New layout limited space (Signalling Help Required)

[Flying Pig]

At Moretonhampstead, the release crossover was actually worked from the box (plan here) which I guess is why the ground signal was too.  With a crossover worked from a ground frame, wouldn't the signal also be? If indeed there was a ground signal and not just handsignals.

[Harlequin]

That's right. Either ground frame and no disc or no ground frame and disc.

 

[chuffinghell]

19 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

At Moretonhampstead, the release crossover was actually worked from the box (plan here) which I guess is why the ground signal was too.  With a crossover worked from a ground frame, wouldn't the signal also be? If indeed there was a ground signal and not just handsignals.

 

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

That's right. Either ground frame and no disc or no ground frame and disc.

 

 

I'll go for no ground disc and a ground frame for the points as I think this would add more interest to the layout

 

Will I still need the ground disc at the other end?

 

Many thanks to you both for helping me out

 

Chris

[Flying Pig]

47 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

 Will I still need the ground disc at the other end?

 

I'll leave that to the experts.

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

That's right. Either ground frame and no disc or no ground frame and disc.

 

 

I've been through the three volumes I have of Ralph Clark and  Christopher Potts' historical survey of GW stations .

The busiest termini such as Plymouth Millbay and Penzance did have ground frames released by the signalbox as did the rather smaller Kingswear and Minehead (though the loco release points at both of these had before the 1930s been conventionally operated by the box with a disk) and they didn't have ground disks. A few other busier termini such as Staines also had ground frames but here again they seem to have been a later addition presumably as commuter traffic developed.

 

At Newquay, like Kingswear and Minehead a busy resort in summer,  platforms 1 & 2 were  on either side of the release crossover so the ground frame there had to control facing  point locks as well as the crossover but the release from platform three was controlled by the signalbox.

 

The quieter GW branch termini all seem to have had loco release points or crossovers operated by the signalbox and these invariably did have shunting signals (normally disks) but one of two like Culmstock, the terminus of the Culm Valley line, made do with a couple of ground frames, one at each end, and no signalbox as such.   

Helston, which had a carriage shed at the end of the loco release, had spring points normally set for the loop and a ground signal interlocked with the signal box lever that reversed them to straight ahead (so the loco release points also effectively acted as trap points) 

 

In all the case I've looked at, admittedly all GWR, where the loco release at the buffer end was operated by a local ground frame (released by a lever in the signalbox) the pointwork at the other end of the loop would be operated by the signalbox directly with shunting signals interlocked. 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Pacific231G

[chuffinghell]

8 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

 

I've been through the three volumes I have of Ralph Clark and  Christopher Potts' historical survey of GW stations .

The busiest termini such as Plymouth Millbay and Penzance did have ground frames released by the signalbox as did the rather smaller Kingswear and Minehead (though the loco release points at both of these had before the 1930s been conventionally operated by the box with a disk) and they didn't have ground disks. A few other busier termini such as Staines also had ground frames but here again they seem to have been a later addition presumably as commuter traffic developed.

 

At Newquay, like Kingswear and Minehead a busy resort in summer,  platforms 1 & 2 were  on either side of the release crossover so the ground frame there had to control facing  point locks as well as the crossover but the release from platform three was controlled by the signalbox.

 

The quieter GW branch termini all seem to have had loco release points or crossovers operated by the signalbox and these invariably did have shunting signals (normally disks) but one of two like Culmstock, the terminus of the Culm Valley line, made do with a couple of ground frames, one at each end, and no signalbox as such.   

Helston, which had a carriage shed at the end of the loco release, had spring points normally set for the loop and a ground signal interlocked with the signal box lever that reversed them to straight ahead (so the loco release points also effectively acted as trap points) 

 

 

Thank you

 

I must admit I'm not quite sure what to do now 

 

[chuffinghell]

18 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

In all the case I've looked at, admittedly all GWR, where the loco release at the buffer end was operated by a local ground frame (released by a lever in the signalbox) the pointwork at the other end of the loop would be operated by the signalbox directly with shunting signals interlocked.

 

That's how I understood what Phil & Simon were saying although does that mean I would have ground signals at each end or just at the signal box end

 

Sorry for being thick, it's been a long day and I'm not the sharpest tool in the box 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by chuffinghell

[Pacific231G]

On 04/04/2019 at 11:57, chuffinghell said:

 

Its a fictitious location but based* on GWR practice around 1930-1940  (*some may say loosely based) so that would make it GREAT WESTERNISH RAILWAY

 

I'm happy with my track layout and I'll be laying it soon.  You are quite right about testing the movements (and my wiring ) first so this exercise is more to do with the fine details.......getting it right(ish) 

 

 

 

Ground signals just at the signalbox end from the examples I've been looking at though I don't actually think a terminus as small as this one would have had a ground frame operated release as the simple operation of running round would then require the loco crew and two station staff.  At a busy station that might be desirable in speeding up the turn round times and there would be staff available to do it after checking the platform was clear etc.

 

Great Westernish is fine, a lot of real GWR stations were also decidedly GWRish as they were originally built for various absorbed companies with rather varied finances.  

 

Once you've laid it and got it working I'd hold off on ballasting and whatever point operating scheme you're going to use till you've operated it for a while as you may find you want changes both operationally and aesthetically.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Martin S-C]

Sound advice. Its what I'm going to do - play trains for a month on bare track and see if it all hangs together or needs adjustment. My detailed thoughts on signalling and its associated hardware are a while down the road yet.

[Pacific231G]

4 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

Sound advice. Its what I'm going to do - play trains for a month on bare track and see if it all hangs together or needs adjustment. My detailed thoughts on signalling and its associated hardware are a while down the road yet.

