Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[Stubby47]

An excellent example of Rule 1

[chuffinghell]

3 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

An excellent example of Rule 1

 

I like Rule 1, it's my favorite

[Northroader]

There’s places like Ascot, Guildford, Yeovil PM, come to mind. I agree having a single line with a platform either side does add to the quirkiness.

[Martin S-C]

5 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

An excellent example of Rule 1

I hope my reply wasn't too brusque Stu! After I posted I wondered if I came across as a bit impatient what with the numbered points and the short sharp explanations.

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

There’s places like Ascot, Guildford, Yeovil PM, come to mind. I agree having a single line with a platform either side does add to the quirkiness.

I wonder if a station would have the two faces like this numbered differently as my plan shows, or whether both faces would carry the same number so I'd have only 3 platforms? Can anyone clarify?

The next station up the line at Snarling has platforms laid out more conventionally whilst performing an identical function of a main line passing loop plus a branch going off in a SW direction, which prompted me to want to be different at this location.

 

Rule 1 is always nice to fall back on, but as I mentioned before with my weird "need to be plausible" I do like to try and justify my decisions rather than just say "it's my railway and I'll do what I want" because if you go down that route too far you end up with a complete mish-mash of highly implausible things and the immersion is broken. Its a pitfall of freelance modelling and while I've stumbled down that hole a little way I refuse to plunge to the bottom.

Today I hope to get the SJ mimic diagram done and I'll number the levers up as per Nick C's suggestion.

[Stubby47]

Absolutely no problems with your reply.

 

I just like to ask questions, the answers received mean either you've thought about the issue and are happy with your reply, or you are provoked into reconsidering.

 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

Absolutely no problems with your reply.

 

I just like to ask questions, the answers received mean either you've thought about the issue and are happy with your reply, or you are provoked into reconsidering.

 

And please don't stop Stu. You have a habit of cutting to the chase and challenging assumptions which is very valuable.

[Martin S-C]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

And please don't stop Stu. You have a habit of cutting to the chase and challenging assumptions which is very valuable.

Eek!

No-one expects the Stubby Inquisition!

[Martin S-C]

Fire away with the critique gentlemen!

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Martin S-C

[DonB]

Martin asked:-

 

"I wonder if a station would have the two faces like this numbered differently as my plan shows, or whether both faces would carry the same number so I'd have only 3 platforms? Can anyone clarify?"

 

Both Burton upon Trent (MR) and Derby Friargate (GNR) have /had island platforms with opposite  faces numbered differently. 

Burton has steps from the booking office  down to Down (Derby) end of the passenger platform,

Friargate had a subway access from the street level booking office  with steps up to the centre of the platform.

There's a prototype for everything ( so I'm told!)

 

It would make sense to segregate Up and Down passengers to avoid confusion to dim-wits like me as to where the train now arriving is going!

Do I recall the coach doors were / are locked while in motion? Being unlocked for passenger access at each station. Did I imagine that??? 

Edited June 27, 2019 by DonB
additional text

[Martin S-C]

They used to be locked yes. I think Armagh in 1889 had a good deal to do with that practice ceasing, so it would not be an issue when my layout is set just post the Great War.

 

Thanks for the note about different numbered faces. Yes, I suppose it might help to segregate passengers and assist passenger flow.

[RodneyS]

Horsted Keynes on the Bluebell Railway has a single track with a platform both sides.

The two platforms are numbered differently,

The following link should take you to track plans and some information on the platform numbers.

Rodney

https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/track_horsted.html

 

[Nick C]

3 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Fire away with the critique gentlemen!

 

 

EDIT: I do not know why the forum is chopping the right hand end off.

 

I'd swap 10 and 13b, and similarly 12a and 8. I'd also include the double slip you mentioned in the colliery, with the far end operated by 20 to make that a crossover.

 

Incidentally, in case you didn't know, crossovers are usually numbered with A being the point closer to the signalbox, and B being the one further away. At least in Southern practice (pretty much all of my knowledge is SR and constituents, other railways may vary!)

 

Also, most diagrams I've seen have the signal numbers by the arms, rather than at the foot of the post.

