Signals on my layout

[B McG]

Hi Everyone,

 

It's been a while since I've posted but I have been working on my layout for a while now.  I'm at a point where after reading online on how signalling works I've drew together a plan based I what I've read.  I'm would respectfully like to ask for comments on whether my diagram stacks up in terms of whether this looks correct.  I'm more confident with the main line signalling than the discs!

 

All constructive feedback is welcome, thanks in advance!

 

Cheers

Bryant

 

[iands]

Hi Everyone,

 

It's been a while since I've posted but I have been working on my layout for a while now.  I'm at a point where after reading online on how signalling works I've drew together a plan based I what I've read.  I'm would respectfully like to ask for comments on whether my diagram stacks up in terms of whether this looks correct.  I'm more confident with the main line signalling than the discs!

 

All constructive feedback is welcome, thanks in advance!

 

Cheers

Bryant

 Layout plan station area.png

There does seem to be a lot of disc signals in the sidings area that I think are unnecessary. The drawing also seems to be a bit cluttered with other details (e.g. peco track details) that are a bit of a distraction. Any chance of providing a "straight line" type drawing (like a signal box diagram) that would show the signal positions a bit clearer? Totally understand if this is not possible.

 

Regards, Ian.

[RailWest]

Various random questions....

 

1. Are either or both of the two Bays at top left passenger or goods only?

2. What is going on where the track disappears off-plan at each side?

3. Which main running lines are uni-directional or bi-directional? (there seem to be far too may brackets signals in odd places!)

[The Stationmaster]

Is it meant to be double line or are there two parallel single lines at each end of the station?

[B McG]

There does seem to be a lot of disc signals in the sidings area that I think are unnecessary. The drawing also seems to be a bit cluttered with other details (e.g. peco track details) that are a bit of a distraction. Any chance of providing a "straight line" type drawing (like a signal box diagram) that would show the signal positions a bit clearer? Totally understand if this is not possible.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Thanks for the response.  You're right, my screen shot of the plan is unclear. I've attached a schematic that I'm using for the point control board for the scenic section.  The layout is a roundy and where the running and branch lines finish on the schematic is off scene into an upper and lower fiddle yard. Hopefully this makes things a bit clearer! 

 

Cheers

Bryant

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the response.  You're right, my screen shot of the plan is unclear. I've attached a schematic that I'm using for the point control board for the scenic section.  The layout is a roundy and where the running and branch lines finish on the schematic is off scene into an upper and lower fiddle yard. Hopefully this makes things a bit clearer! 

 

Cheers

Bryant

 

Sorry but I still can't work out if it is meant to be double track or - as the signals imply - two parallel single lines at each end of the station with double line plus a unidirectional loop through the station.

 

If it is meant to be normal double line throughout then there are numerous signals to be removed because you have signalled each approach as parallel single lines.

[iands]

Sorry but I still can't work out if it is meant to be double track or - as the signals imply - two parallel single lines at each end of the station with double line plus a unidirectional loop through the station.

 

If it is meant to be normal double line throughout then there are numerous signals to be removed because you have signalled each approach as parallel single lines. There are a few signals relating 

 

Hi Bryant,

 

As 'Mike The Stationmaster' says, you need to be clear how you intend to operate the layout. From what I see, you have a normal double line (the red lines, indicating opposite direction traffic flows - an Up and a Down line if you will). There are a few signals appertaining to these red lines that aren't required, and one or two that need repositioning. Also the 'cross-over' on the left hand side is in the wrong place, it needs to be below the turnout serving the Parcels sidings. Forget the shunt/disc signals for now, just concentrate on the main signals. Can you number the signals on your diagram and post again? This will make it easier to advise which signals are not required and which should be relocated.

 

Regards, Ian.

[imt]

20180826_00001.pdfI have had a quick bash at this - but there are a lot of confusions arising as others have said.  I have two others you need to think about - is the goods line to be used as the head shunt for your exchange sidings?  How does traffic leaving the bay get to the down line?  You have vulnerabilities in your goods area with a running line passing through it. It may need some trap points to prevent "run aways" getting out, this would be essential if it were a passenger line - in this case it's a safety issue.

 

Basically you have far too many running signals unless everything is bi-directional - some of the signals could even be "off model".  If you have not yet built this you need to think about the crossover on the right between the running lines and whether something like a single slip out of the parcels/bay area and a point on the down line allowing traffic in and out onto their appropriate lines.  It would be better if the goods line met the goods loop and the current goods line were a separate head shunt - much cleaner and safer all round.  Up goods are a bit of a problem unless you can connect the loop to the up line - else they will have to go through the station and set back over the right hand side crossover.

