New layout limited space (Signalling Help Required)

[RJS1977]

TBH for the work involved in installing it (especially if working) I'd leave it off!

[chuffinghell]

5 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

TBH for the work involved in installing it (especially if working) I'd leave it off!

 

It would certainly be cheaper as I’m going to be lazy and use the Dapol signals, although i would like to know the @The Stationmaster’s view on this too

 

especially as you say you wouldn’t normally disagree with him, I don’t like people thinking I’m ignoring their advice, yours included

 

May I ask another stupid question? If operating one engine in steam does that mean it could it still be likely that an engine would be being serviced at the shed?

 

Chris

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Lots of sheds at the end of one engine in steam lines, as it allows the first train of the day to run from the terminus to the junction and possibly onwards.

 

 

[chuffinghell]

3 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Lots of sheds at the end of one engine in steam lines, as it allows the first train of the day to run from the terminus to the junction and possibly onwards.

 

 

 

yes of course that makes sense, thank you

[Pacific231G]

On 21/02/2020 at 17:43, chuffinghell said:

 

It would certainly be cheaper as I’m going to be lazy and use the Dapol signals, although i would like to know the @The Stationmaster’s view on this too

 

especially as you say you wouldn’t normally disagree with him, I don’t like people thinking I’m ignoring their advice, yours included

 

May I ask another stupid question? If operating one engine in steam does that mean it could it still be likely that an engine would be being serviced at the shed?

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris.

It's coming along a treat.

It does occurs to me that though you may be intending Single Engine in Steam now,  your operating potential will be much greater if the terminus can take a second train and your original planned signalling seems more like that in any case. I understand that Mike's suggested signalling is for Single Engine in Steam but, looking at Ashburton, is probably also fine for a terminus with an occasional second train.  I've built two termini intending them to be Single Engine in Steam and in both cases have ended up running two trains so have needed to add section breaks. Working out how to shunt the local goods so that you don't get snookered when the branch passenger train arrives can present an interesting challenge.

 

I know of several GW branch termini  that were Single Engine in Steam and had a shed, including Wallingford and Watlington. However,  termini that started out that way but later required token or tablet instruments (and more signals) as traffic grew were not unfamiliar to the GWR as demonstrated by St. Ives. Without the 'more signals' I suspect that also applied to Ashburton which did have block instruments and was operated staff and ticket but never had a signal box and only a couple of signals. Where GW branches (or their final section) were operated single engine in steam,  running signals seem mostly to have been confined to a fixed distant, a home signal and a starter though where there was a signalbox shunting disks or dolls might also have been installed.

 

I'm sure Stationmaster Mike can clarify this but the whole business of signal boxes and signalling at small GW branch termini doesn't seem entirely logical. Most of the signalboxes were small almost ground level affairs operated by a porter signalman as required rather than being fully staffed (though Moretonhampstead was) and where single engine in steam was in force were often reduced to ground frames by the 1930s. This was certainly true of the Watlington branch which was operated single engine in steam by a loco based at Watlington. Watlington had a (tiny) ground level signal box and signals until 1929 when the station master was commended for pointing out the savings from not having either; the signals were then removed and the signalbox reduced to a ground frame. The same thing happened at Hemyock, Abbotsbury and Tetbury that I know of and probably elsewhere as well. Apart from "The Board of Trade requires it" I can't quite see why you ever needed signals at a single engine in steam terminus, given how hard it is for a train to collide with itself. Clearly the GWR's management agreed  but Wallingford remained signalled until the early 1960s, several years after the end of passenger services. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Pacific231G
punctuation

[chuffinghell]

Thanks @Pacific231G  quite a lot to take in but very interesting and informative 

 

I must admit that I just like the idea of having one (or a couple of signals) and a signal box, although now I have decided on a smaller ground level box in the hope that it would be more appropriate 

 

I’m not modelling a specific location so I hoped that I would be forgiven for using rule #1 in some instances

 

So although not being historically accurate (or acceptable to better more experienced modellers) it would at least contain elements of a steam era railway and appear feasible to the untrained eye (ie my own)

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by chuffinghell

[chuffinghell]

21 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

So I'd move the home signal off stage, and put a 'Limit of Shunt' notice by the tunnel mouth.

 

The more I think about it having the Home signal ‘off stage’ is becoming more appealing as for all intents and purposes the tunnel could potentially only be a short one

 

Thank you for your help, it’s appreciated 

[Siberian Snooper]

Devizes station was right next to a tunnel and was used as a shunting neck, I don't know if there is a signalling diagram available which could be adapted to suit.

