Gosty Hill, small mid 80`s layout.

[Tove]

Peter Clark for one of those.

 

Jinty

Spot on Jinty....

 

Just need to find some pennies for it..!!

 

Brian.

[MarshLane]

 

Your idea for two seperate signals instead of a bracket, is most excellent!,and something that i`m going too use on the layout.

 

Now i`m not very clued up on the mechanics of signaling, but as the crossover is already controlled from the box,would`nt the extra signal be a fairly simple affair to erect?

 

 

 

The addition of an extra signal in that fashion wouldn't be to difficult, but remember from an operating point of view, the crossover would likely have been signalled for reverse movements only originally - i.e. emergency use most likely, or possibly the odd freight using the siding - although these could equally have only called in one direction when it was double track, so in that sense, none of the interlocking for these movements would have existed - remember interlocking doesn't just check the route is right, its connected into the block instruments etc.. as well.

 

But they key thing is that YOUR happy with the movements.  One thought that does come to mind, if you put it where it is on the plan, which is where the original would have been when double track, then with wagons in the old main, what is now the sidings, sighting for the driver would be difficult for a train coming from the previous box.  Really it should be positioned either between the siding and the main (which Im guessing would have been unlikely to be done on cost grounds as it would need some kind of bracket signal) or whether the position stays the same but on an offset bracket - although the same thought in terms of money occurs there too.  I wonder whether, it may be better (although it changes the operation and signalling a little) for the siding to remain as the through route, and what you currently have as the through to be a siding, with the crossover going the opposite way?

 

You could still keep the loop as the loop, and the main as the main if you wanted at the top right, but that would mean that the signal wouldn't need to be repositioned.  Just (another) thought!

 

Sorry - am i getting too deep into the thought process here?  I think Signal Engineer's idea of drawing the layout as it was as a double-track and signalling it, then working out how it changes could be the best, as thats how the original would have been done .... but again its the fine line between realistic accuracy and what YOU want!  Up to you how far (or not!) you go across it!

 

Rich

[Tove]

The addition of an extra signal in that fashion wouldn't be to difficult, but remember from an operating point of view, the crossover would likely have been signalled for reverse movements only originally - i.e. emergency use most likely, or possibly the odd freight using the siding - although these could equally have only called in one direction when it was double track, so in that sense, none of the interlocking for these movements would have existed - remember interlocking doesn't just check the route is right, its connected into the block instruments etc.. as well.

 

But they key thing is that YOUR happy with the movements.  One thought that does come to mind, if you put it where it is on the plan, which is where the original would have been when double track, then with wagons in the old main, what is now the sidings, sighting for the driver would be difficult for a train coming from the previous box.  Really it should be positioned either between the siding and the main (which Im guessing would have been unlikely to be done on cost grounds as it would need some kind of bracket signal) or whether the position stays the same but on an offset bracket - although the same thought in terms of money occurs there too.  I wonder whether, it may be better (although it changes the operation and signalling a little) for the siding to remain as the through route, and what you currently have as the through to be a siding, with the crossover going the opposite way?

 

You could still keep the loop as the loop, and the main as the main if you wanted at the top right, but that would mean that the signal wouldn't need to be repositioned.  Just (another) thought!

 

Sorry - am i getting too deep into the thought process here?  I think Signal Engineer's idea of drawing the layout as it was as a double-track and signalling it, then working out how it changes could be the best, as thats how the original would have been done .... but again its the fine line between realistic accuracy and what YOU want!  Up to you how far (or not!) you go across it!

 

Rich

 

I see what you mean now about the interlocking and the orientation of the crossovers,re: as an ex-double tracked main.

 

So now it poses a dilema as to sighting the signals,i suppose i could just place them both on the inside of the curve and refer to rule 1,"it`s my layout"!.But if i`d realised that it would have been left hand running, then i might have avoided these problem`s?.

 

I shall take look at changing the main and loop point`s around,but i don`t think that it will be possible, as there is just enough room for a two track sector plate along the front of door as is with the current plan.And i`ve already glued the sleepers down,so that could cause a few headaches as well!.

 

Thanks again Rich,

 

Brian.

