

I'm not sure that the youchoos one is £30 ish better than the econami, but I suppose it also depends on the speaker with each?

 

I'm pretty sure both just have the standard speakers in them, so definitely room for some tweaks. Trouble is, it almost turns into a hobby of it's own...