The Western Way - early stages of a 1930s-based GWR layout

[MarshLane]

Mike,

I am so glad, that I opened this thread, as I was in two minds whether to just get on with it or not!  Thanks again for your input.

 

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Firstly if dealing with a double line station which terminated and reversed trains you would normally have the trailing crossover in advance of the arrival platform.  Thus the train would arrive and then draw forward, empty, in the right direction, clear of the crossover before setting back through the crossover and thus crossing onto the other line in its right running direction.  You'd obviously need two crossovers if it's a hauled train where the engine needs to run round and the run round might precede or follow the crossing of the coaches depending on local circumstances.  Hence I took your railmotor as arriving from the right from your original siting of the crossover.

In which case, I think the railmotor/autocoach arriving from the right, and then crossing over in front of the box, and returning to the Down platform is the way to work that service.  Prototypical, and keeps the shunting movements on scene.

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Now to ABC where we have to consider several separate things.  Firstly the civil engineer, especially on the Western, would like to avoid having pointwork, particularly crossovers, on curved track if it could be avoided - it was simpler (and cheaper) to maintain particularly if there was any superelevation involved on the curves.  But not always possible of course.

 

In operating terms it makes relatively little difference because the relative distances between A, B, & C are not much when compared with the quarter mile (440 yards) needed for a signalling Clearing Point.  The only thing that would change on your three sketches is that the Down Home Signal on A would have to be moved  back to protect the crossover (and on all three sketches each trailing point end will need a ground disc).  There were plenty of instances where trains setting back into a refuge siding - or yard - would pass over another point end which was normally trailing; in reality setting back over one properly maintained point was very little different in risk terms from setting back over several as speeds were low. 

 

In which case, option B looks the neatest way forward in my eyes. Are we in agreement that in total for the crossover and refuge siding, there are just two ground signals needed as illustrated in B.  1) Up main to Down main crossover, and 2) Down main to Down refuge for set back?

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Now we come to the biggie - other trains about while crossing over.  Under the standard Signalling Regulations - which would not be modified at a wayside location such as this - the Signalman needed a Clearing Point of 440 yards in advance of his (outermost) Home Signal before he could accept a train from the 'box in rear.  So in your modelled scenario there would never be a railmotor using the crossover, or a freight setting back into the refuge siding, while a train is approaching on the Down Main.  The only time the railmotor crossing would be allowed is if a Down train has already passed or has arrived and is standing at the Home Signal - if such a train is approaching and hasn't yet arrived and stopped at the Home Signal the railmotor would have to wait on the Up Main until that train has either passed or has stopped at the Home Signal.

 

Similarly if a freight has arrived and will set back into the refuge siding then another train cannot be accepted on the Down Main.   At a place like this the alternative - of providing an additional Home Signal 440 yards in rear of the one immediately protecting the points - would be unlikely.  For example at both Chalford and Saltash, where railmotors were regularly crossed over on relatively busy lines, there were no additional Home Signals to create a Clearing Point which didn't foul the crossovers.

 

Noted - I'll build that into the operations plan.

 

Rich

[MarshLane]

1 hour ago, LBRJ said:

At first glance the plan reminded me not so much of Saltash, but the next station down the line,

St Germans.  As show in this link to the NLS website

Yes there is a similarity!  I was down on the quay side at St Germans earlier this year, a shorter version of that viaduct had gone through my mind.

 

42 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Reading the Stationmasters first post, my thoughts immediately turned to Defiance Platform.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/105994510

Thats a new one on me, one I'd not heard of before - thanks for posting.

 

Rich

[MarshLane]

So after all of the input from yesterday and this morning, this is where I am now sitting - version 4.1!!  To me this seems a better approach and follows the 'less is more' principal and meets my aim of a landscape model through which a railway has been built.  I am also happy with the operating potential, there are only three points to be handbuilt, although given that fact I am now in a little quandary as to whether to stay with handbuilt scenic track follow the N2 principals that Cav (of this parish) has employed on his Burton-on-Trent model, or whether to adopt the fiNetraX  Code 40 trackwork, which I suspect would be ideal for a project of this size.

