Signalling at Marchwood

[Beacon]

Thanks for the responses. I understand the points being made but I don't have space to model anything further than the MOD junction (apart from running into fiddle yard) so rather than adding a crossover I am in effect moving it further back along the line (not clear in my altered plan admittedly!)

 

Does that seem more reasonable or am I still way off!?

[Beacon]

Hopefully this more clearly reflects my intentions:

 

 

[AberdeenBill]

 

Thanks Paul for the excellent information. Please could you explain what "flow arrows" are... Is Marchwood the only station in the country where all the signals are two-doll brackets

 

Bill

[beast66606]

Hopefully this more clearly reflects my intentions:

 

if the (model) distance from the point to the left of the level crossing to the new connection is short it will look silly imho, sorry.

[Beacon]

The distance would be just over 4ft.

[beast66606]

The distance would be just over 4ft.

 

I think you can guess my answer - but its your layout ...

[Beacon]

Fair enough!

 

So I'd be better of leaving everything as it is in real life and keep the end of the loop 'off stage'?

 

My only concern is keeping things interesting enough operationally as this is a very low-traffic line. I'm trying to balance this with the opposing dangers of over-complicating things and/or making it unrealistic.

 

I'm no expert on the prototype so all feedback is helpful thank you!

[Natalie]

I agree with Dave. Keep the plan as it really is and suggest the end of the loop. This has the added effect of making your loop appear longer than you actually have room for. I'm all for suggesting the prescence of trackwork, platforms off stage.

 

Bear in mind that the current layout at Marchwood would have been in use when Fawley still had a passenger service. Even better - model that time period with a Hampshire unit- it's another option.

 

Remember the proverbial phrase first found in print in Andrea del Sarto, 1855, a poem by Robert Browning of "less is more."

[PaulRhB]

Please could you explain what "flow arrows" are...

Flow arrows are part of the double interlocking for a track circuited single line. They show as arrows on the Signalbox diagram that illuminate when a train is accepted and running in section in that direction. Even if the track circuit fails you can run a train, albeit under caution to examine, if you have the direction of flow arrow for that direction as it proves the last train passed. If you can't get the flow arrow it means the system doesn't know that the last train passed and you have to set up pilotman working.

On a token block of any type the double interlocking is the token itself and the signal release.

It's all about making you certain that you haven't forgotten an opposing train in section before letting another one in.

 

 

Is Marchwood the only station in the country where all the signals are two-doll brackets

sorry no idea.

[Beacon]

Thanks to everyone for the valuable input. I may be moving out of the realms of the forum area this is posted in now but as the thread is already going I hope that is OK!

 

This is my proposed plan at this stage if anyone cares to comment further or make any suggestions:

 

 

Not to scale - hence slightly squashed appearance in some parts. I'll draw something up properly once I'm happy that it is a sensible idea

 

Thank you!

[PaulRhB]

Beacon

I'd agree with the others again that leaving it as it is will offer more possibilities if you want it to be Marchwood. If you are short of space then make the fiddleyard a traverser so you don't waste another foot or two and it can also be used for run rounds. If you shorten the loop then you can't have two freights cross as they do as they will both be too long for your shortened loop.

 

However if you just use Marchwood as part inspiration for the traffic only then you can put the junction beyond the end of a short loop. You could then introduce two platforms and simplified signalling for straight rather than bi-directional running. It's your layout so you can do what you like as Dave said, but the advice here is concerning modelling Marchwood.

Mind you Marshwood could be somewhere else entirely

[PaulRhB]

Not to scale - hence slightly squashed appearance in some parts. I'll draw something up properly once I'm happy that it is a sensible idea

Looks ok, see how it works as a scale drawing and as I said above think about a traverser both ends to replace the fiddleyards as it will save at least a foot and allow longer trains.

 

As to the thread we are still talking signalling, when it gets to construction then start a thread in the layouts section and link this one into the first post

[Beacon]

If you shorten the loop then you can't have two freights cross as they do as they will both be too long for your shortened loop.

