Signalling a single-track GWR passing station

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I wonder if I might ask for advice on signalling for a layout design I’m exploring.

 

I’m thinking of a small layout centred on a GWR single track passing station.  Space and other practical constraints (eg: baseboard joints) mean the track layout I’m looking at includes a number of severe compromises - as has been noted elsewhere, this is much more a ‘model railway’ than a ‘model of a railway,’ and I‘d expect to run a much heavier service than the facilities might suggest.  As such, signalling could prove to be a complex nightmare entirely out of keeping with the atmosphere I’m after, but I thought there’d be no harm in asking.

 

A schematic of the station looks something like this:

 

 

Things I’m thinking about include:

 

1.  My time period is very flexible - I believe signalling practice changed in a number of respects in the 1930s, so this could be a problem.  If I had to narrow it down I’d probably go for 1923 - 1930 if that’s tight enough for consistency.

 

2.  In terms of traffic patterns, this is not to be run on a one-engine in steam basis.  Both platforms could be used in either direction by passenger traffic (I realise it would be easier if ‘Platform 2’ was really a goods only loop).  Some trains - goods, mixed and passenger - will terminate (or originate) at this station.  

 

3.  There is no room to insert a headshunt in either direction, nor to rearrange all the upper sidings to run off the loop from a single point with a kickback, although this would be preferable (ie: from a trailing point for trains heading Down).  This is simply down to space, as the schematic looks a lot more generous than the actual space I have.  The same reason explains why two sidings also run off Platform 1 - not ideal.

 

4.  In terms of trap points, I think those at A and B are given.  Only empty passenger stock will use the carriage siding.  If the secondary loop was for goods / light engines only, I think I’d need to add just two more, at C and D, but I don’t know if the Engine Shed makes a difference.  As it is, I’d expect one to be needed at E, and either one at F or one at each of G and H (again, I don’t know if the Engine Shed requires different rules).  There are no planned gradients on the layout, so no catch points are needed.

 

5.  I’m not sure if the Signal Box should be at AA or AB.  At a guess, either might be possible, although AB seems more likely to me.

 

6.  Will it make a difference to the signalling if the secondary stopping point down the line is a Manned Station or an Unmanned Halt, or is the Level Crossing more relevant?

 

7.  Finally, operationally, it is possible that there will be 3 different locomotives in the station at the same time, eg: 1 on shed, 1 shunting the goods sidings, and a passenger train on the main through line at Platform 1.  Shunting the goods sidings could foul the main line in either direction.

 

I’m conscious there are already other, similar threads on the Forum - if this is just one too many, I’m in no rush for answers.  Thanks, Keith.

[Joseph_Pestell]

There were not a lot of island platform stations on GW branchlines. I can only think of two (although there must have been more???).

 

But that does not, in itself, have any bearing on the signalling. What will have an impact is the totally unlikely track plan with those facing connections off the platform roads. I would suggest modifying that before trying to do the signalling.

 

An engine shed and a carriage siding are also unlikely other than at a junction or a terminus.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Keith Addenbrooke]

 

30 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

There were not a lot of island platform stations on GW branchlines. I can only think of two (although there must have been more???).

 

But that does not, in itself, have any bearing on the signalling. What will have an impact is the totally unlikely track plan with those facing connections off the platform roads. I would suggest modifying that before trying to do the signalling.

 

An engine shed and a carriage siding are also unlikely other than at a junction or a terminus.

 

Hi Joseph, thanks for the quick reply - I agree on all points (no pun intended) with regards to my deviations from the prototype: I should perhaps have been clearer in this regard - “is it possible to signal this design?” might be a better way to ask the question! 

 

The only GWR island platforms I could think of off the top of my head were for Commuters rather than branch lines (eg: places like Solihull).  I don’t know enough about independent lines absorbed into the GWR to know of any examples there, but I would accept it’s not common - in the end I decided it was something I could live with. 

 

I also looked at fitting in a Goods Loop separate to a platform road, and played around with crossings to reach some sidings, but this generated other compromises, particularly with regards to train length or number of lines crossing baseboard joints (on a portable layout).