 

 

I have just drawn in a couple of roads, potentially giving a road underbridge as well - but that is more to break up the white space on this diagram, as I'll not plan the town area out until I have got a scale accurate Templot plan of the railway.

 

Rich

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Reading the Stationmasters first post, my thoughts immediately turned to Defiance Platform.

 

https://maps.nls.uk/view/105994510

 

 

Yes, a number of similarities albeit without the carriage sidings at Wearde.  but teh working of the railmotor would have been exactly as I've outlined, viz -

 

Down train terminates at Defiance platform, empty train ad draws forwards to crossover in advance of the platform then crosses over to return to the platform on the Up Main running in the right ditection.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, MarshLane said:

Mike,

I am so glad, that I opened this thread, as I was in two minds whether to just get on with it or not!  Thanks again for your input.

 

In which case, I think the railmotor/autocoach arriving from the right, and then crossing over in front of the box, and returning to the Down platform is the way to work that service.  Prototypical, and keeps the shunting movements on scene.

 

 

In which case, option B looks the neatest way forward in my eyes. Are we in agreement that in total for the crossover and refuge siding, there are just two ground signals needed as illustrated in B.  1) Up main to Down main crossover, and 2) Down main to Down refuge for set back?

 

 

Rich

We are not in agreement (sorry!) on the number of ground discs because you actually need three - one at the toe end of each trailing connection.  So there will be one for the Up Main to Down Main crossover, one for the Down Main to Up Main crossover, and one for the the Down Main to refuge siding connection.

 

the reason for this is that the appearance of ground signals reading more than in more than one direction through trailing points on the GWR was a relatively late introduction.  there were even new lever frames commissioned in. the late 1940s where ground discs did not read both ways through trailing connections (although some which did so had appeared by the late 1930).  Your signal box will probably have a relatively old lever frame having gone unaltered for quite a long while so the ground discs would almost inevitably only be able to be cleared when the points to which they applied were standing reversed.

[Harlequin]

9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

We are not in agreement (sorry!) on the number of ground discs because you actually need three - one at the toe end of each trailing connection.  So there will be one for the Up Main to Down Main crossover, one for the Down Main to Up Main crossover, and one for the the Down Main to refuge siding connection.

 

the reason for this is that the appearance of ground signals reading more than in more than one direction through trailing points on the GWR was a relatively late introduction.  there were even new lever frames commissioned in. the late 1940s where ground discs did not read both ways through trailing connections (although some which did so had appeared by the late 1930).  Your signal box will probably have a relatively old lever frame having gone unaltered for quite a long while so the ground discs would almost inevitably only be able to be cleared when the points to which they applied were standing reversed.

 

Hi Mike,

The loco crew of a long freight train would be quite a distance from the disc for setting back into the refuge siding. Was sighting it ever a problem? If so what were the solutions?

Edit: Was the guard involved?

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Harlequin

[MarshLane]

37 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

We are not in agreement (sorry!) on the number of ground discs because you actually need three - one at the toe end of each trailing connection.  So there will be one for the Up Main to Down Main crossover, one for the Down Main to Up Main crossover, and one for the the Down Main to refuge siding connection.

 

the reason for this is that the appearance of ground signals reading more than in more than one direction through trailing points on the GWR was a relatively late introduction.  there were even new lever frames commissioned in. the late 1940s where ground discs did not read both ways through trailing connections (although some which did so had appeared by the late 1930).  Your signal box will probably have a relatively old lever frame having gone unaltered for quite a long while so the ground discs would almost inevitably only be able to be cleared when the points to which they applied were standing reversed.

 

Hi Mike,

No, please don't be sorry! I'm learning as much through this as I am working out the layout.  Your contributions are valuable, so thank you.   I see what your saying, so will add in the third ground signal.  I was working on the premise that the only 'wrong-line' signalled move on the Down Main was the reverse into the refuge siding and hence as there was no requirement for a Down Main to Up Main move, and hence it wouldn't have been signalled, hence why I was working on two ground signals. 