 

 

[Harlequin]

22 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Devizes station was right next to a tunnel and was used as a shunting neck, I don't know if there is a signalling diagram available which could be adapted to suit.

 

 

Ah yes. Good example!

 

In the book I'm looking at (name too long to quote) Devizes seems to have a ground disc right outside the tunnel mouth and a pair of Inner Homes not much further along (reading to either side of an island platform). You can see the position of the signal post on old-maps or the nls websites. There is an outer home at the further end of the 190yd tunnel.

 

I'm pretty sure The Stationmaster will say that there's no problem shunting past a Home signal. He has explained this before. It was perfectly normal at many places, such as Moretonhampstead for example, where the home signal is virtually at the toe of the first points.

 

BTW: IMHO Some cabins covering ground frames were virtually indistinguishable from small signal boxes - it's a grey area.

 

In other words, I think you were on the right track all along - no need to change anything.

 

P.S. Devizes tunnel is through a castle mound, of course... Some scenic inspiration for you!

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

On 21/02/2020 at 13:59, Siberian Snooper said:

 

Put your first hand lever, nearest your loop, on the other side, this allows the shunter to operate it without crossing any tracks.

 

 

 

No, keep it where it is as the hand point lever on the  loop will be on that side - away from the platform line and adjacent to teh pathway,  The only way the handpoint lever on the other siding can be accessed is by crossing a line but this can be kept to only one line by moving that lever the same side as the other two IF there is room for it in the 'vee' where the two sidings part from each other.  The levers need to be kept on the same side inside the curve so that the people carrying out the shunting can see each other.

 

On 21/02/2020 at 16:35, chuffinghell said:

I will be operating as a one engine in steam, so does that mean the home signal is okay where it is?

 

sorry to ask daft questions

Not a daft question - especially as you have been given what was, I'm sorry to say, a daft  (and incorrect) reason for moving the Home Signal.  The Home Signal needs to be as close as possible to the toe of the point because it would be impossible to have a locking bar extending right back through the tunnel and the signal could legitimately be returned to danger before the train reaches the facing point thereby leaving it possible to unlock the FPL and move the point.

 

A General Point As far as shunting onto the single line is concerned yet again I need to try to put to bed - very definitely as far the GWR and WR are concerned - the nonsense about needing a token to make a shunting move onto the single line.  The Regulations going way, way, back provided for a shunting move to be made outside (i.e. to the rear of) a Home Signal at a station worked under most variations of single line Block Regulations (note that Train Staff & Ticket was different).  The presence of any other stop signals on the single line at that block post was basically an irrelevance - the Regulation clearly referred to the Home Signal (or to an additional Home Signal provided in rear of that signal for acceptance purposes).  The Regulation could be applied under various circumstances and could also be applied simultaneously at both ends of single line section - whivch obviously meant a token etc could not be drawn at one end and for safety's sake wouldn't be drawn at the other end because it indicated to a Driver that the whole of the single line section was his.    In some cases special shunting tokens were provided but they seem to have been pretty rare ( I certainly never came across one on the Western but that is post mid 1960s)

 

Further Comment - Limit of Shunt boards are an operational safety impossibility on a singe line because they would inevitably be approached at some time by a train travelling in the correct direction.  The purpose of a Limit of Shunt board is to provide a limiting point to prevent a shunting movement which is being made in the wrong direction on a running line going any further into the section.  They would only be provided at locations where there was an identified need, for whatever reason, to create a visible limiting point on shunting movements thus they didn't exist at the overwhelming majority of wayside and smaller stations.

 

In direct relation to One Engine In Steam Working - As there is no other train able to enter that single line section the situation is different because the train at the terminus can enter the section (i.e. shunt outside the Home Signal) as required with no need for any sort of reference to anybody at the opposite end of the section.  Even if the line were worked under Train Staff & Ticket Regulations  there would be no problem, the method would be more or less as I explained in the previous paragraph but in this cases there would not be simultaneous shunts at both ends of the section as the Regulations did not provide for it  (the reason being that one or other of the trains making the shunt could be in possession of the train staff).

 

 

[chuffinghell]

Thank you very much @Harlequin Phil and@The Stationmaster Mike for clearing up a few points (no pun intended) and for taking the time to explain in depth, informative and helpful

 

I'm very grateful for your assistance 

 

Chris

Edited February 22, 2020 by chuffinghell

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Chris.