 

It could be that the compromises I’ve settled on - particularly running sidings off platform roads (because of my space constraints) mean that any question of signalling in a meaningful manner just isn’t possible of course: that would be a perfectly fair response.

 

Thanks, Keith.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not impossible. But it will look a bit strange.

 

It may help if you can give us a bit more detail about the overall size of the layout, particularly the distance from the station to the halt/level crossing.

[iands]

Picking up on a point made by Joseph_Pestell, the engine shed could be "converted" to become a Goods Shed instead - might create more shunting options? 

[RailWest]

There were island platforms at St Agnes and Perranporth, but both arose as a result of re-building in later years.

 

Bi-directional signalling on both loops IMHO would be very rare unless it was one of those (quite common) locations where only the main line was passenger-rated and the other line was non-passenger only. In the latter case then traps would be needed at C and D. If the former, then traps at E and F. No need for traps at G and H in either scenario.

 

Put the signal-box in the middle of the layout, either on the platform or on the ground adjacent to one of the platform lines.

[The Stationmaster]

The big problem is the presence of facing points.  now while they were not completely unknown there had to be a very good reason for them and they were usually avoided like the plague (because that was the required situation).  So  -

1,  If you want ro create the impression of something 'typical' the only facing points will be those at the entrance to the loops.  All other running line points should be trailing.  

 

2. The layout you have drawn would be a right s*d to signal properly and if a layout is a s*d to signal that usually means something, or a number of somethings, about it is not right

 

3.  Island platforms at GWR single crossing stations weren't incredibly common but equally they were far from unknown.  I found four in Cornwall, on two different branches,  in a couple of minutes of wandering round the 'net and there was one, not far from where I sit typing this,  on another GWR branch (which opened in the late 1850s) and a long way from Cornwall. BUT -

 

Generally crossing stations with island platforms seen to take up more space especially if there is more than a very simple arrangement of sidings with only one lead off the single line.  For the number of connections you have in mind a two platform arrangement would probably make more sense but it would be a lot longer  whereas an island platform would be wider while still not saving much on length for what you have in mind.

 

4.  While engine sheds at intermediate stations on secondary lines were not unknown they would definitely fall into the 'much less common' category and yours, as already noted, comes at the expense of siding space for freight traffic.

 

What I recommend anyone to do when planning a layout is to have a good look at what things were like in the real world, especially their chosen part of it - be that by Railway Company or geographically.   Look at drawings. layout plans, photos and sketches and then as your familiarity and ideas develop start sketching a few track layouts to compare with the real world to see if you're getting things in the right sort of 'flavour'.  As is often said by Tony Wright - a well known and extremely good, modeller it is easier to copy the real thing than design it yourself.  I don't entirely follow that line because provided you can get 'the feel' of typical track layouts and the facilities they offer my view is that you can develop the skill to produce pretty good facsimiles of style but serving things you can legitimately claim to need to be served in the area your layout purports to serve.  But it does depend on building up that understanding and appreciation of the way your favoured company did things and it is undoubtedly easier to copy rather than originate.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Not impossible. But it will look a bit strange.

 

It may help if you can give us a bit more detail about the overall size of the layout, particularly the distance from the station to the halt/level crossing.

Hi Joseph, thank you for the reply.  The distance to the level crossing in my mind would ideally be around 2 to 3 miles, but in layout terms it’s only one train length (but around a curve and out of sight).

 

For this exercise, I’d wondered about ‘fixed at caution’ distant signal arms below the stop signals at platform end?

————————-

In terms of the layout idea, I rather shied away from revealing it for the health and well-being of my fellow RMwebbers: for a myriad of reasons (which I am personally quite happy with) it’s a 4’ x 8’ board with just the one station and a continuous run (hence ‘some’ trains will terminate and originate there).  
 

It would be a separate story as to how and why this is the case - but that would be for another Forum and another time perhaps...

 

Having confessed, I can’t actually post a picture at the moment - I don’t have access to the right files today, sorry.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Picking up on a point made by Joseph_Pestell, the engine shed could be "converted" to become a Goods Shed instead - might create more shunting options? 