 

[MarshLane]

So now it poses a dilema as to sighting the signals,i suppose i could just place them both on the inside of the curve and refer to rule 1,"it`s my layout"!.But if i`d realised that it would have been left hand running, then i might have avoided these problem`s?.

 

I shall take look at changing the main and loop point`s around,but i don`t think that it will be possible, as there is just enough room for a two track sector plate along the front of door as is with the current plan.And i`ve already glued the sleepers down,so that could cause a few headaches as well!.

 

Thanks again Rich,

 

Brian.

 

 

 

Hi Brian,

Like I say, these are just thoughts - there's only one right way ... the one you decide on!  If your happy with it, then thats all that matters, and the one advantage with our hobby is no matter what anybody says is wrong, or would never be done like that - there is likely to be an example somewhere on the network for some reason!  If your happy with the original plan and already have sleepers down, i'd say leave it, don't waste work!  As long as its not going to niggle away you, then Rule #1 definitely applies!

 

Rich

[TheSignalEngineer]

I can see a workable scenario developing in my head. Existing signal box with two trailing crossovers about 300 yards apart. 

 

Sparse DMU service out and back with a Class 122. Does not cross any passenger trains, so no need for passenger standard passing loop. 

 

Freight runs occasional through service to some other siding. Can be put inside for DMU to pass.

 

Two or three trips per day serve the siding. Arrives in loop from right, runs round using main line then shunts. Returns to right or runs round again then continues to left.

[Jon Fitness]

 

 

Regarding signalling, if the line was freight only and the box remained then signalling would have been minimalist to fit in with what moves were required. If you want to use the idea of a re-purposed signal structure then you need to draw the original layout and signal it then see if anything can be re-used. In those days rationalisations like this were my day job, and we never put in more effort than we could get away with as far as track and signalling alterations were concerned even if it did sometimes produce a prototype inglenook siding.

Agree with all that! Also the pre-group/pre nationalisation lineage of the line would have a bearing on the way it was originally signalled and what structures would remain. 

Although I've been a signalman for nearly 40 years, I love semaphore signals of all types and enjoy building models of them, a signal engineer or designer of signalling installations I am not! I usually need the guidance of those "in the know" about signalling practice on the network.

I'm guessing the line would be ex GWR?

 

JF

[TheSignalEngineer]

Got my bearings now after a re-read. I think the spelling varies between Gosty Hill on canal maps and Gorsty Hill on some old OS maps. 

 

Regarding the scenario, my take on it would be the Halesowen branch became more important than it ever did in real life. Except for the Workmen's Train to Longbridge which lasted until 1958 the passenger service disappeared in 1927. Freight continued throughout until January 1964, with the section to the factories at Coombs Wood continuing for about another five years.

 

Now for the resurrection. Freight traffic continued to the factories at Coombs Wood due to lack of good access by road for some sites, also possibly chemicals like Albright & Wilson at Oldbury. It lasted long enough for the WMPTE to introduce a rail shuttle between Old Hill and Halesowen c1979 to connect with Birmingham - Stourbridge Junction trains due to the ever-increasing jams on the Hagley Road. This used a Class 122 in the first instance but you could follow on with a Class 153 or Class 150. 

 

Regarding signalling, the box would be GWR. Any original signals retained could be GWR/WR patterns although some main signals could have been refitted with BR Upper Quadrant fittings. New signals would be of LMR or BR styles, although we re-used anything to hand that was in a suitable condition in those days, even a WR bracket structure at the ex-LNW Lichfield City station.

[Tove]

 

  If your happy with the original plan and already have sleepers down, i'd say leave it, don't waste work! 

 

Rich

 

 

Ooops!!.

 

Guess what i did this afternoon after work..?.

 

After taking in the responses from everyone,especially the one to do with sighting the signal`s, i decided to go ahead and reversed the main and loop lines along with the associated point`s.

The sleepers came straight up with now problem`s,and what i thought would be a pain to do, (taking up the paper track templates) really was`nt that bad in the end.

 

It also look`s right somehow as i look at it!.

 

I will also be using the example that you`d mentioned at Barnetby East re; the signals.