It's coming along a treat.

It does occurs to me that though you may be intending Single Engine in Steam now,  your operating potential will be much greater if the terminus can take a second train and your original planned signalling seems more like that in any case. I understand that Mike's suggested signalling is for Single Engine in Steam but, looking at Ashburton, is probably also fine for a terminus with an occasional second train.  I've built two termini intending them to be Single Engine in Steam and in both cases have ended up running two trains so have needed to add section breaks. Working out how to shunt the local goods so that you don't get snookered when the branch passenger train arrives can present an interesting challenge.

 

I know of several GW branch termini  that were Single Engine in Steam and had a shed including Wallingford and Watlington. However,  termini that started out that way but later required token or tablet instruments (and more signals) as traffic grew were not unfamiliar to the GWR as demonstrated by St. Ives. Without the 'more signals' I suspect that also applied to Ashburton which did have block instruments and was operated staff and ticket but never had a signal box and only a couple of signals. Where GW branches (or their final section) were operated single engine in steam,  running signals seem mostly to have been confined to a fixed distant, a home signal and a starter though where there was a signalbox shunting disks or dolls might also have been installed.

 

I'm sure Stationmaster Mike can clarify this but the whole business of signal boxes and signalling at small GW branch termini doesn't seem entirely logical. Most of the signalboxes were small almost ground level affairs operated by a porter signalman as required rather than being fully staffed (though Moretonhampstead was) and where single engine in steam was in force were often reduced to ground frames by the 1930s. This was certainly true of the Watlington branch which was operated single engine in steam by a loco based at Watlington. Watlington had a (tiny) ground level signal box and signals until 1929 when the station master was commended for pointing out the savings from not having either; the signals were then removed and the signalbox reduced to a ground frame. The same thing happened at Hemyock, Abbotsbury and Tetbury that I know of and probably elsewhere as well. Apart from "The Board of Trade requires it" I can't quite see why you ever needed signals at a single engine in steam terminus, given how hard it is for a train to collide with itself. Clearly the GWR's management agreed  but Wallingford remained signalled until the early 1960s, several years after the end of passenger services. 

'Mike's signalling' was for the track layout as drawn - the method of working was basically irrelevant, and still is as far as signal provision and siting is concerned.

 

Now if we are to go into a wider area we could go several different ways but let's dispose of a few things first.  

 

One Engine In Steam (OES) working was exactly what it said, only one engine, or two coupled together, was allowed into an OES section at any time in the course of normal working.  You could have a second engine at a terminus such as this (although I'm not at all sure what for?) but it would have had to arrive there coupled to the other engine and it could only leave coupled to the other engine and it was not allowed on any part of the single line at any time unless coupled to the other engine.

 

Somewhat more flexible was Train Staff and Ticket TST) working which allowed a succession of trains into a section with each being shown the staff and given a Ticket until the final one carried the staff.  No train could come in the opposite direction until the staff had arrived at the other end.  Ashburton incidentally was an oddity which was still worked under some specially adapted South Devon Railway Regulations long after that company had ceased to exist

 

More flexible systems such as Electric Train Staff, or Tablet or Electric Train Token (ETT) working gave the maximum flexibility using electrically linked machines with one at each end of the section.  The machines were designed to only allow one electric staff, tablet or token etc to be drawn out at any one time and that had to be returned to one machine or the other before another one could be drawn.  These systems give the maximum flexibility because the visible authority for a driver to enter the section could be drawn at either end - thus a succession of trains could follow each other or trains could come in the opposite direction once a train had reached that end.

 

Thse size of station we are looking at here would mostn likely in GWR days have been worked under OES Regulations.  The layout suggests relatively light traffic with a limited number of trains and the usual situation on such branches was for the freight trip to run in a gap in the passenger service, and such gaps could be quite long.  Equally, depending on gradients and various other factors such a line could be worked with a number of the passenger trains classified as Mixed Trains and able to convey the freight traffic as well (e.g the Marlow and Wallingford branches).

 

Don't forget that everything on these smaller branch lines was done in the most economical way, no railway company, but especially the GWR, wasted money where it didn't need to be spent.  So yes the 'Signal Box' can quite readily be a small hut, no problem at all and quite prototypical for a station of this sort.  the line would, as i've said, most likely be worked OES but there is no particular reason why you can't come up at with a Rule 1 reason to explain it's being worked with TST - very unlikely in the real world but not impossible so then you can have two engines down there at a time if you want.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

'Mike's signalling' was for the track layout as drawn - the method of working was basically irrelevant, and still is as far as signal provision and siting is concerned.