My current layout didn't change fundamentally but, even with just five points,  the trackwork in the goods yard shifted around when I realised that my original plan didn't look quite right and the kickback siding that was going to be the loco shed turned into a wine co-op to provide more variety of operation which also meant changing its length and orientation. It's interesting how different track layouts often look in the flesh compared with plans. In the flesh it's also easier to introduce gentle curves that are a right booger to do with track planning software.

[chuffinghell]

33 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

Sound advice. Its what I'm going to do - play trains for a month on bare track and see if it all hangs together or needs adjustment. My detailed thoughts on signalling and its associated hardware are a while down the road yet.

 

I agree with that statement, although if I did want to add point rods etc I wanted to make sure I leave enough gaps between sleepers before glueing down the track

[chuffinghell]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

If the crossover was operated by a ground frame I think it would have been roughly where the ground disc is or where the crossing boards are - between the tracks.

 

Oops “The frame between the tracks”

 

I misread that

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

gentle curves that are a right booger to do with track planning software.

 

With traditional track planning software, yes...

 

That would the same software that lines track up parallel to the baseboard and outputs dull grey images with horribly pixelated edges...

 

[imt]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

With traditional track planning software, yes...

 

That would the same software that lines track up parallel to the baseboard and outputs dull grey images with horribly pixelated edges...

 

 

Phil,

 

That is a little unfair for a couple of reasons.  Those of us not as skilled and capable in design as you are use the track planning software that way because we cannot think of how to do it better.  Your influence and brilliant plans have already made my use of such packages much better.  I no longer plonk a straight bit of track down - parallel to the baseboard edge - and try to produce a Michaelangelo from that.  We need encouragement.

 

Also, many of us would love to use a design package such as you use so effectively.  Perhaps you could persuade your bosses to drop the price a little from £400?

[chuffinghell]

4 minutes ago, imt said:

I no longer plonk a straight bit of track down - parallel to the baseboard edge

 

Unfortunately due to the space I’ve had no option but to run parallel with the edge of the board at the back

[Harlequin]

2 minutes ago, imt said:

That is a little unfair for a couple of reasons. 

Yes, sorry. I felt the need to have a little dig because my heart sinks every time another grey, jaggy, axis-aligned design is posted on RMWeb.

 

2 minutes ago, imt said:

Those of us not as skilled and capable in design as you are use the track planning software that way because we cannot think of how to do it better.  Your influence and brilliant plans have already made my use of such packages much better.  I no longer plonk a straight bit of track down - parallel to the baseboard edge - and try to produce a Michaelangelo from that.  We need encouragement.

 

2 minutes ago, imt said:

 

Also, many of us would love to use a design package such as you use so effectively.  Perhaps you could persuade your bosses to drop the price a little from £400?

The full on package is expensive, true, but there are more cost-effective versions in the range that would do the job.

Unfortunately my bosses have different priorities these days.

[imt]

I know the feeling, but Phil has demonstrated many times in his plans that that just ain't so.  I wish he had been around to consult when I produced my parallel line layout - but he wasn't.  Nature abhors straight lines!

[chuffinghell]

Being a draughtsman I’m fortunate to have access to CAD software and an A1 printer

 

although I did have to draw each point from scratch taking measurements from the actual items......but for a change it looks like I’ve drawn it correctly because everything is going to plan

 

more details here

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by chuffinghell

[chuffinghell]

8 minutes ago, imt said:

I know the feeling, but Phil has demonstrated many times in his plans that that just ain't so.  I wish he had been around to consult when I produced my parallel line layout - but he wasn't.  Nature abhors straight lines!

 

The wall isn’t straight if that counts?

[Harlequin]

2 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

Being a draughtsman I’m fortunate to have access to CAD software and an A1 printer

 

although I did have to draw each point from scratch taking measurements from the actual items......but for a change it looks like I’ve drawn it correctly because everything is going to plan

 

Yes, sorry Chris, none of my gripes refer to your plans, which are very nicely drawn. So it's all bit off topic!

 

[chuffinghell]

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, sorry Chris, none of my gripes refer to your plans, which are very nicely drawn. So it's all bit off topic!

 

 

No need to apologise, I knew what you meant.

[chuffinghell]

From the very start the tunnel and the position of the level crossing have caused some controversy

 

Instead of ditching the level crossing and the tunnel I've had a play to see if I can make it look a little better

 

Ignoring prototypes for now..........

 

Advantages:-

larger locos using the loop don't go halfway back into the tunnel or block the crossing

The crossing is a little further away from the tunnel entrance

A nice sweeping curve emerging from the tunnel looks better

 

Disadvantages:-

My loop has been reduced by 130mm (5") which I can live with

Crossing on a curve

 

Thoughts?

Edited May 2, 2019 by chuffinghell

[Joseph_Pestell]

It's always going to look wrong. Why is the road not diverted across the tunnel mouth?

 

I agree with keeping the level crossing. It's an interesting feature. Better to lose the tunnel and put in some sort of building (mill/warehouse/factory) as a view blocker.

[RJS1977]

22 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It's always going to look wrong. Why is the road not diverted across the tunnel mouth?

 

I agree with keeping the level crossing. It's an interesting feature. Better to lose the tunnel and put in some sort of building (mill/warehouse/factory) as a view blocker.

 

Unless of course there is some other structure (e.g. a castle) on top of the tunnel preventing the road from being diverted.

[chuffinghell]

This 'was' the original idea for the goods yard to be accessed either over the river or over the railway.....obviously a rethink is in order