These are the said signals for those that have`nt seen them.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/6973085187/in/photolist-bCbThF-G6Q2v5-BqkXfZ-dxtSPH-Cs4EEK-dLXSoB-BrEqUh-jP6Dgm-r6FCiu-jR2ic9-p9qm2A-bDWqZp-BtQ7kt-pAF6NV-q86y79-Cj8NjL-a5LCyV-qDqDqr-bZ9EvU-9W4rYb-btj1F3-bwNrag-b3i9aa-eb1HLH-nNzDSR-m6jHQR-a34u1e-hNZ1Kn-dLXEm6-a7Epq9-pAEg7Y-a5NVDo-dbAgS9-nMr9kn-jVihHg-pkV8zY-e1KfL6-gZuZ9K-beubMp-aEDhiZ-k3ygLM-hKpZW2-btib5q-nXe1Ea-nb32Lh-snYm4c-nfVMdB-64PbYP-aUsEfF-pchmVU

 

I should hopefully re-start the track laying tomorrow,so onward and upward.

 

Brian.

[Ramblin Rich]

I do like the look of this, having lived & worked in the west Birmingham area I got to know the rail network well.  I had layout ideas combining a Kingswinford style freight yard with a Stourbridge town style DMU shuttle some time ago but got distracted by the rural delights of the North Devon area The "Halesowen resurrection" seems like a good, plausible back story, I'll definitely be watching this.

Your 'long curve across the room' plan is also giving me ideas on shoehorning more into my office space....  

[Tove]

I can see a workable scenario developing in my head. Existing signal box with two trailing crossovers about 300 yards apart. 

 

Sparse DMU service out and back with a Class 122. Does not cross any passenger trains, so no need for passenger standard passing loop. 

 

Freight runs occasional through service to some other siding. Can be put inside for DMU to pass.

 

Two or three trips per day serve the siding. Arrives in loop from right, runs round using main line then shunts. Returns to right or runs round again then continues to left.

 

I like the sound of your scenario Simon,something that i was think along the same lines of.

 

As to the class 122,that may just be happening a bit sooner than i thought!

I could also turn into a class 121,and  paint in the Midline livery that was carried by 55033;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jncarter1962/11157855266/in/photolist-9RJixY-37VRBv-dDR4X6-b51Nrn-oRdEtJ-5Guypi-qTqMew-s8fHPQ-pfQUjZ-rh8bbY-qG4Lst-6vZYBr-hZYVCW-qkxBz7-ijaJyG-fnogMq-6YQS34-ePcEWv-iPzKNR-4T1s3d-4i6Loe-7VW4T4-aHVXkZ-qwwZAz-nzt22u-aBeTo3-km36yH-iAsHUe-ejRNCc-aTsJkM-6UR7RE-hFgvna-dgAvMY-9hZ3gm-dgD4zd-wDfsj-b51PH6-oC6y12-f25gnb-9uFpzv-J4HPLS-mPb7Jx-6SCgsW-fMxAH8-z6K9u-mVYcnx-owv8T6-ek4C4h-gz2Q62-fid1dA

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/69947186@N08/11696526433/in/photolist-9RJixY-37VRBv-dDR4X6-b51Nrn-oRdEtJ-5Guypi-qTqMew-s8fHPQ-pfQUjZ-rh8bbY-qG4Lst-6vZYBr-hZYVCW-qkxBz7-ijaJyG-fnogMq-6YQS34-ePcEWv-iPzKNR-4T1s3d-4i6Loe-7VW4T4-aHVXkZ-qwwZAz-nzt22u-aBeTo3-km36yH-iAsHUe-ejRNCc-aTsJkM-6UR7RE-hFgvna-dgAvMY-9hZ3gm-dgD4zd-wDfsj-b51PH6-oC6y12-f25gnb-9uFpzv-J4HPLS-mPb7Jx-6SCgsW-fMxAH8-z6K9u-mVYcnx-owv8T6-ek4C4h-gz2Q62-fid1dA

 

It also has two differing head code boxes as well!.

 

Agree with all that! Also the pre-group/pre nationalisation lineage of the line would have a bearing on the way it was originally signalled and what structures would remain. 

Although I've been a signalman for nearly 40 years, I love semaphore signals of all types and enjoy building models of them, a signal engineer or designer of signalling installations I am not! I usually need the guidance of those "in the know" about signalling practice on the network.