 

Version 4.2 - with the previously commented trap added to the refuge siding as well.

 

Rich

Edited June 4, 2019 by MarshLane

[Siberian Snooper]

Looks good,  it'll be good to see how it fits when you Templot it, it's surprising how much you may have to compromise when you do a full size Templot drawing.

 

Been there, dun it and got several T shirts.

 

 

 

 

[MarshLane]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Looks good,  it'll be good to see how it fits when you Templot it, it's surprising how much you may have to compromise when you do a full size Templot drawing.

Been there, dun it and got several T shirts.

 

Very true!  I always struggle to get flowing curves in Templot. I am back at work tomorrow, but hopefully might get chance Thursday evening to have a couple of hours Temploting!

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Mike,

The loco crew of a long freight train would be quite a distance from the disc for setting back into the refuge siding. Was sighting it ever a problem? If so what were the solutions?

Edit: Was the guard involved?

 

Yes he was, handsignalling the driver or fireman, whichever one was in his line of sight due to curvature, to stop when his van was clear of the disc signal controlling the entry to the refuge siding, and to set back into it when the road was set and the disc was ‘off’.  If the signalman was unable to see that the train had cleared the disc, he also relied on the guard’s handsignals, or lights at night of course!

[The Johnster]

At night, or during fog or falling snow, the rh side lamp on his van, nearest to the running line, had the red shade removed to display a white light to the rear.  This informed and re-assured the drivers of overtaking trains that the freight was on the refuge road and not something they were about to collide with at high speed...

[MarshLane]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

At night, or during fog or falling snow, the rh side lamp on his van, nearest to the running line, had the red shade removed to display a white light to the rear.  This informed and re-assured the drivers of overtaking trains that the freight was on the refuge road and not something they were about to collide with at high speed...

 

Yes, I have heard a few stories of guards forgetting to do that and scaring the hell out of an approaching footplate crew!  Thanks for those insights.

 

Rich

[The Johnster]

Footplate crews were fairly robust in their comments to such miscreants, and you can see why...

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Mike,

The loco crew of a long freight train would be quite a distance from the disc for setting back into the refuge siding. Was sighting it ever a problem? If so what were the solutions?

Edit: Was the guard involved?

 

It depended entirely (in most cases) on the ability to relay handsignals from whoever could see the points and ground disc (and that might have been the Signalman) to the engine crew.  In this model proposal things would be a bit easier because the viaduct offers some nice clear sight lines unimpeded by lineside clutter or foliage.

 

In the real world all sorts of things could be done to simplify things and one solution was to use some sort of 'signal' to convey the message to the engine crew.   The simplest way of doing it - used in a number of WR locations where setting back into a yard was a frequent occurrence was to use a white flashing light which, in its most sophisticated form, could flash a coded message where the number of flashes corresponded with the code used for controlling shunting moves using a number of blasts on a whistle. (a bit like a DMU etc buzzer code but for many years the two used different codes).  In some places what were known as Toton signals were used - again mainly in very busy locations where lots of setting back moves were made.  

 

Also a one time the GWR used a very specialised form of distant signal for this purpose although all it did was indicate that the ground disc (or other fixed signal) had been cleared and was not actually a signal to move the train - but I bet it was interpreted in that way.  However these were extremely rare and so far I have only come across sound evidence of two on the entire GWR network - I'm reasonably sure they didn't last beyond the 1930s.

1 hour ago, MarshLane said:

 

Yes, I have heard a few stories of guards forgetting to do that and scaring the hell out of an approaching footplate crew!  Thanks for those insights.