Good point - I left the Engine Shed in as I’ll be having some trains terminate and originate at this station (also the carriage siding).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

51 minutes ago, RailWest said:

There were island platforms at St Agnes and Perranporth, but both arose as a result of re-building in later years.

 

Bi-directional signalling on both loops IMHO would be very rare unless it was one of those (quite common) locations where only the main line was passenger-rated and the other line was non-passenger only. In the latter case then traps would be needed at C and D. If the former, then traps at E and F. No need for traps at G and H in either scenario.

 

Put the signal-box in the middle of the layout, either on the platform or on the ground adjacent to one of the platform lines.

Thank you - I’d not considered locating the signal box centrally (it would have to be at the top of the plan or on the platform, as the edge of the world is too close to the bottom).  I’d assumed it would need to be adjacent to the running line either entering or leaving the station for issuing / receipt of block tokens.

 

With regards to bi-directional signalling, I agree it adds to the complexity - it may be that I’m simply thinking in terms of overly complicated possible operating patterns, and it would be easier to look at either single direction running through the loop (Down trains take platform 2, Up trains platform 1), or keep the loop as a good only loop, especially if the engine shed becomes a good shed as suggested by iands.  The latter option makes fitting in trap points easier as there is enough space at C and D.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

59 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The big problem is the presence of facing points.  now while they were not completely unknown there had to be a very good reason for them and they were usually avoided like the plague (because that was the required situation).  So  -

1,  If you want ro create the impression of something 'typical' the only facing points will be those at the entrance to the loops.  All other running line points should be trailing.  

 

2. The layout you have drawn would be a right s*d to signal properly and if a layout is a s*d to signal that usually means something, or a number of somethings, about it is not right

 

3.  Island platforms at GWR single crossing stations weren't incredibly common but equally they were far from unknown.  I found four in Cornwall, on two different branches,  in a couple of minutes of wandering round the 'net and there was one, not far from where I sit typing this,  on another GWR branch (which opened in the late 1850s) and a long way from Cornwall. BUT -

 

Generally crossing stations with island platforms seen to take up more space especially if there is more than a very simple arrangement of sidings with only one lead off the single line.  For the number of connections you have in mind a two platform arrangement would probably make more sense but it would be a lot longer  whereas an island platform would be wider while still not saving much on length for what you have in mind.

 

4.  While engine sheds at intermediate stations on secondary lines were not unknown they would definitely fall into the 'much less common' category and yours, as already noted, comes at the expense of siding space for freight traffic.

 

What I recommend anyone to do when planning a layout is to have a good look at what things were like in the real world, especially their chosen part of it - be that by Railway Company or geographically.   Look at drawings. layout plans, photos and sketches and then as your familiarity and ideas develop start sketching a few track layouts to compare with the real world to see if you're getting things in the right sort of 'flavour'.  As is often said by Tony Wright - a well known and extremely good, modeller it is easier to copy the real thing than design it yourself.  I don't entirely follow that line because provided you can get 'the feel' of typical track layouts and the facilities they offer my view is that you can develop the skill to produce pretty good facsimiles of style but serving things you can legitimately claim to need to be served in the area your layout purports to serve.  But it does depend on building up that understanding and appreciation of the way your favoured company did things and it is undoubtedly easier to copy rather than originate.

Excellent and full response, thank you.  I need to log off now, but would like to respond tomorrow.  Thanks, Keith.

[RailWest]

42 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

With regards to bi-directional signalling, I agree it adds to the complexity - it may be that I’m simply thinking in terms of overly complicated possible operating patterns, and it would be easier to look at either single direction running through the loop (Down trains take platform 2, Up trains platform 1), or keep the loop as a good only loop, especially if the engine shed becomes a good shed as suggested by iands.  The latter option makes fitting in trap points easier as there is enough space at C and D.