 

Now if we are to go into a wider area we could go several different ways but let's dispose of a few things first.  

 

One Engine In Steam (OES) working was exactly what it said, only one engine, or two coupled together, was allowed into an OES section at any time in the course of normal working.  You could have a second engine at a terminus such as this (although I'm not at all sure what for?) but it would have had to arrive there coupled to the other engine and it could only leave coupled to the other engine and it was not allowed on any part of the single line at any time unless coupled to the other engine.

 

Somewhat more flexible was Train Staff and Ticket TST) working which allowed a succession of trains into a section with each being shown the staff and given a Ticket until the final one carried the staff.  No train could come in the opposite direction until the staff had arrived at the other end.  Ashburton incidentally was an oddity which was still worked under some specially adapted South Devon Railway Regulations long after that company had ceased to exist

 

More flexible systems such as Electric Train Staff, or Tablet or Electric Train Token (ETT) working gave the maximum flexibility using electrically linked machines with one at each end of the section.  The machines were designed to only allow one electric staff, tablet or token etc to be drawn out at any one time and that had to be returned to one machine or the other before another one could be drawn.  These systems give the maximum flexibility because the visible authority for a driver to enter the section could be drawn at either end - thus a succession of trains could follow each other or trains could come in the opposite direction once a train had reached that end.

 

Thse size of station we are looking at here would mostn likely in GWR days have been worked under OES Regulations.  The layout suggests relatively light traffic with a limited number of trains and the usual situation on such branches was for the freight trip to run in a gap in the passenger service, and such gaps could be quite long.  Equally, depending on gradients and various other factors such a line could be worked with a number of the passenger trains classified as Mixed Trains and able to convey the freight traffic as well (e.g the Marlow and Wallingford branches).

 

Don't forget that everything on these smaller branch lines was done in the most economical way, no railway company, but especially the GWR, wasted money where it didn't need to be spent.  So yes the 'Signal Box' can quite readily be a small hut, no problem at all and quite prototypical for a station of this sort.  the line would, as i've said, most likely be worked OES but there is no particular reason why you can't come up at with a Rule 1 reason to explain it's being worked with TST - very unlikely in the real world but not impossible so then you can have two engines down there at a time if you want.

Thanks Mike, that and yuor previous answer are very informative and may explain why Ashburton was TST though with a note in the WTTs that "When absolutely necessary, two Goods Trains, or a Passenger and a Goods Train, may cross at Buckfastleigh and Ashburton on the understanding that the Passenger Train is always kept on the Running Line, and if the Passenger Train has to stop at Buckfastleigh, it must stop at the Platform"  I assume that 'when absolutely necessary' meant that it couldn't be written into the timetable (Interesting the use of the word "cross" at a terminus though its perfectly clear what it means)

I'm reasonably familiar with the main types of single line working  (though not the inner workings of the various electric machines) but what I still don't understand is what made it possible for the GWR to remove all signals from some OES termini, but not others. In other words, what made Watlington different from Wallingford and what purpose did the signalling at Wallingford have that wasn't relevant to  Watlington or Hemyock (to name just two) ? 

 

From a modelling standpoint this obviously provides a choice for anyone building a very simple OES terminus to either have signals or not. Even without them, you can still have a small box and point rodding.

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Pacific231G

[RJS1977]

Ashburton, being a market town, occasionally had days of very heavy traffic with lots of people and livestock being transported.

 

On at least one occasion three trains arrived in quick succession, leaving all three locos trapped at the buffer stops!

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Mike, that and yuor previous answer are very informative and may explain why Ashburton was TST though with a note in the WTTs that "When absolutely necessary, two Goods Trains, or a Passenger and a Goods Train, may cross at Buckfastleigh and Ashburton on the understanding that the Passenger Train is always kept on the Running Line, and if the Passenger Train has to stop at Buckfastleigh, it must stop at the Platform"  I assume that 'when absolutely necessary' meant that it couldn't be written into the timetable (Interesting the use of the word "cross" at a terminus though its perfectly clear what it means)

I'm reasonably familiar with the main types of single line working  (though not the inner workings of the various electric machines) but what I still don't understand is what made it possible for the GWR to remove all signals from some OES termini, but not others. In other words, what made Watlington different from Wallingford and what purpose did the signalling at Wallingford have that wasn't relevant to  Watlington or Hemyock (to name just two) ? 