 

Rich

Could be rather upsetting.  On night coming down in the cab of a passenger train on the curvaceous section between Ebbw Jcn and Marshfield (between Newport and Cardiff) I had one heck of a fright when we came upon a train showing red side lights ahead of us - notwithstanding pretty green signals.  The twit of a Guard hadn't changed his two red side lamps to white when his train got onto the Relief Line so he was still showing Main Line side lamps.

[Harlequin]

Thanks Mike and The Johnster, there are some interesting nuggets there!

 

When you guys say, "handsignals", do you literally mean just that or would that be with flags?

 

And one last question, if I may: How was the driver informed that he needed to stop and set back in the first place? (1930s style)

 

[MarshLane]

41 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

When you guys say, "handsignals", do you literally mean just that or would that be with flags?

 

It would have been hand signals in clear vis ability and using an oil lamp during limited visibility such as fog or darkness I believe.

 

A guards hand lamp has a moveable screen which can give a clear lens showing a normal flame colour (white on modern lamps) or can be turned to give a red or green lens, allowing the guard to indicate stop. 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks Mike and The Johnster, there are some interesting nuggets there!

 

When you guys say, "handsignals", do you literally mean just that or would that be with flags?

 

And one last question, if I may: How was the driver informed that he needed to stop and set back in the first place? (1930s style)

 

Answering 'how would the Driver know? ' first.  The train might be booked to 'shunt' (clear of the running line) for regulating purposes and that would be shown in the WTT (Working Timetable) or traffic notices.  However it might be shunted because - on the Western - the Signalman and his colleagues are of the view that the train is being overtaken by a faster one and should be shunted.  In this latter case it would be stopped at the Home Signal then brought forward to the signal box where teh Signalman would shout across to the Driver that his train was to be put inside (or give the Driver some rather unofficial handsignals meaning the same).  The Driver would then draw forwards to get clear of the piints and the Guard would normally give the Driver a handsignal to indicate this had been done - the usual form was to use a rolled-up newspaper which in day time showed up far better than somebody's uniformed arm.  Once the road was set the Guard (officially) would handsignal the Driver to set back although this signal might be relayed by teh Signalman if the Guard was unsighted.

 

Note also that in some cases (and it was standard practice on the Midland) Control might advise the Signalman to shunt the train.

 

Normally handsignals would be exactly that - given by hand (but very often using that rolled up newspaper) but at night and in poor visibility a handlamp would be used and in some situations where sighting was bad a whistle would be used to sound a code.  One apparent oddity is that when signals are given using a handlamp a white light means go at normal shunting speed and a green light means go slower/slow down, red of course means stop.   When I was involved in revising the Rule Book in the mid 1980s we received a suggestion that yellow should be used for slow down instead of green.  But after discussing it in the working party and consulting numerous people plus  giving it a lot of thought we rejected the idea as impractical, partly because the handlamps (by then Bardic electric lamps) used by Shunters and Guards would require modification to show a yellow light but mainly because the understanding of a green light when shunting was well understood and there had never been any reported problems with understanding what it meant.  it worked so why change it?  

 

You'll find the current handsignals here (pages 12 & 13) -

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERT8000-SS2 Iss 5.pdf

[The Johnster]

What Mike said.  Yesterday's newspaper was an absolutely vital piece of equipment for a freight guard.  As well as being used for daylight handsignals they helped get the stove fire going and sealed the draughts in the van.  And, soaked in lamp paraffin, they were pretty good for cleaning the windows (van's prepped in Mike's yard at Radyr were clean already!).

[MarshLane]

Morning guys,

Very quick post - just managed to get an hour or so playing in Templot and have come up with the attached.

 

 

The scenic section is marked, you'll note that I have converted the refuge siding into a loop.  My plan is that the siding will be used as a refuge siding in normal 1930s use, but should I acquire a more modern fleet any time, this method allows it to be used as a proper loop, post 1930s.  The other end of the loop is off the scenic section anyway, so wouldn't be seen either way

 

If anyone has any further comments, please do shout.  I am thinking the refuge points and loop crossover points need moving more towards the centre of the boards.

