Signalling Advice

[Phil-Essex]

Hi All, Would appreciate some advice on how to signal the track in the plan and picture below. The era is modern day. 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Main issue is how busy this line is supposed to be. Very busy (approx 10 trains per hour or more), 4 aspect colourlight - and perhaps extra signals to the left of the platforms (some way round the curve shown on photo). Less busy, 2 or 3 aspect, depending when they were installed.

 

Access to bay controlled by a "feather". Wire via an extra contact on the point motor.

[St. Simon]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Access to bay controlled by a "feather".

 

Nope.

 

Well, not now, Junction Indicators into a Terminal Platform have been banned for a while (not sure when, but I think pre-privatisation), so it would be a Standard Route Indicator. Historically, it is allowed to have a feather, but if your area was re-signalled in the last 15 years, then it would be an SI.

 

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Main issue is how busy this line is supposed to be. Very busy (approx 10 trains per hour or more), 4 aspect colourlight - and perhaps extra signals to the left of the platforms (some way round the curve shown on photo). Less busy, 2 or 3 aspect, depending when they were installed.

 

The number of aspects is based on the required headway and speed rather than simply how busy it is. It is quite possible for a quiet line to have 4-aspect signalling as it requires a tight headway. Equally, it is also possible to have a very busy line running under 2-aspect signalling (London Underground being a prime example).

 

Simon

[Phil-Essex]

The layout is loosely based on the Settle and Carlisle line which I believe still uses semaphores? 

[russ p]

2 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Nope.

 

Well, not now, Junction Indicators into a Terminal Platform have been banned for a while (not sure when, but I think pre-privatisation), so it would be a Standard Route Indicator. Historically, it is allowed to have a feather, but if your area was re-signalled in the last 15 years, then it would be an SI.

 

 

The number of aspects is based on the required headway and speed rather than simply how busy it is. It is quite possible for a quiet line to have 4-aspect signalling as it requires a tight headway. Equally, it is also possible to have a very busy line running under 2-aspect signalling (London Underground being a prime example).

 

Simon

 

There are still a few feathers into bays around,  Mansfield Woodhouse springs to mind that would have probably been very late 90s

[Stephen Freeman]

If you want semaphores, then a bracket signal is needed (LMR UQ with small arm into the bay). Then you would need 3 starters, up, down and bay, plus a couple of ground signals. It has to be said that the track layout is not typical of the Settle and Carlisle as the Midland, like most other companies, had an almost pathological distrust of facing points. There are some facing points on the line but I don't think any of them were to access a bay platform  on the other side. More prototypical to turn the crossover into a trailing one at the other end of the station in my opinion.

[Joseph_Pestell]

15 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Nope.

 

Well, not now, Junction Indicators into a Terminal Platform have been banned for a while (not sure when, but I think pre-privatisation), so it would be a Standard Route Indicator. Historically, it is allowed to have a feather, but if your area was re-signalled in the last 15 years, then it would be an SI.

 

 

The number of aspects is based on the required headway and speed rather than simply how busy it is. It is quite possible for a quiet line to have 4-aspect signalling as it requires a tight headway. Equally, it is also possible to have a very busy line running under 2-aspect signalling (London Underground being a prime example).

 

Simon

 

Hello Simon. I feel suitably reproached!

 

The OP had not really given us much detail to go on. But in most cases, we can't be totally accurate in our rendition of signalling for layouts, mainly due to the inevitable compression of distances. So I tend not to go into full details when answering such requests. Covering all of the options would make for very long posts.

 

The main one, which we can't see from the drawing is whether the signal (whether feather or indicator) is on scene at all. It's probably the other side of a view-blocker road bridge with a bus on it.

[The Stationmaster]

53 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

If you want semaphores, then a bracket signal is needed (LMR UQ with small arm into the bay). Then you would need 3 starters, up, down and bay, plus a couple of ground signals. It has to be said that the track layout is not typical of the Settle and Carlisle as the Midland, like most other companies, had an almost pathological distrust of facing points. There are some facing points on the line but I don't think any of them were to access a bay platform  on the other side. More prototypical to turn the crossover into a trailing one at the other end of the station in my opinion.

The size of arm reading to the bay depends entirely in what the bay is used for,  If it is used for passenger trains it would be a full size arm but if it is simply a siding it would be a small arm).

 

Interestingly one place where a passenger train needed to cross to a loop platform on the opposite side of the running lines was Hawes Jcn, latterly Garsdale, and that was done via a shunt through a trailing crossover notwithstanding it being a regular timetabled movement for a through passenger train to the Hawes branch.   So yes, far more typical (of most lines, not just the S&C) to have a trailing crossover.  I think the only facing points on the S&C were those provided when what were originally lay-by sidings were converted to goods loops.

[Stephen Freeman]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The size of arm reading to the bay depends entirely in what the bay is used for,  If it is used for passenger trains it would be a full size arm but if it is simply a siding it would be a small arm).

 

Interestingly one place where a passenger train needed to cross to a loop platform on the opposite side of the running lines was Hawes Jcn, latterly Garsdale, and that was done via a shunt through a trailing crossover notwithstanding it being a regular timetabled movement for a through passenger train to the Hawes branch.   So yes, far more typical (of most lines, not just the S&C) to have a trailing crossover.  I think the only facing points on the S&C were those provided when what were originally lay-by sidings were converted to goods loops.

That's why in the book only small arms are shown on the brackets, they lead to sidings or more usually loops.

[Phil-Essex]

Apologies for the initial lack of detail... So the crossover I have isn't at all prototypical then I take it? Do facing points pose a safety risk then?

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Phil-Essex said:

Apologies for the initial lack of detail... So the crossover I have isn't at all prototypical then I take it? Do facing points pose a safety risk then?

In the old days they were regarded as a safety risk and in fact before proper interlocking and facing point locks arrived they really were a safety risk.  So they were for many years frowned on except in low speed situations such as approaches to termini or major stations and where they were essential as at junctions.  When teh Settle & carlisle line was built there were no facing points on it anywhere - as was the case at most passing stations on most railways.

 

The other question you could ask is what does the facing crossover actually do in that situation  - and unless it gives access to a bay line where trains reverse to go back whence they had come the answer is that it does nothing more than a less complex and cheaper to signal trailing point would fo.