I'm guessing the line would be ex GWR?

 

JF

 

The line that the layout is based round was ex-GWR Jon,but i was going to try and give it a ex-LMS feel  with the signaling and a wooden signal box.

But going on with what Simon said in his next post,i will retain the GWR feel with a brick built signal box from here;

http://lcut.co.uk/index.php?product=B%2070-07L&title=B%2070-07L

 

 I think this will be a good starting point.I will also mix and match the signaling,between GWR & BR(M) types.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian.

 

Got my bearings now after a re-read. I think the spelling varies between Gosty Hill on canal maps and Gorsty Hill on some old OS maps. 

 

Regarding the scenario, my take on it would be the Halesowen branch became more important than it ever did in real life. Except for the Workmen's Train to Longbridge which lasted until 1958 the passenger service disappeared in 1927. Freight continued throughout until January 1964, with the section to the factories at Coombs Wood continuing for about another five years.

 

Now for the resurrection. Freight traffic continued to the factories at Coombs Wood due to lack of good access by road for some sites, also possibly chemicals like Albright & Wilson at Oldbury. It lasted long enough for the WMPTE to introduce a rail shuttle between Old Hill and Halesowen c1979 to connect with Birmingham - Stourbridge Junction trains due to the ever-increasing jams on the Hagley Road. This used a Class 122 in the first instance but you could follow on with a Class 153 or Class 150. 

 

Regarding signalling, the box would be GWR. Any original signals retained could be GWR/WR patterns although some main signals could have been refitted with BR Upper Quadrant fittings. New signals would be of LMR or BR styles, although we re-used anything to hand that was in a suitable condition in those days, even a WR bracket structure at the ex-LNW Lichfield City station.

 

I wondered when someone might question the Gosty Hill spelling.

Your right with explaination on the variations,but with one exception..the canal tunnel is labled as 'Gosty Hill',but standing by the entrance is a waterways notice type of board with the 'Gorsty Hill' spelling!!.

 

I hope to get over there next week as i have the week off, so i should be able to post some picture`s of it. 

 

you also seemed to have almost read my mind as well Simon,with your re-imagining of the layouts history!.

 

Because the front siding that i`d described as 'steel unloading' was with the coombes wood tube factory in mind.

I`d assumed that rail service had stoppped in the sixties and their own siding/s were pulled up.But due an up turn in work they found that they need the rail conection once again,and the only avalible space was a reminant of the ex-Dudley line!.

 

And the factory siding along the back,has a tank car unloding area which was inspired by the Albright & Wilson works at Langley Green,which is on the old Oldbury town branch.I just need to find some suitable  TTA 46t liquid chlorine tank wagons to use .But as i have some plan`s for these it may have to be a scratch build project?.

 

Re: the signaling,i think a mixture of BR,ex-GWR semaphore`s,and ex-GWR ground signal`s is going to be the way too go.I shall also include a single lever operated point as well.(the steel siding)

 

This is the re-drawn plan with the signal`s.I have left the catch point & ground signal off the front siding in this as i assume that they would now not be needed?.

 

 

I think it`s correct or have i missed somtheing?.

 

Thanks again everyone,

 

Brian.

[Tove]

I do like the look of this, having lived & worked in the west Birmingham area I got to know the rail network well.  I had layout ideas combining a Kingswinford style freight yard with a Stourbridge town style DMU shuttle some time ago but got distracted by the rural delights of the North Devon area The "Halesowen resurrection" seems like a good, plausible back story, I'll definitely be watching this.

Your 'long curve across the room' plan is also giving me ideas on shoehorning more into my office space....

Thanks Rich,

 

Once i started looking into the rail network in the Black country during the eighties,i realzied what i`d missed as a teenager.Mind you i did at least get to see the operations and the class 02`s at the LCP fuels depot at Pensnett a few times.But still... what i`d give to go back one more time!.

 

The curved approach seemed like the only logical way.It not only gave me two extra feet,It also means that i can add a detachable sector/turntable to the end that goes out through the door,expanding my operation`s no end!.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian.