[Martin S-C]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

I'd swap 10 and 13b, and similarly 12a and 8. I'd also include the double slip you mentioned in the colliery, with the far end operated by 20 to make that a crossover.

 

Incidentally, in case you didn't know, crossovers are usually numbered with A being the point closer to the signalbox, and B being the one further away. At least in Southern practice (pretty much all of my knowledge is SR and constituents, other railways may vary!)

 

Also, most diagrams I've seen have the signal numbers by the arms, rather than at the foot of the post.

I originally had the 10/13b and 12a/8 pairs linked but realised that if I have a goods train leaving the yard (at the dock) going west across 12b, 8 and 12a then if 12a and 8 are linked, the goods train cannot leave because reversing 12a also reverses 8 which would trap the goods train. Same applies at the east end. Unless I've really lost the plot and missed something obvious.

 

Regrettably this means up passenger trains via P4 require 4 points levers reversing but I cannot see a simpler way.

I'm in two minds about the colliery because the double slip is actually within the private siding boundary which would then mean a railway company signalman working points on private property and I think that wouldn't be allowed, or safe. If I have a ground frame to work the colliery sidings and it has a signal controlling access onto the main line and that signal is interlocked with 20, then the colliery bobby cannot signal a train to exit the colliery until the Puddlebrook signalman has set the road.

The colliery will shunt trains via the green routes frequently and never need the exit road unless empties are arriving or loaded trains leaving, so I could have that set of blades operated by the Puddlebrook lever frame, it just feels a little odd to me. However if you consider that correct procedure, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. It'll save me the price of a Cobalt lever at least.

[Martin S-C]

By the way - I have a random question of the day. Were the LNER ex-GER J70 tram engines fitted with whistles as well as bells? ...or just bells?

[south_tyne]

I've found you Martin! I wondered what had happened to your layout thread so am so pleased to have tracked Nether Madder down again. I have just spent an enjoyable half an hour catching up on the latest from your little empire.... you have made amazing progress in the past month or so!

 

As I have said somewhat ad nauseam (so I do apologise), I find your project so wonderful. It is no exaggeration to say that I think it is the most inspiring, creative layout on this forum. I absolutely love the concept and design and now the way you are executing it. 

 

It must be giving you so much of a boost to get track down and trains running. It so quickly brings things to life and transforms it from a sea of plywood into a railway!

 

Thank you for sharing and I will be following with interest now that I have located you again.

 

All the best,

David 

 

[Regularity]

9 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

By the way - I have a random question of the day. Were the LNER ex-GER J70 tram engines fitted with whistles as well as bells? ...or just bells?

Bells and whistle, Martin. Bells used for street tramway work, whistles for usual railway purposes - whistles would frighten horses, but are needed for normal operations, but bells don’t frighten the horses.

Whether or not this chuffing, smoking, infernal machine scared them anyway is a moot point.

[Denbridge]

20 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I hope my reply wasn't too brusque Stu! After I posted I wondered if I came across as a bit impatient what with the numbered points and the short sharp explanations.

I wonder if a station would have the two faces like this numbered differently as my plan shows, or whether both faces would carry the same number so I'd have only 3 platforms? Can anyone clarify?

The next station up the line at Snarling has platforms laid out more conventionally whilst performing an identical function of a main line passing loop plus a branch going off in a SW direction, which prompted me to want to be different at this location.

 

Rule 1 is always nice to fall back on, but as I mentioned before with my weird "need to be plausible" I do like to try and justify my decisions rather than just say "it's my railway and I'll do what I want" because if you go down that route too far you end up with a complete mish-mash of highly implausible things and the immersion is broken. Its a pitfall of freelance modelling and while I've stumbled down that hole a little way I refuse to plunge to the bottom.

Today I hope to get the SJ mimic diagram done and I'll number the levers up as per Nick C's suggestion.

Horsted Keynes on the Bluebell is numbered in the same manner as yours. Another example is Norwood Junction .

[Nick C]

10 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I originally had the 10/13b and 12a/8 pairs linked but realised that if I have a goods train leaving the yard (at the dock) going west across 12b, 8 and 12a then if 12a and 8 are linked, the goods train cannot leave because reversing 12a also reverses 8 which would trap the goods train. Same applies at the east end. Unless I've really lost the plot and missed something obvious.