 

From a modelling standpoint this obviously provides a choice for anyone building a very simple OES terminus to either have signals or not. Even without them, you can still have a small box and point rodding.

 

First of all let's get something right - Single Line Working cannot happen on a single line because it is the procedure implemented  to operate trains in either direction over only one line when the other(s) on a double or multiple one section of railway cannot, for whatever reason, be used.  Ipso facto it is impossible to apply such a process on a single line railway.  Regrettably the term has been misapplied by a number of authors, sometimes in respected journals or publications, in fairly recent years for reasons which I can only ascribe to inadequate research and/or sloppy use of written English and lack of informed editing.

 

As far as the presence or otherwise of fixed signals on lines worked using OES procedures I think the only realistic answer is that it was down to happenstance.  There is no need to use fixed signals at the terminus of such a line in most circumstances although they could be used as a 'reinforcement' of verbal procedures if - for example - shunting towards the OES section took place at the junction station serving such a branch.  But that, and the possible protection of a level. crossing, apart there is no real reason to provide them.  

 

I've no doubt that in various locations when renewals etc became due existing fixed signals were removed in order to avoid expenditure and save ongoing costs.  This is probably what happened at Watlington albeit at a fairly early stage where the signalbox had closed prior to WWII although it didn't happen until late on in the life of the Wallingford branch notwithstanding the fact that there was no block telegraph in use on that line.  In some cases it was probably convenient to keep a centralised location for operating points which meant also a modicum of signals might also be provided (Hemyock was an interesting exception to this) but in the end I think it probably all came down to economics and convenience. 

 

The GWR Signal Dept was a little bit remiss in the naming of structures provided to operate points and signals at OES branch termini.  For example Wallingford was clearly called a 'signal box' (and listed as such in operating publications) although it obviously wasn't a block post so didn't meet the usual definition of such a structure.  All nicely confusing for us looking back at history.

 

PS 'cross' was (and I presume remains) the standard terminology in use at locations on single lines where trains in opposite directions, including those starting their journey from a terminus, are able to pass each other

Edited February 23, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

First of all let's get something right - Single Line Working cannot happen on a single line because it is the procedure implemented  to operate trains in either direction over only one line when the other(s) on a double or multiple one section of railway cannot, for whatever reason, be used.  Ipso facto it is impossible to apply such a process on a single line railway.  Regrettably the term has been misapplied by a number of authors, sometimes in respected journals or publications, in fairly recent years for reasons which I can only ascribe to inadequate research and/or sloppy use of written English and lack of informed editing.

 

As far as the presence or otherwise of fixed signals on lines worked using OES procedures I think the only realistic answer is that it was down to happenstance.  There is no need to use fixed signals at the terminus of such a line in most circumstances although they could be used as a 'reinforcement' of verbal procedures if - for example - shunting towards the OES section took place at the junction station serving such a branch.  But that, and the possible protection of a level. crossing, apart there is no real reason to provide them.  

 

I've no doubt that in various locations when renewals etc became due existing fixed signals were removed in order to avoid expenditure and save ongoing costs.  This is probably what happened at Watlington albeit at a fairly early stage where the signalbox had closed prior to WWII although it didn't happen until late on in the life of the Wallingford branch notwithstanding the fact that there was no block telegraph in use on that line.  In some cases it was probably convenient to keep a centralised location for operating points which meant also a modicum of signals might also be provided (Hemyock was an interesting exception to this) but in the end I think it probably all came down to economics and convenience. 

 

The GWR Signal Dept was a little bit remiss in the naming of structures provided to operate points and signals at OES branch termini.  For example Wallingford was clearly called a 'signal box' (and listed as such in operating publications) although it obviously wasn't a block post so didn't meet the usual definition of such a structure.  All nicely confusing for us looking back at history.

 

PS 'cross' was (and I presume remains) the standard terminology in use at locations on single lines where trains in opposite directions, including those starting their journey from a terminus, are able to pass each other

Thanks Mike

I should perhaps  have said 'the working of single lines' and have corrected my post accordingly. 

as to the presence or otherwise of signals at OES termini I was perhaps looking for more logic than in reality there was, though the relative busyness - or lack of it- must have been a factor.

I don't know whether the GW branch termini I have descriptions for (mostly courtesy of OPC) are a reasonable cross section but  Abbotsbury apparently lost its signals in 1904 and Hemyock in 1912, in both cases the "signal box" was retained as a ground frame.