[sp1]

Re the spelling of the name - as a native of the area I suspect the variations of Gosty/ Gorsty are corruptions of 'gorse' . In nearby Brierley Hill is present day Bank Street, but this is a relatively modern name (about 150 years or so) - prior to this on maps and in old documents you will find it referred to variously as Gosty Bank/ Gorsty Bank and 'Gorsey' Bank, which, I think, is a clue to the origin of the name.

[Flying Pig]

I think I preferred it as originally laid out with the loop at the back and the running line in front. Have I missed the post that prompted the change?

 

Some questions for the signal folk regarding Brian's revised plan above:

 

Could a miniature arm be used on the additional post reading into the loop (assuming it is goods only)?

 

For a minimal signalling setup, would a yellow (miniature?) arm or disc as loop starter be adequate? Otherwise it seems an additional signal for moves into siding #2 is needed. Similarly, could the disc reading from siding #2 to the loop be omitted?

[Gordon A]

GS and catch point for siding #1?

 

Gordon A

[Tove]

 

 

.  One thought that does come to mind, if you put it where it is on the plan, which is where the original would have been when double track, then with wagons in the old main, what is now the sidings, sighting for the driver would be difficult for a train coming from the previous box.  Really it should be positioned either between the siding and the main (which Im guessing would have been unlikely to be done on cost grounds as it would need some kind of bracket signal) or whether the position stays the same but on an offset bracket - although the same thought in terms of money occurs there too.  I wonder whether, it may be better (although it changes the operation and signalling a little) for the siding to remain as the through route, and what you currently have as the through to be a siding, with the crossover going the opposite way?

 

You could still keep the loop as the loop, and the main as the main if you wanted at the top right, but that would mean that the signal wouldn't need to be repositioned.  Just (another) thought!

 

Rich

 

I think I preferred it as originally laid out with the loop at the back and the running line in front. Have I missed the post that prompted the change?

 

 

 

I`m affraid it`s all Rich`s fault... !!   

 

Seriously though...sort of....i really wanted to keep the twin signal post`s in the plan, and the changes that Rich suggested seem to fit better.

 

Brian.

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

I preferred the original layout as this looked more prototypical. Based on the original sketch the layout would have looked something like this.

I may have over-cooked the ground signals as when it was WR they may have been single discs rather than multiples.

 

Rationalisation to a single line with a passenger service would probably have resulted in this 

 

Apologies for quality, I am babysitting and working from a phone.

 

Eric

[MarshLane]

I think I preferred it as originally laid out with the loop at the back and the running line in front. Have I missed the post that prompted the change?

Some questions for the signal folk regarding Brian's revised plan above:

Could a miniature arm be used on the additional post reading into the loop (assuming it is goods only)?

For a minimal signalling setup, would a yellow (miniature?) arm or disc as loop starter be adequate? Otherwise it seems an additional signal for moves into siding #2 is needed. Similarly, could the disc reading from siding #2 to the loop be omitted?

Oops, I feel I should be ducking for cover! I'll openly admit I'd no expert, just interested in signalling and the reasons why things are done some ways and there are far more knowledgable people than me around!

 

In answer to you questions, yes I think it could have a shunt arm into the loop, which is basically advising the driver which way he is routed, but also saying that the line may not be clear all the way to the next signal. A full length arm would give routing and advise the line is clear. While either would suffice for arrivals (assuming no wagons are left in the loop unattended), when running round, the signalman could not clear the latter peg to allow the loco to come back onto the train, where as he could do with a shunt arm, so the shunt would make sense. I don't know if that's how GWR/BR(M) would have worked it though.

 

If the loop was goods only, then a yellow ground signal (very rare these days) could be used. Basically ground signals are red on a white background and the driver must obey them at all times, a yellow stripe on a black background is conditional running, ie you can pass this at danger (the 'on' position) only to access the straight ahead siding, but if you are taking the diverging route to join the main, it must be obeyed (ie the signal must be cleared or 'off' to pass it heading for the main line).

 

No signal or catch point would be needed for Siding 1 as it's connected to a freight only loop, not a passenger line, so it is assumed that any movement hrs in or out of the siding would be under the control of the guard or shunter.

 

Brian, hope my input is helping and not confusing! If it's the latter, tell me and I'll shut up!!