 

Regrettably this means up passenger trains via P4 require 4 points levers reversing but I cannot see a simpler way.

I'm in two minds about the colliery because the double slip is actually within the private siding boundary which would then mean a railway company signalman working points on private property and I think that wouldn't be allowed, or safe. If I have a ground frame to work the colliery sidings and it has a signal controlling access onto the main line and that signal is interlocked with 20, then the colliery bobby cannot signal a train to exit the colliery until the Puddlebrook signalman has set the road.

The colliery will shunt trains via the green routes frequently and never need the exit road unless empties are arriving or loaded trains leaving, so I could have that set of blades operated by the Puddlebrook lever frame, it just feels a little odd to me. However if you consider that correct procedure, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. It'll save me the price of a Cobalt lever at least.
 

 

You're not linking 12a and 8, you're swapping them. It should be the top and middle points that are linked as a crossover. See points 6 and 9 at Ventnor for an example.

 

I wonder if this might explain better? The middle point (12a in my version) would be normal to P4, the opposite of how you've drawn it.

8N, 12N: --------------  8R, 12N: ---------------  8R, 12R: ------ /--------
             /                         /                          /
           ------------               -----------                / ---------
          /                          /                          /
        ---------------          ---/ -----------          ----/ -----------

With both levers normal, the route is set for main <-> P2 and dock<->bank. Pull 8 and the lowest point changes, setting the route main <-> P4, but leaving dock <-> bank. Pull 12, and the top and middle points change, setting main <-> dock. This means that the main is always protected from the yard when the road is set for either platform.

 

For the colliery, the green routes are both using the nearest set of blades on the slip - the further pair would be part of a crossover with the main line. Ventnor provides another example here - points 4. Again the idea is to protect the main line by ensuring that any runaway within the colliery is diverted onto the headshunt unless the road is set for entry/exit. The signal controlling exit would be controlled by the same person controlling the points - In real life I'd expect that to be a local ground frame locked by a lever in the Puddlebrook box - so the main line signalman would release that (locking his signals), then the shunter would unlock the frame, pull the points and appropriate signal (if there was one!) to allow the train in/out, then return them once it's clear to allow the Puddlebrook bobby to return his release lever. The rest of the points in the colliery would probably be handpoints, they wouldn't bother with a proper box. I suspect that normally they'd have the trap on railway owned land, but I've managed to find one example that kind of fits what you've got - See points 19 at Grain - it looks from the diagram that the gate actually goes across the middle of the double slip!

 

The important factor, generally, is to protect your running lines from any runaway wagons (remembering that they were mostly handbrake only) by making sure that they hit a facing point, catch or trap to divert them away from the passenger-carrying lines.

[Martin S-C]

Many thanks Nick, you've been an absolute star. I think I have it now:

 

6 hours ago, south_tyne said:

I've found you Martin! I wondered what had happened to your layout thread so am so pleased to have tracked Nether Madder down again. I have just spent an enjoyable half an hour catching up on the latest from your little empire.... you have made amazing progress in the past month or so!

 

As I have said somewhat ad nauseam (so I do apologise), I find your project so wonderful. It is no exaggeration to say that I think it is the most inspiring, creative layout on this forum. I absolutely love the concept and design and now the way you are executing it. 

 

It must be giving you so much of a boost to get track down and trains running. It so quickly brings things to life and transforms it from a sea of plywood into a railway!

 

Thank you for sharing and I will be following with interest now that I have located you again.

 

All the best,

David 

 

Cheers David; its posts like yours that encourage me and keep me going. I suppose you losing the thread is my fault since I moved it from layout topics to pre-grouping topics and deliberately didn't tell you!
 

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

Bells and whistle, Martin. Bells used for street tramway work, whistles for usual railway purposes - whistles would frighten horses, but are needed for normal operations, but bells don’t frighten the horses.

Whether or not this chuffing, smoking, infernal machine scared them anyway is a moot point.