 

If you haven't built this please think about changing the design.

[iands]

Hi Bryant,

 

The general concensus is that you're planning too many signals (main and disc). Whilst lots of signals may 'look good', a sense of realism is key. All railway companies, from Network Rail all the way back to the pre-grouping companies, didn't like spending money if they didn't need to. Lots of signals (and point work for that matter) means a lot of investment and ongoing maintenance costs. Fewer disc signals in the sidings is a must with most movements controlled by hand signals from the shunter and hand operated points. The only points/signals controlled in the sidings (in general) would be for controlling the exit of trains from the sidings on to the "main" line (or the Goods loop on your plan).

 

Similarly with the main running signals, as 'IMT' has indicated in his reply, few are actually required and some of the points need a bit of a rethink.

 

What would make you layout stand out from a lot of others (in my opinion), would be fewer signals, but realistically positioned, and if you can manage it, actually 'working'.

 

All that said, it is your layout and "Rule One" applies.

 

Regards, Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

One thing which doesn't seem to have emerged is the era you are modelling (the diesel facilities provide a clue that it is 'not earlier than ...' but there is nothing to indicate if it is 'not later than ...') or the area of the country/BR Region.  Thus while some things can be regarded as generic in track layout and signalling terms some cannot and could have been influenced by rationalisation or older practice - the goods branch line being a good example of that.

[B McG]

Thanks all for the feedback I really appreciate all of your advice.

 

To answer the queries raised it's has been built I'm afraid.   Yesterday the fiddle yard has has point motors and control board installed. 

 

Operationally I was planning on using the good line as a headshunt, however in light of the advice received I am going install another point to change that.   

 

Unfortunately I can't change much in the bay area, due to knock on constraints with the fiddle yard off scene. Effectively a section of up line will need to be bidirectional to allow movements out, I guess I'll have to live with that. The loop had intended to be single directional however I'm thinking of losing that double slip and a siding in the bay area and seeing if it could be used on the right side crossover to give the loop access to the up line.  

 

At least I haven't wired in the station side point motors yet!

 

Regards

Bryant   

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks all for the feedback I really appreciate all of your advice.

 

To answer the queries raised it's has been built I'm afraid.   Yesterday the fiddle yard has has point motors and control board installed. 

 

Operationally I was planning on using the good line as a headshunt, however in light of the advice received I am going install another point to change that.   

 

Unfortunately I can't change much in the bay area, due to knock on constraints with the fiddle yard off scene. Effectively a section of up line will need to be bidirectional to allow movements out, I guess I'll have to live with that. The loop had intended to be single directional however I'm thinking of losing that double slip and a siding in the bay area and seeing if it could be used on the right side crossover to give the loop access to the up line.  

 

At least I haven't wired in the station side point motors yet!

 

Regards

Bryant   

 

Before you go too far there's nothing at all wrong with using the goods branch as a headshunt, in fact at a yard where I worked a goods branch was regularly used to deal with longer shunts.   The only thing you need to bear in mind is just how busy you want the branch to be as a branch as opposed to a shunting facility.  Signalling it would then be fairly simple (or even very simple) although that does depend a bit on Regional differences in method.  And don't forget the tighter you make any curves insode teh radius of teh goods brancj the harder it will be to propel trains without derailments.

[B McG]

Before you go too far there's nothing at all wrong with using the goods branch as a headshunt, in fact at a yard where I worked a goods branch was regularly used to deal with longer shunts.   The only thing you need to bear in mind is just how busy you want the branch to be as a branch as opposed to a shunting facility.  Signalling it would then be fairly simple (or even very simple) although that does depend a bit on Regional differences in method.  And don't forget the tighter you make any curves insode teh radius of teh goods brancj the harder it will be to propel trains without derailments.

 

Thanks, after mulling it over I'll stick with using the good branch as a headshunt.  However after reading through all comments I decided to put a double slip on the down line and a curved point on the up line to allow bidirection running on the loop to the upper right. Also today I hit on a solution for the issue of the bay on xTrackCAD, as a double movement would have been needed to cross onto the down line and also there was a space constraint to ensure both lines have access to the fiddle yard.  The solution is to butcher four curved points into a short insulfrog diamond and make a customised scissors.  The lesson learned here is that when you plan in solitude sometimes one can get a bit short sighted regarding the obvious short comings.  Thanks once again for all the feedback! 

 

Cheers,

Bryant