 

Rich

 

EDIT: Corrected typos

[Tove]

I preferred the original layout as this looked more prototypical. Based on the original sketch the layout would have looked something like this.IMG_0426.JPG

I may have over-cooked the ground signals as when it was WR they may have been single discs rather than multiples.

 

Rationalisation to a single line with a passenger service would probably have resulted in this 

IMG_0427.JPG

 

Apologies for quality, I am babysitting and working from a phone.

 

Eric

 

Thanks Eric for the drawings, i had`nt really thought of putting the Coombs Wood siding at the back,so i may have to give that some serious thought!.

Oops, I feel I should be ducking for cover! I'll openly admit I'd no expert, just interested in signalling and the reasons why things are done some ways and there are far more knowledgable people than me around!

 

 

 

If the loop was goods only, then a yellow ground signal (very rare these days) could be used. Basically ground signals are red on a white background and the driver must obey them at all times, a yellow stripe on a black background is conditional running, ie you can pass this at danger (the 'on' position) only to access the straight ahead siding, but if you are taking the diverging route to join the main, it must be obeyed (ie the signal must be cleared or 'off' to pass it heading for the main line).

 

No signal or catch point would be needed for Siding 1 as it's connected to a freight only loop, not a passenger line, so it is assumed that any movement hrs in or out of the siding would be under the control of the guard or shunter.

 

Brian, hope my input is helping and not confusing! If it's the latter, tell me and I'll shut up!!

 

Rich

 

EDIT: Corrected typos

 

Rich,

I can confuse myself,and do so on quite a regular basis,so no worries there.

And please keep posting your (and anyone else) ideas,as that`s what i`ve put this up here for.

 

Now you might want to sit down if your not already!.

 

After changing the crossover in the track plan yesterday,i came back from work today, and printed out the crossing again and changed the plan back to how it was!!. 

 

And so now i`ve had another bash at the signaling diagram,going on Eric`s drawings and working the Black/yellow ground signal in that Rich mentioned.

 

All thought`s welcome....

 

Brian.

 

[MarshLane]

Hi Brian,

Ok, good attempt (as my teacher use to say!) but not quite right.  You need to remember two things - a standard ground signal (red with a white background) is the same as a home signal in the respect that a driver must obey it, and his route knowledge would tell him which route it applied to, but a single ground single does not indicate route where more than one exists.  So in the case of No. 4, if this applies to the sidings, there is no signalled move past the ground signal onto the main.  Hence, why on my original suggestion it was a starter signal, with a ground position shunt - the main arm (when off) gave permission to pass the signal and enter the next section which would be clear to the next signal, while the ground shunt signal (when off) gave permission to pass for the purpose of entering the siding, making the driver aware that the route may not be clear to the next signal (or in this case, the buffer stops).  So you would need a full signal (or a second ground signal) to control access from the bi-direction main to depart right to left.  However, also bear in mind that after an accident (I think it was Newton-le-Willows in the 1980s) a new rule came into effect that prevented a passenger service being started by a ground signal, so I think that the original full signal with a shunt would be better.

 

Also the yellow/black ground signal (#2) would work (I think) as long as i've interpreted your positioning correctly - in that drivers in the loop, could pass the ground signal heading to the siding (the remains of the old main) but would require the signal 'off' in order to depart the loop onto the single track main.   However, in reality if a driver is stood at #1 signal, he has a choice of three routes (l to r) main, siding or siding, and I think its logical that the control for all three would be at this point.  This could be a triple from (one below the other) shunt signal (aka this kind - one of JonFs creations from www.boltonsbits.co.uk , or three ground signals). Remember where multiple arms are concerned, they read routes left to right, as you read down.  In this case, I would assume that the main has an advanced starter off scene.  Alternatively you could have a bracket (like this, but with the left hand post with the signals swapped) - in essence the main arm is giving any departures from the loop permission to proceed out of section (i.e. into the fiddle yard), which would also allow the loco to run-round, while the two shorter shunt signals give access to the respective sidings.

