Fictional SR station signalling advice

[The Stationmaster]

Here's a bit of information for you on signal boxes -

 

http://extra.southernelectric.org.uk/modelling/picture-gallery/modelling-gallery-4mm-resin-buildings1.html

 

The idea of a redundant signal box at the far end of the station is not a bad one but it would haver been replaced in the 1930s if you're going for one of the typically Southern 'glasshouse' style buildings so woulkd have to have been retained for a purpose

[Typographer]

I’ve picked up on @Harlequin’s advice and eliminated the crossing and double slip. It will certainly make for a less fussy as well as a more authentic layout, and luckily that bit of the track work is still adjustable. Could I ask a further question? I inserted a trap point just before the line from the Down bay meets the main line. I know the Peco version might not be completely authentic but it adds some character. My reason was that this line, as well as being used for passenger departures, was also, at @The Stationmaster’s suggestion, a kind of refuge siding as well. Would a trap point also be required where the line from the Up bay meets the main line at A? And I have put a Hornby or Bachmann art deco signal box on my wishlist! 

[Michael Hodgson]

18 minutes ago, Typographer said:

I inserted a trap point just before the line from the Down bay meets the main line. I know the Peco version might not be completely authentic but it adds some character. My reason was that this line, as well as being used for passenger departures, was also, at @The Stationmaster’s suggestion, a kind of refuge siding as well. Would a trap point also be required where the line from the Up bay meets the main line at A? And I have put a Hornby or Bachmann art deco signal box on my wishlist! 

 

 

No, not there as the bay is used for passenger traffic.

 

The middle road seems to be freight only, so that would have to be trapped against the bay.  Forrtunately that can be done simply by linking the 3-way point to divert any rogue wagons into the yard, that point is a crossover.

[Typographer]

Thank you Michael, and thank you to everyone who has replied. It’s great to benefit from your expertise.

Paul

[Typographer]

Just a final request for thoughts on the right-hand end of the layout. I planned out the version with the a 3-way point that was ‘liked’ by @Harlequin, and I’m in favour of this, it will give me much better platform lengths, a nice longer run round loop, and my longest goods loco, an S15, will be able to run round without fouling the junction at A. However, it occurred to me that an alternative, retaining the double slip, might also work, and I’m offering that here. I like the headhunt for a loco that is running round, but I would lose platform and run-round loop length, and I would have much more work to reconfigure the goods yard. I wonder which version people would vote for? Also, would there be a ground signal to exit the junction at A? (I hope I’ve got the other signals right now following @The Stationmaster’s advice.

[Typographer]

Oh, and I intend to put the Hornby Deal signal box at the end of the Down platform, Templecombe-style.

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Typographer said:

Also, would there be a ground signal to exit the junction at A?

Don’t think so: in the 3way version you already have one in the loop.
In the double slip version you would keep the triple disc in the loop - top to sidings, middle to spur, bottom out onto main line - but you would need another by the platform signal to read into the spur.

Paul.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Don’t think so: in the 3way version you already have one in the loop.
In the double slip version you would keep the triple disc in the loop - top to sidings, middle to spur, bottom out onto main line - but you would need another by the platform signal to read into the spur.

Paul.

And the spur needs a trap point as well if you are going to use it for a loco run round (in this case a dummy one would be a simple alternative to using the Peco version).

[Typographer]

So it sounds simpler to stay with the 3-way point version?

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Typographer said:

So it sounds simpler to stay with the 3-way point version?

Yes but there is a BUT.  and that BUT is that you effectively block the mainline when you run round unless you put in an additional stop signal (which mightd be a ground disc but probably not) ) and a trap point at A.  In reaity I doubt the main line would be sufficiently busy for it to be any sort of worry about temporarily locking it up and blocking it fir an occasional run round move and simplicity (and lower cost) would win the day).

[Typographer]

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes but there is a BUT.  and that BUT is that you effectively block the mainline when you run round unless you put in an additional stop signal (which mightd be a ground disc but probably not) ) and a trap point at A.  In reaity I doubt the main line would be sufficiently busy for it to be any sort of worry about temporarily locking it up and blocking it fir an occasional run round move and simplicity (and lower cost) would win the day).