 

Rich

Edited June 6, 2019 by MarshLane
Spelling

[Harlequin]

It’s a shame not to be able to use more of the total width for scenery. There’s more room in the wings than there is on the stage!

How will you drop the landscape below rail level for your viaduct in the existing flat-bottomed box?

Better to build baseboards and enclosure to suit the layout than the other way round...

[MarshLane]

Hi Phil,

Yes I agree with your last statement totally, but not being the best in the world at woodwork, the two boards came out so well I didn’t not want to use them. Plus there is the need to consider storage. The boards have an 18” high backscene, and both will just fit in the storage cupboard, side-by-side, with the two end pieces propped up in front of them, and the fiddle yard board laid on top.

 

If i extended the scenery and backscene onto the end boards the will no longer fit in the storage area, and space is somewhat at a premium here! 

 

I also have a cunning plan, that the centre of the turning circle at one end will accommodate a Peco turntable to turn tender locos, fed from the fiddle yard, while the other turning circle will have a short storage road for the auto train, and three or four short sidings for holding locos between duties. I am hoping to be able to use DCC automation to change the locos over as soon as a train arrives off the layout, thereby leaving me to just run the layout, probably from the front, and let the computer deal with the fiddle yard.

 

In terms of dropping the landscape, the plan is to raise the trackbed. The boards were originally designed to allow and O gauge loco to pass through the scenic ends, so there is plenty of height there. Yes not the best way, but it saves wasting work, wasting wood, wasting time, wasting money and means that I can push it on to be able to run trains quite quickly in the limited modelling time I have.

 

Rich

Edited June 6, 2019 by MarshLane

[MarshLane]

Guys,

Thanks for all the help. Having through I'd nailed the track plan, a few thoughts and suggestions have been made which make me think it needs further work yet.

 

Rich

Edited June 26, 2019 by MarshLane

[DCB]

I know you moved on but it seems a shame to have a little river bridge and a little road bridge when both could go through a nice viaduct.

Also there is no need for a gap between station and viaduct, the GW didn't bother at places like Stroud on the Swindon Gloucester line.  Could lengthen the platforms nicely.

[MarshLane]

Hi David,

Thanks for the input.  In some respects I agree with you the problem is that the layout can only be erected when being run, so these two boards have to split for storage, and I am not convinced a viaduct would look like with a cut down the middle of it - more food for thought however!   As you'll note from the other thread, there is still some thought going on with regards to track layout.

 

Rich

[MarshLane]

Evening guys,

I thought it was about time I updated the thread as all those who participated were kind enough to give me their time and thoughts.  In late June I decided to put the whole project on the back burner for a few weeks. I'd printed out the Templot plan, pinned it to the wall in my study and kept running through different operational aspects in my mind.  But the more I looked, the more I thought rationally, the more I realised it just wasn't right.  There was the large wasted space boards at each end, and the single track leads back to the fiddle yard was manageable, but I could see that long-term I was going to regret those not being double track.  A couple of other changes have also taken place in the past six months including the 'Grand Clear Out' which has created more storage space - not that I am immediately trying to fill it!

 

Also this comment from Phil kept haunting the back of my mind...

On 06/06/2019 at 04:38, Harlequin said:

It’s a shame not to be able to use more of the total width for scenery. There’s more room in the wings than there is on the stage!

How will you drop the landscape below rail level for your viaduct in the existing flat-bottomed box?

Better to build baseboards and enclosure to suit the layout than the other way round...

 

In the end, the more I kept trying to justify how I could expand the scenic section, the more a voice just kept shouting, abandon the baseboards and start a fresh.  Which in all honesty was an acknowledgement of several of the comments on here.  Its a shame, because for the first proper free standing baseboards I'd built, they worked well, with the one exception that they were designed for a specific project that didn't go anywhere, and they were heavy.