 

Rich

[MarshLane]

Brian,
In case you've never seen one, this is one of the very rare yellow ground signals 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nottsexminer/19874136471

 

Also an example of a former bracket signal, where the signalling has been changed and arms removed, which may be of interest!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nottsexminer/5607121240/in/album-72157628144134882/

 

Going back to what I was saying about a main arm and a ground shunt signal for the bi-directional main and the siding access on your plan ... this is a similar configuration

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nottsexminer/8972865018/in/album-72157628144134882/

 

The main arm in this case (Hexham), when 'off', controls the departure of terminating, services that have arrived under the signal box into the platform FROM Newcastle, to reverse and return, using the crossover beyond the box, while the ground signal provides access into the loop and adjacent yard.

 

Rich

[Tove]

Hi Rich,

 

Thanks for your patience,but i am getting there...promise.

I don`t think that that i`ve look at signaling as much as this ...err,well ever!.

 

So here is hopfully the workable plan for the layout?.

 

I`ve now grouped the three groung signals together as per your suggestion.and done away with the black/yellow GS.

Because it seem`s that it could just be left in the on position all the time!.Also the photo`s of these B/Y ground signals seem`s to show them on their own.And plus, i don`t thnk that they (the PW dept.) would put have put one in,if one was`nt to hand.

 

Moving on to the front siding;

 

After positioning the starter and ground signals on the plan,i relised that there probably would`nt be enough room for a driver to see them because of the close proximity to the bridge,and there being on the wrong side.So i think that these can now be dispensed with?.

 

Thanks for the links to the picture`s.

I see the same guy has a shot of a black and yellow one at Worcester as well,plus a shunt signal with four arm`s!!.

 

I have also invested in four cheap books from flee-bay on signaling,

one each on LMS & GWR signals (pictorial record books) plus a sort of overview book on signalling,and what i think is the best one is, (for me)

'OPC a pictorial survey of London Midland Signalling'.

This is loaded with lot`s of pic`s from the 80`s & 90`s,and not a single 66 in sight..!

 

Brian

[MarshLane]

Hi Brian,

Yep would agree with that in principal - two minor points ... yes I think the starter and No. 4 ground signal would be on the other side of the bridge, so you could remove them.  Also, I'm not sure about No.1 ground signal, with the catch point removed, i think that siding point would have become under the guard/shunters control, possibly hand worked - so two thoughts occur - you could either leave it as it is, and add a ground signal back onto the siding (no catch point needed), or remove the first ground signal of the three and add a point hand lever on to the point sleepers.

 

Just remember btw, when your running/shunting (if you want it to be prototypical) you wouldn't leave or stop a train within the viewable area between the first point (far left bottom) and the bi-directional main (i.e. sat on the main, heading to the left direction) as it would have passed the signal on the other side of the bridge by then!

 

Other than that - it all looks good!

 

Rich

[Tove]

Thanks Rich.

 

I shall add another GS to #1 siding,look`s a lot better than a point lever!.And for a bit more variety ,i may just a (non working) catch point but lock it out of use.

 

re shunting,i was going to use the loop and #2 siding for holding  wagons whilst i shunted across the main,via the traverser.

But that`s a bit off just yet.

 

Thanks again,

 

Brian.

[Tove]

Not a lot to report on at the moment,other than that i`ve altered my frog`s to O-MF standard`s yesterday.

 

I also hope to start laying the rail for the point`s tomorrow,but first i`d like to know from the informed here.Is there a precedent for using joggles on the GWR,ie; sidings/yards .

Or were they used out on the main/secondary lines as well?.

 

Thanks from a blissfully ignorant diesel modeller!.

 

Brian.

[Jintyman]

Hi Brian,

 

Joggles were common with the GWR.

That was during the times of the GWR, as you know I'm modelling Talyllyn Junction which was on the Brecon & Merthyr line which was also absorbed by the GWR in the grouping. Once it became BR (W) and from my gathering of photos etc I can confirm that there were no joggles on any of the main turnouts of the junction itself, but there was within the few sidings that Talyllyn had. This research is spread from the mid 50's to 1964 when track was eventually lifted.

 

Hope this helps you, I'd think that a secondary route in the middle of the Welsh hills would be somewhat behind the more urban places, therefore I'd imagine that joggles may not have featured in your layout/location.

 

Jinty