I would suggest that a layout with a bi-directional passenger-rated main line and a bi-directional goods-only loop would be quite a common GWR prototype. However....you would then only require one platform face. Ideally then that would be at the bottom of your plan, not as an island, but that might be difficult to achieve for your plan. Of course, you could simply fence off the rear face from the goods loop, but you also have to consider how passengers are going to get to/from the platform anyway. One example which comes to mind was Thorn(falcon) on the Chard Branch, although there the 'goods loop' was really just a siding and the use of it was sufficiently light that it did not matter that passengers had to walk across it in order to get to the platform.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

There were island platforms at St Agnes and Perranporth, but both arose as a result of re-building in later years.

 

 

Those are the two that I thought of. Seems strange that there are no others at all.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Joseph, thank you for the reply.  The distance to the level crossing in my mind would ideally be around 2 to 3 miles, but in layout terms it’s only one train length (but around a curve and out of sight).

 

For this exercise, I’d wondered about ‘fixed at caution’ distant signal arms below the stop signals at platform end?

————————-

In terms of the layout idea, I rather shied away from revealing it for the health and well-being of my fellow RMwebbers: for a myriad of reasons (which I am personally quite happy with) it’s a 4’ x 8’ board with just the one station and a continuous run (hence ‘some’ trains will terminate and originate there).  
 

It would be a separate story as to how and why this is the case - but that would be for another Forum and another time perhaps...

 

Having confessed, I can’t actually post a picture at the moment - I don’t have access to the right files today, sorry.

 

As you clearly understand, an 8' x 4' board is very restrictive in all sorts of ways. I don't see why you feel that as it is a continuous run you have to terminate trains at this rather unlikely location.

 

Someone here who has access to one of early Peco plans books will be able to check out the dimensions of the smallest Maurice Deane design. That gives a branch terminus, a continuous run (with a halt) and hidden sidings behind the terminus. I am fairly sure that it can be done in 8' x 4'.

 

As regards spacing the station from the halt, the best option is to treat them as two separate dioramas.

[Chris116]

I have a Layout Plans book issued by Railway Modeller dated May 1953 which says it is No.1.

 

The first plan is a single track oval with branches in each direction that go to small termini with one of them having a platform on the continuous circuit. It claims to fit on an 8' by 4' board but I suspect that it uses 1st radius curves and very short points. I am not sure I would be allowed to put up a copy here due to copyright although given that it appeared although given that it appeared 67 years ago it may be out of copyright. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Chris116
Missing word!

[bécasse]

26 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I have a Layout Plans book issued by Railway Modeller dated May 1953 which says it is No.1.

 

The first plan is a single track oval with branches in each direction that go to small termini with one of them having a platform on the continuous circuit. It claims to fit on an 8' by 4' board but I suspect that it uses 1st radius curves and very short points. I am sure I would be allowed to put up a copy here due to copyright although given that it appeared although given that it appeared 67 years ago it may be out of copyright. 

Out of copyright in May 2023, seventy years after first publication.

[Chris116]

22 minutes ago, bécasse said:

Out of copyright in May 2023, seventy years after first publication.

I thought 70 years rang a bell. Thanks for the confirmation. I will be happy to copy them in June 2023!

[RailWest]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Those are the two that I thought of. Seems strange that there are no others at all.

Also Luxulyan.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A bit of spare time this evening (though I expect to be off line tomorrow instead) for some replies.  I realise we've moved quite quickly away from Signalling and into Layout Planning, but for good reasons.  To pick up on the points raised:

 

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Someone here who has access to one of early Peco plans books will be able to check out the dimensions of the smallest Maurice Deane design. That gives a branch terminus, a continuous run (with a halt) and hidden sidings behind the terminus. I am fairly sure that it can be done in 8' x 4'.

 

As regards spacing the station from the halt, the best option is to treat them as two separate dioramas.

 

1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

I have a Layout Plans book issued by Railway Modeller dated May 1953 which says it is No.1.

 

The first plan is a single track oval with branches in each direction that go to small termini with one of them having a platform on the continuous circuit. It claims to fit on an 8' by 4' board but I suspect that it uses 1st radius curves and very short points. I am sure I would be allowed to put up a copy here due to copyright although given that it appeared although given that it appeared 67 years ago it may be out of copyright. 

 

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

Out of copyright in May 2023, seventy years after first publication.

 

1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

I thought 70 years rang a bell. Thanks for the confirmation. I will be happy to copy them in June 2023!