 

New Start

So, said track plan came off the wall and went in the bin.  If I was starting from scratch well perhaps that took out several of the requirements that went into in the first post.  Time period was either early 1930s or the late 1950s, and I still preferred the former. A secondary main line would be nice, but operational interest was the key, and if I am starting from scratch then I am coming round more and more to some baseboards from Tim Horn (or equivalent supplier).  I do like the 'Hall' Class and 2800s, but lengthy trains, even in N need lots of space to put a main line scene into perspective.  Smaller Pannier and Prairie tanks, with the new Sonic 5600s, however could create the same impression in a smaller space - the speeds are lower and there is variety in the passenger and freight workings.

 

Current Plans

Where am I now?  Well, there are still five must haves - a) must be portable and able to be taken down between running sessions, b) needs to be N gauge, and c) needs to based on the GWR in the 1930s, d) needs to occupy my operational interest and e) needs to be capable of running something reasonably quickly as I am fed up of sitting on the fence!   The advent of being portable also makes me think that if I can create a layout based around three or four different scenes then it may be possible to only erect part of the layout but still operate it - a bit of variance, and building on the idea of @Mikkel and his small OO gauge dioramas.  I am putting a small layout together in 2FS which is now a smaller ongoing project - this is totally separate.

 

The 'Grand Clear Out' means I have space to store more baseboards now, so in essence, the biggest area that the layout could cover when erected in my lounge is 21ft long by 7ft (well 8ft at one end).  Of course it cannot cover all of that space because there is a need to get in the room, plus somewhere to stand/sit when operating etc.  But the options have expanded significantly.

 

Current line of thinking is to base a layout on Tondu in the Cardiff Valleys. It may not be an accurate portrayal, but is is full of interest. Back in November, I treated myself to a new book on the 'Tondu Valley' that has been published by Pen & Sword (ISBN: 1526727250 - Amazon have it for £21, RRP is £30) which is a wonderfully superb reference.  It is one of two booked that Pen & Sword do on the Tondu Valley lines and one of several looking at the Cardiff Valley's traffic in general.  Looking at the whole rail operation in the Tondu Valley, the shed and some brilliant images and drawings, one of which on Page 109 is a drawing of the Tondu area (© Pen and Sword Books)

 

 

I don't think this breaches any copyright issues, but happy to remove it if it does.  The maps shows that as well as the four platformed station, which spans two lines, there is a roundhouse within the triangle to the north of the station, plus goods sidings giving plenty of opportunity for shunting.  In reality, I think the lower two platforms in the diagram roughly run north to south, giving an idea of the layout.  

 

Layout

It occurs to me therefore that it should be possible to adapt this plan into a very nice, active and busy model, dominated by GWR tank locos, and perhaps a 2800 Class 2-8-0.  I doubt these worked into the Valley's much, but it may be a Rule #1 on a Tondu to Severn Tunnel Junction Yard mineral working .  I'd be interested to hear what kind of passenger stock would have worked up the Valley's in the 1930s (and is it available in N?) - Im assuming the freight would have been dominated by coal traffic in private owner 5 and 7-plank two-axle wagons with the odd mixed pick-up freight meandering along as well.  Most passenger services, certainly in the 50s/60s seem to have been formed of two coach sets, so I am wondering if that was the same in the 1930s?

 

On the hidden sidings, one thought is that both of the lower lines could rejoin and head into a hidden sidings (fiddle yard) that then reconnects to the line at the top centre the plan, or would it be better to have a separate smaller hidden sidings to handle traffic for both of the northern lines?

 

If I am using either British Finetrax bullhead trackwork (or even Peco if it ends up that way) then hopefully it should be possible to plan the trackwork in something like SCARM (which I have downloaded and am getting use to slowly), but I need to devise a way to make sure things fit into the baseboards in the right way, especially with having to keep it portable.  I am also going to have a chat with a couple of these companies about being able to make the baseboards kits to my own design, that way the trackwork is not flat in the landscape, which solves another problem with the original idea and boards!

 

Thoughts and comments as ever are welcomed.  

 

Rich

Edited January 31, 2020 by MarshLane