 

Thanks. It might sound stupid but I hadn't fully thought that through!

 

 

If you are short of space then make the fiddleyard a traverser so you don't waste another foot or two and it can also be used for run rounds.

 

I should be OK for fiddleyard space if it doesn't look too silly having the curves at either end although I think I can disguise them to some extent amongst the trees.

 

You could then introduce two platforms and simplified signalling for straight rather than bi-directional running.

 

I still haven't completely decided on this one yet. Options being:

a) exactly as is

b ) exactly as is but with reintroduced passenger services

c) as is but with the fictional twist of preserved services from a reopened Hythe

d) as is but with additional traffic due to new Freightliner and/or cruise terminal

 

The last two (or even option b ) could lead to a second platform for passengers, but again I don't want to cram everything in and it just end up looking silly!

[Beacon]

Thanks again.

 

Just to keep us on the topic of signalling and infrastructure, I took a photo of the following which is clearly linking the signalbox to the signalling:

 

 

How would this be impacted (if at all) by the construction of a second platform?

[PaulRhB]

They'd probably build it on stilts to clear all the rodding.

Or possibly extend the cross rods to move it further under the platform again on stilts.

 

Your comment on not thinking the train length through is one of this nasty things you suddenly realise usually when the track is down and you test run it and get a Doh! moment

Just to prove that's also prototypically correct, while I was the Signalman there they came up with a brilliant H&S wheeze to put in a token exchange platform on the Up side to replace the yellow non slip pad in your photo above. They came down and told me all about it and how I would be now safe from falling under Up trains. So how do I get back to the box to replace the token and deal with a crossing Down train then I asked if it's a long oil train.

As you can see from the your picture the yellow pad is still there and the token platform never got built. To the best of my knowledge Signalmen at Marchwood are still successfully avoiding getting run over

[TheSignalEngineer]

Thanks again.

 

Just to keep us on the topic of signalling and infrastructure, I took a photo of the following which is clearly linking the signalbox to the signalling:

 

 

How would this be impacted (if at all) by the construction of a second platform?

 

Messy. I have used 4 solutions in these instances to get new platform works round signalling equipment, but none is really ideal.

1- Divert the rodding along the 6-foot to the end of the new platform. Probably a bit cramped for that many cranks, but it's amazing what you can do with a good blacksmith.

2- Build a crosswall and plank platform over the signalling equipment, with a space through the walls. The technician will probably lynch you.

3- Build the platform with the front edge cantilevered out, with the rodding between the sleeper ends and platform wall. Again probably a bit awkward with that many cranks.

4- Extend the rodding right through the platform and move the main run to the back of it, probably my favourite.

 

If providing a second platform were my project I would be looking to get the money from the sponsor for some point motors.

[PaulRhB]

I would be looking to get the money from the sponsor for some point motors.

Yep the most sensible option. You certainly wouldn't want to meet with the s&t and say hi I'm the one who put all the rodding under the platform.

[The Stationmaster]

 

If providing a second platform were my project I would be looking to get the money from the sponsor for some point motors.

 

I think nowadays the trick is to base your estimate on that course and look innocent when asked to explain why your costs are so high (not so easy to get blacksmiths for rodding work now either - all the pin-joints seem to come in standard sizes and 'someone' assumes they'll fit whatever you need to do). So 'yes' if the second platform was a recent addition I would think point machines are a likely solution. If the platform was original the rodding run would have been squeezed in after it was built.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I think nowadays the trick is to base your estimate on that course and look innocent when asked to explain why your costs are so high (not so easy to get blacksmiths for rodding work now either - all the pin-joints seem to come in standard sizes and 'someone' assumes they'll fit whatever you need to do). So 'yes' if the second platform was a recent addition I would think point machines are a likely solution. If the platform was original the rodding run would have been squeezed in after it was built.

 

Or make the estimate for diverting the rodding higher than motors, then when asked to explain tell them that it includes the air fares to bring in a signal gang from India. (Prototype example - locking fitters for last lot of WCML works at Stockport)

[Beacon]

Thanks all. Looking like at least with option c) the preserved railway, the second platform would be unlikely unless built long ago due to the associated costs. I guess perhaps the docks could afford it if it were associated with increased cruise traffic or similar although unlikely as to why they'd invest in Marchwood if that were the case!

 

Would the fitting of point motors otherwise effect the signalling? I.e. would that allow automation and therefore the abandonment of Marchwwod signalbox anyway?

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

 

Would the fitting of point motors otherwise effect the signalling? I.e. would that allow automation and therefore the abandonment of Marchwwod signalbox anyway?

 

 

Not necessarily - they are readily worked from an existing lever frame (provided someone can find suitable circuit controllers - they have allegedly been in short supply in recent years) and putting stuff on remote control can cost a small fortune although attitudes have changed over the years. I was talking to a signal design engineer at the Basingstoke show yesterday and he and a colleague have just done a re-locking job on an SE&CR frame (instead of the signalling going onto another 'box) and they are currently designing locking alterations for a 'box with GWR 3bar VT locking on the Oxford -Worcester line where the cost of doing that is several orders of magnitude cheaper than putting it onto the new Thames Valley control centre - in layman's terms they are doing locking alterations on some pretty old lever frames instead of planning to put them onto modern control centres.

[PaulRhB]

Yes just motoring points, using the existing levers to operate the switches, is much cheaper than full resignalling and would be the most likely option just to add the platform. I think the justification for a second platform would be more likely from a community rail project with the local County Council to serve Marchwood and Hythe than a cruise terminal.

Signalling isn't affected by motoring points you just have point motors instead of rodding. The points at the Fawley end of the loop are already motored as the rodding run would be massive.

[Beacon]

Next question - if a second platform were funded and built at any stage in the past or present, would that automatically result in directional running and consequently a signalling change or might they leave it as it is currently.

 

My assumption is that any signalling change is expensive and the use of the line would still be fairly light so not worth the additional cost to change. However, I guess with the current reliance of manpower for signalling, points and control of crossing gates I guess there would be some serious reconsiderations made if there was a regular passenger service introduced anyway.

[PaulRhB]

To be honest if they were to introduce a service requiring a second platform then they would probably do it as part of a full resignalling as it would be for the container port expansion too. A community rail project wouldn't justify a second platform as it would easily fit in around the current freights and also use the existing box. The track itself is the only thing requiring upgrade to run passenger services as it would need to be ready for 60mph rather than the current 40. It's just making it smoother basically.

The bi-directional arrangement was considered essential for Fawley due to the MOD line being halfway down the loop and allowing one shunter to work both trains efficiently. The current platform side has to remain bi directional anyway for the Mod trains to exit and allow crosses at the station, so there's little point paying to remove the interlocking on the other line when the cost saving is only two signal heads. Modifying the Mod entrance to work with single direction running would be very expensive as it would mean adding two points and all the associated locking and extra maintenance.

If you take around the year 2000 as a basis then add passenger service you have a good range of trains for a model.

2-3 Daily oil trains using 100 ton TEAs and four wheel TTAs.

Mod trains using warflats and warwells mixed with VGA vans and container wagons.

Freightliner empty stock storage workings into MOD on Fridays and Monday's with associated light loco movements.

Engineers wagons being taken for short term store at Fawley.

121 bubblecar survey train occasionally.

Add a 159 or 170 shuttle to that and you've got quite a good selection with the current track and station.

[Beacon]

Thanks again for the comprehensive reply.

 

That stock list is about what I'd be looking at with some helpful clarifications and details so thanks again.

I figure that there is also the excuse for me to run other bits and pieces of stock through for 'storage' (or because it is my layout and I just feel like it!)

 

Do you (or anyone) know what the current timings etc. for trains on the line are or how I can find out? I'd like to get down there one day when I next have a holiday to catch a train or two passing through!