 

If memory serves me correctly, there was a version of the "Deane pattern" branch in at least some editions of C.J.Freezer's Peco Book of Small Layout Plans.  The definition of small used was 8' x 6' maximum, with a good number of the ideas also including a central operating well: it wasn't just trains that were shorter, track curves tighter and platforms thinner - I think people were expected to be as well (I speak only for myself here of course).

 

There is an example of a Deane pattern branch on page 101 of Freezer's PSL Book "Model Railway Operation" 1993.  For those unfamiliar with the concept it is essentially like this - a terminus to fiddle yard arrangement with a hidden continuous run emerging through a town gas works (shown as a cross-hatched line here).

 

 

The suggestion Joseph Pestell makes of treating the subsidiary station / halt as a separate diorama on the layout is used here.  For the single operator envisaged, a great advantage is that both the terminus station and fiddle yard are in front of them, so the layout can be operated from one central control panel without turning round.  The fiddle yard is hidden behind a scenic divide, not hidden beneath the terminus or under scenery.  In my view, the concept still has merits: the gas works could be operated on a "loads-in / empties out" basis too, allowing coal / coke wagons to enter with loads, then return empty in a future train.

[Chris116]

When I was a young teenager there was a guy who lived about 15 houses up the road who had a model railway on a 6 x 4 board in the centre of a room that was about 10 x 8 giving him 2 feet room on all sides. My parents had been chatting to him and let slip that I was into model railways and would be happy to help him as he felt his layout was missing something. A few days later I went and saw the layout which was a typical Triang track plan on a 6 x 4. I asked him why given the room was so much bigger and was only used for the layout he had built a small layout in the middle of the room. He said that he wanted to make sure he could reach the points all around the layout and so needed the 2 foot walkway around the layout. When I suggested changing it to a 10 x 8 layout with an operating well in the middle his eyes lit up and within a few weeks the new boards were built and track laid. 

 

I tell that story by way of asking if the OP is in a similar situation? A four foot wide board means you cannot reach the rear of the layout unless you can walk around that side and if you can walk around then a central well can be wider and still give you a lot more space for the trains. 

 

Just a few thoughts that are probably way out of line but are presented in the hope that they help improve what is possible.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The big problem is the presence of facing points.  now while they were not completely unknown there had to be a very good reason for them and they were usually avoided like the plague (because that was the required situation).  So  -

1,  If you want ro create the impression of something 'typical' the only facing points will be those at the entrance to the loops.  All other running line points should be trailing.  

 

2. The layout you have drawn would be a right s*d to signal properly and if a layout is a s*d to signal that usually means something, or a number of somethings, about it is not right

 

3.  Island platforms at GWR single crossing stations weren't incredibly common but equally they were far from unknown.  I found four in Cornwall, on two different branches,  in a couple of minutes of wandering round the 'net and there was one, not far from where I sit typing this,  on another GWR branch (which opened in the late 1850s) and a long way from Cornwall. BUT -

 

Generally crossing stations with island platforms seen to take up more space especially if there is more than a very simple arrangement of sidings with only one lead off the single line.  For the number of connections you have in mind a two platform arrangement would probably make more sense but it would be a lot longer  whereas an island platform would be wider while still not saving much on length for what you have in mind.

 

4.  While engine sheds at intermediate stations on secondary lines were not unknown they would definitely fall into the 'much less common' category and yours, as already noted, comes at the expense of siding space for freight traffic.

 

What I recommend anyone to do when planning a layout is to have a good look at what things were like in the real world, especially their chosen part of it - be that by Railway Company or geographically.   Look at drawings. layout plans, photos and sketches and then as your familiarity and ideas develop start sketching a few track layouts to compare with the real world to see if you're getting things in the right sort of 'flavour'.  As is often said by Tony Wright - a well known and extremely good, modeller it is easier to copy the real thing than design it yourself.  I don't entirely follow that line because provided you can get 'the feel' of typical track layouts and the facilities they offer my view is that you can develop the skill to produce pretty good facsimiles of style but serving things you can legitimately claim to need to be served in the area your layout purports to serve.  But it does depend on building up that understanding and appreciation of the way your favoured company did things and it is undoubtedly easier to copy rather than originate.