Thank you! These replies set out my options very clearly for which I’m most grateful – I’ll advise any friends to post here before they commit to an uninformed layout!

[Typographer]

Hello! Things have progressed on my layout since my last questions, thanks to excellent RMWebber advice, but I would like to check out a couple of new things before I commit.

 

1) Banner repeaters (see plan and first photo).

 

 

 

a) I have provisionally added two Bachmann BRs as shown in the photo. The near one repeats the down platform starter, because the curve of the platform and the footbridge would obscure it from this point.

b) The far one repeats to up advance starter for the benefit of traffic coming from the up bay and goods road, because the curvature of the track obscures it from this viewpoint.

Are these plausible? They add some character to the scene, so I would like to have them.

 

The ground signal positions are indicated by the white/red blobs.

 

2) Ground frame for yard. I’m imagining the signal box would control all exit on to the up main line (i.e the right-hand part of the 3-way point), but would release control of the left-hand part so that shunting movements could be controlled from the ground frame.

a) Is the position plausible?

b) Would the two points for the back three roads have point levers as well? (I like the effect of levers in the area of the engine shed, see second photo.)

 

Love to hear your comments.

 

[The Stationmaster]

I doubt there be a 3 arm disc on the Southern = more like a single arm and a yellow one at that - not a red.  The three way would be at least partially box worked one switch and all the other points in teh yard would be hand points as you have them on that double slip (nice to see that those two are the right way round)

[Typographer]

Dear Mike @The Stationmaster, thank you. (I read your posts on the direction of levers several times over before I glued them in place!)

 

I’ll add the hand levers, but are they in addition to the ground frame, or is that not required?

 

On the ground discs, I was going to cheat there, because the erroneous triple one would be hard to see (obscured by platforms), so a being able to use a single yellow helps me a lot!

 

And should I keep the banner repeaters in the positions I’ve put them?

 

Thanks again, Paul

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Typographer said:

Dear Mike @The Stationmaster, thank you. (I read your posts on the direction of levers several times over before I glued them in place!)

 

I’ll add the hand levers, but are they in addition to the ground frame, or is that not required?

 

On the ground discs, I was going to cheat there, because the erroneous triple one would be hard to see (obscured by platforms), so a being able to use a single yellow helps me a lot!

 

And should I keep the banner repeaters in the positions I’ve put them?

 

Thanks again, Paul

The banner repeaters are ok where you have them although in soem such locations teh Southern would have put a stop signal - particularly protecting the approach to theh platform - but wnhat you have done isn't wrong and there was no doubt a prototype for it somewhere on the Southern.

 

I can't really see any need for the ground frame - it just adds a complication to what is really a pretty straightforward situation.  You might find a prototype for it if you look hard enough and wide but the situation is very straightforward and wouldn't really justify it - we're not talkinga big yard like Eastleugh.

[Typographer]

Dear Mike, thanks again!

[RailWest]

I would agree with the Stationmaster as regards using just a single yellow disc (or perhaps the miniature-arm version thereof). The GF seems totally unnecessary.

 

I'm dubious about the need for a BR for sighting simply by trains coming out of the bay or goods yard, as any such trains are going to be moving slowly enough that IMHO a delay in sighting the actual stop signal is unlikely to be a problem.

[Grovenor]

18 minutes ago, RailWest said:

I'm dubious about the need for a BR for sighting simply by trains coming out of the bay or goods yard, as any such trains are going to be moving slowly enough that IMHO a delay in sighting the actual stop signal is unlikely to be a problem.

I agree, if a banner is needed there it is more important for through trains on the main line that are not stopping, as such it would be better moved to the right close to the the point toes so it can be better seen when approaching from the through line.

[Typographer]

Thank you @Grovenor and @RailWest for your advice. I’ll drop the frame, but I would like to keep the BR so I’ll follow Grovenor’s advice re positioning.

 

Thanks to you all for helping make the layout look ‘plausible’ (if not truly authentic!)

 

Paul