Home Signal on Inglenook?

[Off Tackle]

I've been wrestling as whether I need to/should add a starter signal to a basic inglenook I'm building. I've done a bit of reading on here about signaling (a subject I know absolutely nothing about).  I'm a the point of adding scenery and because of the way I've constructed the model (elevated running line) if I was to place a working signal I would really need to do it now before adding the scenery formers, and I need to some help to stop prevaricating! This is the track plan below, with the exit on the right being via a tunnel:

The double slip is both used to save space and because I like slips, with the spur being used by the release loco. The theme of the layout is a high moorland valley mineral wharf with a narrow gauge line from an incline further up the valley which runs to several quarries. Goods traffic & worker trains come in for the quarries and stone blocks/aggregate is the traffic out. Therefore despite there being two engines in steam as dictated by the lack of run-round loop, I imagine that all shunting movements would be conducted by hand signals. The tunnel mouth on the right is almost exactly at the point of the required '3 wagon plus engine' headshunt for the inglenook, so I can model a 'No Shunt Beyond This Point' notice on the tunnel mouth.  However, would there be a requirement for a home signal next to the tunnel to communicate that an outgoing train is clear to enter the next block? Or would it be sufficient to assume that the next block would start somewhere further down the line? 

 

My hope is to build a series of smallish modules that can be operated independently or combined to represent different parts of this fictional mineral line. The next module I would build would be an extended scenic section with a passing loop and possibly a single forestry siding. So in theory, could the home signal be on the next module, protecting access to the passing loop? 

 

Part of me wants a working signal for the operational interest, another part of me just wants to crack on without bothering. However if one would be required for a railway like this to actually safely operate, then I definitely want to model it. I have some dummy point levers ready for fitting if I don't have a signal. If I did have a signal - would it require a ground frame acting as a block post? If so, would I then model the three points and the signal as being controlled by the ground frame? 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Off Tackle

[Mol_PMB]

I’ll try and keep this fairly basic rather than get embroiled in the detail.

Red semaphore signals are primarily used for two purposes:

1) ’Home’ signal which controls entry into a station

2) ’Starter’ signal which controls departure from a station onto a section of plain line. 

Both types of signal look the same.

 

In this case, you have a single-line section to the next station, including a tunnel. It’s vitally important to have some sort of train control to prevent two trains entering that section from opposite ends, which could result in a head-on collision. With the tunnel you can’t even rely on trains seeing each other coming (a principle some simpler industrial railways used with varying success!). 

 

If you’re not running passenger trains you can decide whether your railway will use signals, and/or another method of train control such as telephone/radio, staff or token working, etc., or even just hope for the best until there’s a nasty crash.

 

If you do choose to have a departure signal, it would correctly be called a ‘starter’ and would be directly or indirectly controlled from the signalbox at the next station, to prevent it being cleared when another train is already in section. 

 

 

(signalling specialists - I know this is a gross over-simplification!)

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

PS to acknowledge your edit - it would not necessarily have to be interlocked with the points, unless you are running passenger trains. 

 

I’d say the most likely option in reality for this narrow gauge quarry line would be to use staff or token working without signals. Perhaps ‘staff and ticket’ if required. 

[Off Tackle]

@Mol_PMB Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated!  Just to clarify - as my first post was imprecise - the inglenook is standard gauge with a narrow gauge interchange on a loading wharf (not marked on the plan). Therefore I think I'll go with a starter.

 

 

This is great news for my little project as I can have a starter signal controlled by an off scene signal box, meaning I don't have to buy all the bits for a ground frame/associated point rodding and can use the dummy point levers I already have.

 

Due to space constraints I'm going to have to install it on the right hand side of the track rather than the left. I've collected some prototype photos with right hand mounted signals so I'm hoping I can justify the location on sighting grounds (although I think some of the photos I have are GWR and therefore right hand drive). 

 

Another question...I was planning on running a quarry worker's train - would they be operated under the same regulations as a fare paying passenger train and therefore require interlocking etc? 

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

8 minutes ago, Off Tackle said:

@Mol_PMB Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated!  Just to clarify - as my first post was imprecise - the inglenook is standard gauge with a narrow gauge interchange on a loading wharf (not marked on the plan). Therefore I think I'll go with a starter.

...

Another question...I was planning on running a quarry worker's train - would they be operated under the same regulations as a fare paying passenger train and therefore require interlocking etc? 

 

 

 

Ah, OK, I had misunderstood about the narrow gauge, I thought the whole layout was narrow gauge. However what I said is still applicable to standard-gauge industrial lines.

If it's a main-line company mineral branch, then they're more likely to have a higher standard of signalling. I think, for a main-line company operating a workers' train for the quarry company, they would be classed as fare-paying passengers and would need interlocking.

If it was an industrial company running their own trains for their own staff, they could probably get away with a simpler system.

Hopefully someone else will chip in with how this would be handled by a main-line company on a freight branch with workers' trains!

The case for a starter signal is getting much stronger, but you might also need a ground frame and at least one interlocked point. (incidentally there would probably also be a home signal off-scene at the other end of the tunnel, that will need a lever even if the signal is off-scene...)

[bécasse]

No signals (but quite possibly a STOP board) and points worked from a ground frame unlocked by an Annett's Key incorporated into the OES staff, the normal lie of the points would be towards the siding to protect the running line from runaways. Workmen's trains, obviously propelled up from civilisation, would stop short of the points to obviate any need for a facing point lock and a rudimentary platform would (probably) have been provided. A similar arrangement existed for miners' trains serving North Rhondda Colliery in South Wales.

[Nearholmer]

If the railway is part of an industry, not a public railway, and the workers are at work when travelling on the train, and it’s well before the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, you can do as you fancy, and will probably spend as little on it as you can.

 

Some industrial railways did have signalling of some sort, but often not in the sense that is meant on public, passenger carrying railways, but most didn’t feel it necessary.  Mostly, trains moved slowly, on “line of sight”.

 

Tunnels and other places with very poor lines of sight were places where rudimentary signalling was sometimes provided, to prevent two trains meeting head-to-head in the dark. The Guinness Brewery railway had a tight spiral tunnel, and that had such a system, for instance.

 

If the railway is a “goods only” branch of a main-line railway, much the same applies.

 

Signalling and interlocking only becomes mandatory, rather than a matter of choice, if it is a public passenger carrying railway, subject to the various Regulation of Railways Acts, so many goods only branches only had a signal at the point where trains left the branch to join the passenger railway.

 

Occasionally, the Board of Trade badgered industrial concerns into providing signalling and basic interlocking where workers’ trains were a big feature of an industrial railway, even though there was almost certainly no law requiring it. Some munitions factories had through trains, worked by main-line locos and stock, coming from towns some distance away, and certainly some of those were nagged into providing proper safety arrangements, I think by an alliance of ASLEF representing the main line drivers, and the BoT Railway Inspectors (who actually had no jurisdiction, because the places were Factories, looked after by Factory Inspectors).

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

As others have said, in this context signals are not necessary. And railways did not usually spend money on anything unneccesary.

 

I can understand wanting a signal to add visual interest. Perhaps a red disc rather than a semaphore to add to the industrial railway ambience.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, where indistrial railways resorted to signalling, it mightn't look much at all like "modern best practice". Some very old lines kept bits of ancient practice, and some got creative and made semaphores that looked for all the world as if they came from a child's to train-set.

[Off Tackle]

This is fantastic information, many thanks to everyone! It seems that I have a bit flexibility and still be within prototypical practice, which is a nice position to be in. 

 

Thanks again