Many thanks Simon. The two Rapido J70s I have had sound fitted into need to go back to Digitrains then, and have one of the two bell options replaced with a whistle.
 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

3 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

 - In real life I'd expect that to be a local ground frame locked by a lever in the Puddlebrook box - so the main line signalman would release that (locking his signals), then the shunter would unlock the frame, pull the points and appropriate signal (if there was one!) to allow the train in/out, then return them once it's clear to allow the Puddlebrook bobby to return his release lever. The rest of the points in the colliery would probably be handpoints, they wouldn't bother with a proper box. 

 

 

I absolutely agree, but just thinking of a potential alternative.... hand-worked trap points, but bolted / FPL’d from Puddlebrook box. The bolt will only go home if the points are set for the trap. I can think of a prototype crossover (goods only) that linked two railway companies’ lines. One company’s box worked the points, the other company’s box worked the FPL. 

 

It’s just a thought, use or discard at your leisure 

[Martin S-C]

The plan is for Puddlebrook and the Colliery to be worked by separate operators but they are physically side by side, so I will go with Nick C's suggestion of the PB 20 lever locking/releasing the "outbound" double slip route and when the colliery wants to send out a train, or the main line has empties for the colliery, one of the bobbies will " 'phone the other up" and agree how to work the traffic. As long as they co-operate and the main line signals 1, 2 & 17 are set to danger while it happens, we should be okay.

Of course I have hardly begun to tackle a timetable or sequence for the layout yet and may well arrange timetabled colliery traffic, so that all depends on many factors including how quickly the colliery operator can fill wagons and how much coal customers on the system need. Coal is going to be the No.1 freight of the layout but I only want it to be between 1/3 and 1/2 the total freight, probably erring towards the former. There will also be quarry traffic, timber from Crown Siding to Wood Distillation Works, brewery traffic, tinplate, grease works, milk, quicklime, livestock plus general merchandise. Apart from the stone trains (which, like the coal, will be whole trains) everything else will be 1 to 2 wagon loads more than likely.

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

Many thanks Nick, you've been an absolute star. I think I have it now:
 

 

No worries, it's fun! I've been learning quite a bit about signalling practice over the last few months so it's good to get a chance to think through how it might be used.

[Nick C]

1 minute ago, Martin S-C said:

The plan is for Puddlebrook and the Colliery to be worked by separate operators but they are physically side by side, so I will go with Nick C's suggestion of the PB 20 lever locking/releasing the "outbound" double slip route and when the colliery wants to send out a train, or the main line has empties for the colliery, one of the bobbies will " 'phone the other up" and agree how to work the traffic. As long as they co-operate and the main line signals 1, 2 & 17 are set to danger while it happens, we should be okay.

 

That's the whole point of that lever - when it's pulled, as well as releasing the access crossover, it also locks the main line signals - so the interlocking wouldn't allow 1, 2 or 17 to be pulled while 20 is reversed, or vice-versa.

 

One more point I've just noticed - you've got 15 & 16 on a bracket, 17 stand alone. I think it would be clearer for the driver to have 16 & 17 on the bracket (as they both apply to #2 road, 17 being the taller doll as it's the main route) and 15 on it's own, on the other side of #1 road.

[Stubby47]

12 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

 

 

One more point I've just noticed - you've got 15 & 16 on a bracket, 17 stand alone. I think it would be clearer for the driver to have 16 & 17 on the bracket (as they both apply to #2 road, 17 being the taller doll as it's the main route) and 15 on it's own, on the other side of #1 road.

 

Would that rule also apply to 4, 3 & 7, which should all be single posts, to the left of their respective lines ?

 

There is also no signalled route from Snarling into Platform #4 - which may not be a route under normal circumstances, but might be needed on occasion.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Stubby47

[Nick C]

6 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

 

Would that rule also apply to 4, 3 & 7, which should all be single posts, to the left of their respective lines ?

 

There is also no signalled route from Snarling into Platform #4 - which may not be a route under normal circumstances, but might be needed on occasion.

 

That probably depends on the company - I've certainly seen equal-height bracket signals controlling both sides of an island platform - but not when one also has a diverging route. I don't think there's any requirement for signals to be on the left, as long as it's clear which arm applies to which route. The thing with 16 & 17 as drawn is that a driver in platform 2/3 would have to look on his left if he were going up the branch, or his right if he was going along the main...

 

Martin said that P4 was up-only earlier in the thread.