 

My timetable changed so the opportunity to reply this evening instead of tomorrow.  As I'd expect, a helpful response, thank you.

 

With regards to my specific question on Signalling in the opening post, I think your point 2 sums it up - in my layman's language (making up my own metaphor): good icing completes a nice cake, but can't disguise the taste of a dumpling.  It makes sense to pause the question on signalling - you have confirmed the suspicion in my opening post that I have indeed put forward "a complex nightmare"

 

In terms of Layout design, and without straying too for off topic here, I'm happy to agree with your summary paragraph.  There is a method in my madness, but it gets rather complex rather quickly (I began with some American prototype ideas, which had already been filtered in US outline layout planning books, and which I then tried to translate into UK practice and as I also like GWR branch lines).  The result indicates that the number of compromises involved, particularly when I also condensed it all quite considerably, extends the boundaries of plausibility a bit too far.  The actual design I began with in this case is an Iain Rice suggestion as it happens, but one published by Kalmbach and not for UK practice.

 

As in my reply to other points above, I think I'll pause here and maybe put together something on Layout Planning (or a blog?) to explore further, before returning to signalling later on.

 

Thanks again for the response - all good stuff.  Keith.

 

 

 

  

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

When I was a young teenager there was a guy who lived about 15 houses up the road who had a model railway on a 6 x 4 board in the centre of a room that was about 10 x 8 giving him 2 feet room on all sides. My parents had been chatting to him and let slip that I was into model railways and would be happy to help him as he felt his layout was missing something. A few days later I went and saw the layout which was a typical Triang track plan on a 6 x 4. I asked him why given the room was so much bigger and was only used for the layout he had built a small layout in the middle of the room. He said that he wanted to make sure he could reach the points all around the layout and so needed the 2 foot walkway around the layout. When I suggested changing it to a 10 x 8 layout with an operating well in the middle his eyes lit up and within a few weeks the new boards were built and track laid. 

 

I tell that story by way of asking if the OP is in a similar situation? A four foot wide board means you cannot reach the rear of the layout unless you can walk around that side and if you can walk around then a central well can be wider and still give you a lot more space for the trains. 

 

Just a few thoughts that are probably way out of line but are presented in the hope that they help improve what is possible.

The situation that you recount is remarkably common. Many people find it hard to move on from the trainset meme.

 

Assuming that your neighbour built baseboards 2' wide (he could have gone to 2'6"), he would have had an area for his layout of exactly double what he had before.

[Chris116]

2 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

The situation that you recount is remarkably common. Many people find it hard to move on from the trainset meme.

 

Assuming that your neighbour built baseboards 2' wide (he could have gone to 2'6"), he would have had an area for his layout of exactly double what he had before.

Exactly. After some careful measuring by the two of us we used 2'6" on three sides and 2' on the long side that had the door with a lifting section to get in and out of the room which was about 1' wide.

[roythebus]

The Americans and Europeans have different ways of doing things to us. Track plans are track plans but they don't always translate into UK practice when it comes to train operation. Have a look at the typical German branch station, usually two loops of a main line with a couple of kick-back sidings. The main goods work took place on one of the loops.

 

One of my best layout creations was Tidmouth Junction which was built in the early 1980s in about 10 days before the Westminster show. I can't remember if it was 10x5 or 8x5, but it had a double track main line, double junction to a main terminal; a separate Thomas branch, loco shed with turntable, separate goods yard and hidden loops! I'd have to look through phots to try to re-create the track plan.

 

But a compliment from the late CJ Freezer was tat it was an excellent design, it could be used as a train set or run as a proper railway. It was just possible to terminate a 3 car passenger set in the terminus, then shunt and release the train engine for turning using a small diesel shunter, without fouling the main lines.

[melmerby]

As has been mentioned Island platforms on the GWR single branches are extremely rare, I have just been through Cooke's GWR Atlas and found about 6 or 7 only.

The normal passing place has two platforms facing each other with any siding coming of in a trailing direction like so: