Is Signaling one of the most overlooked or at least intentionally simplified parts of the layout?

[PaulRhB]

48 minutes ago, RailWest said:

we were bemused to notice that there was a door (fire exit? loading/unloading entrance?) standing wide open with direct access out to the public area near the platforms,

We once had someone fall through the door into our relay room. It had one of those smash to release fire bolts and it had got broken or smashed but not reported. Thing is people had leant against the old door and it had slowly rattled the bolt sideways until one unfortunate person leant against it and rattled it free! Fortunately the noise of it crashing open was heard and they were seen picking themselves up and diving apologetically back out but their coffee was sprayed across the floor. 
New type of quick release lock fitted 😆

 

That sort of thing is all part of realistic signalling 😉

 

I get that some are fascinated by it all working correctly but some of us don’t want to go home and play doing exactly what we do all day at work 😉 One chap seemed quite bemused that I wouldn’t want a pc simulator of the panel! 
 

These old metal signals work perfectly well for me on the 009, they can be cleared by the crew before proceeding and tapped back down. It introduces a fun extra and looks right even if there aren’t scale wires from the little signal cabin 

 

[LNERGE]

As a little aside to the above my L frame controls motor operated points and semaphores operated by signal machines. 
 

To this end I ordered forty fulgarex slow acting point motors. Perfect for simulating both of the above. I rang a model shop and placed the order and the chap the other end asked how big the model railway was I was building. He was somewhat taken aback to find they were going to be operating 12 inch to the foot sized equipment. 

[Phil Bullock]

So how far to go with SPAD protection etc? We will be having ABC sections in the fiddle yard where the only signals will be LEDs between the tracks but in the scenic area controlled by semaphores we won’t… it will be up to the drivers to obey the signals. I have removed the stopping inertia off all the locos to make that easier… but less realistic.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Phil Bullock
Shopping inertia corrected to stopping … the former is SWMBOs territory!

[t-b-g]

I have mentioned it on other threads before but as it seems appropriate, I will do so again!

 

Buckingham has a very nice system where the power supply to the tracks in the station is fed via switches attached to the signals. All the signals and points are operated by rods and cranks from a representative lever frame.

 

So to run a train, you set the points set the signals and turn the controller. There are a couple of switches that allow you a choice of a second controller on parts of the station and a few isolating switches for the loco shed area but on the whole, 95% of the operating is done with no "Have I switched that bit on/off/to the right controller"

 

Such a system can only work if you have a properly signalled layout and your regular moves are signalled, although there are some push button overrides as there are a few times when you want to run up to a signal without clearing it.

 

I did a little video on it for one of the "lockdown virtual exhibitions" if anybody is interested.

 

Once you get past the rather basic home grown lever frame and phosphor bronze wiper homemade switches, it is an entirely usable method that I am building in to my latest layout, although I am using servos and modern switches.

 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just a quick question whilst everyone is on here.

 

Thinking of ex-MR practice, would facing point locks be worked by their own lever and have a separate rodding run to said point?

[Phil Bullock]

50 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Just a quick question whilst everyone is on here.

 

Thinking of ex-MR practice, would facing point locks be worked by their own lever and have a separate rodding run to said point?

Abbotswood is ex MR Peter - this is early 60s so other practices could have been superimposed. 
 

Photos sent on PM to you and Mr SM…  they are from a book so can’t post here … show an FPL cover … which looks to me like the usual installation with its own rodding run rather than the economy version combined with the point operating rodding. Frustratingly there’s no picture of the actual rodding crank and rod for the FPL . This other photo show two rods in the 6 foot …. Not sure where they are going as they run past the junction up the Worcester line… trap points with an FPL perhaps ? … And two rods in the 4ft which are for the up direction facing point and FPL at the Junction seen in the first photo. 
 

I haven’t installed a trap point in advance of the home signal coming from Norton … bet there was one, the home signal is pretty close to the junction.

 

Hope that helps! But only one example with uncertain time line. 

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Nice little story in that connection.  one of my Signlamen on the Westbury atch wasa pretty conscientious chap and he had little time for the interminable chatter going on of an evening on the circuit 'phone.  Hence if I arrived at a neighbouring 'box even if they had seen me coming it all deoended on who got to the block bell first.

 

One evening just after I'f d arrved the Signalman was making the tea as a train passed out of the section so I duly watched for the tail lamp,  returned signals to danger, and then sent the Call Attention bell signal (1 beat on the bell).  the block infdicator for the opposite line iommediately turned to 'Line Clear (it being common practice, except when 'visitors' were about, not to bother with the 'Call Attention' before giving 'Train Out of Section' hence he was expecting a 2-1 for that train and obviously assumed that the ''Call Attention' was prior to asking 'Line Clear' for a train in the opposite direction).

 

He was somewhat embarrassed when I picked up the circuit 'phone, buzzed the code for his 'box, and then told hm that I fully understood what had happened.  On my way home I dropped in to see him and siaid some slightly more embarrassing, for him, words but he hardly needed me to tell him off for what had happened, so I didn't.

Round these parts you don't send Call Attention prior to sending 2-1, you just send one beat and drop the block.  Saves your oppo getting up off his backside and acknowledging the message.  He looks at the clock and remembers to book it next time he has to do something else.

 

But some busy boxes had local instructions officially excusing them Call Attention before Train Out, or before offering a train.

 

Conversely correct use of Call Attention was vital under the old MR rules for Signalling by Telegraph Bells Regulations for goods roads, on four track lines where you only had block instruments for the Main Lines, and Goods trains were signalled permissively using the same block bell as the used for the Main Line.  You knew which line a train was offered on by the use (Main Line) or omission (Goods line) of the Call Attention signal.  That system of signalling was deprecated as archaic by the Inspectorate after an accident, and replaced by more normal Permissive Block.

 

 

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, RailWest said:

removed the (unlocked) covers from any of the relays and 'fiddled' with the contacts (not that we would have ever done such a thing, of course)

Those covers that you could have removed wouldn’t have done anything dangerous.  Would probably have caused disruption. The signalling relays would have been sealed.

Paul.

Edited March 1, 2023 by 5BarVT
Clearer wirding

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Just a quick question whilst everyone is on here.

 

Thinking of ex-MR practice, would facing point locks be worked by their own lever and have a separate rodding run to said point?

The Midland wasn't the only railway to make use of economical point locks but it was the most significant user of them so in most cases there would only be a single lever (blue/black post-grouping IIRC but I am not certain which colours the MR used) to control a facing point. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Thanks Phil for a glimpse of those images. Looks like the first train is bound for Bournemouth via the S&DJt , so probably dates it to summer '62. Interesting to see the trailing tandem turnout on the mainline, in the second image.

Been looking at lots of MR/LMS/LMR photos and signalling diagrams. The FPLs appear on diagrams, though are not numbered. Hence my query.

 

The rodding looks very neat at Abbotswood. In other areas I've seen a mix of square and cylindrical rodding in the same run.

 

Thanks again.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[Phil Bullock]

5 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Thanks Phil for a glimpse of those images. Looks like the first train is bound for Bournemouth via the S&DJt , so probably dates it to summer '62. Interesting to see the trailing tandem turnout on the mainline, in the second image.

Been looking at lots of MR/LMS/LMR photos and signalling diagrams. The FPLs appear on diagrams, though are not numbered. Hence my query.

 

The rodding looks very neat at Abbotswood. In other areas I've seen a mix of square and cylindrical rodding in the same run.

 

Thanks again.

Welcome! They are from Michael Clemens latest book. I deliberately avoided putting rodding runs in the 4ft parallel to the track as I expected to be told it was not prototypical!!! Ho hum…

 

And yes could have saved a bit of space if I had installed a tandem but v complicated across a board join on my layout… on the prototype the l h turnout forms a trailing cross over, the r h is to the engineers siding . My attempt at this installation is this… 

 

 

And as I haven’t installed what I assume to be a trap point on the down line from Abbotswood my rodding doesn’t extend past the junction. That might be about to change… 😉

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

The FPLs appear on diagrams, though are not numbered.

That feels like an economical FPL to me.

Paul.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

So with economical FPLs (sorry about the thread drift...), would there be just the one set of rodding on the ground between the turnout and signalbox? Or two sets, which joined inside the 'box in the locking room?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[5BarVT]

The only economical FPL I have seen was at the Midland Railway site in Butterley about 35 years ago. Didn’t have digital photos then.  As far as I can remember and I see no technical reason for any other solution: one lever, one set of rodding, and one box of tricks that does both functions at the points.

Paul.

[Phil Bullock]

8 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

So with economical FPLs (sorry about the thread drift...), would there be just the one set of rodding on the ground between the turnout and signalbox? Or two sets, which joined inside the 'box in the locking room?

Not sure this is thread drift, just showing the OP it ain’t always neglected!

 

Figure 13 on here has a diagram of one Peter … single rod/crank working both switch and lock. Also has signal interlocking on the ground on that one.

 

Economical FPL

Would I be right in concluding that an economical lock could not be used on a turnout passing passenger traffic on both routes? By definition one route would not be locked if the level was thrown? To follow on, with a standard lock the lock lever would have to be thrown to pass traffic in either direction and would only be returned to normal when no train was signalled? 
 

Perhaps this is what triggered the OPs first post! 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

8 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

So with economical FPLs (sorry about the thread drift...), would there be just the one set of rodding on the ground between the turnout and signalbox? Or two sets, which joined inside the 'box in the locking room?

 

There's a photo of one on this page: https://www.roscalen.com/signals/Lincoln/StMarks.htm

[5BarVT]

Hopefully Google is my friend:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiKgru45bz9AhUKS8AKHQagBcsQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fbeerdave1745%2F5033714974&usg=AOvVaw31-tNcnEg9xURSzkH2Zxt8

 

If it hasn’t linked properly, then the diagram in the Ambis Engineering doc in Phil's post shows it too.

The mechanism is two capital E (one inverted) with the ‘top’ two legs connected together.  The point drive is the connected parts, the FPL is the remaining leg of the E, one for each lie of the points.

 

The Butterley arrangement is safer than the Ambis arrangement - at Butterley, the FPL is driven through the FPL bar so you can be sure the bar is working.  The Ambis arrangement has the bar separately driven so if the connection between the point and the bar breaks the proof of no train is lost.

 

Paul.

[RailWest]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

Would I be right in concluding that an economical lock could not be used on a turnout passing passenger traffic on both routes? By definition one route would not be locked if the level was thrown?

 

 

It was usually the case with most economic FPL mechanisms of which I am aware that the point was bolted in either position. Pulling/replacing the lever withdrew the lock plunger, moves the point blades, and re-inserted the lock plunger.

[Michael Hodgson]

9 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

So with economical FPLs (sorry about the thread drift...), would there be just the one set of rodding on the ground between the turnout and signalbox? Or two sets, which joined inside the 'box in the locking room?

Yes, one rod from the point lever to the point,  Only part of the movement works the point, part of its movement operates the FPL, 

In the case of crossovers, rod goes to one of the points with a linkage going to the other point, so still only the one rod from box.

 

Compensator half-way (although cranks at various places on the route can act as compensators depending on how the are arranged).  This converts pull to push or vice versa so expansion of one half of the rod on a hot day is offset by expansion of the other half.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Thanks guys.

Phil, fig 4  & 8 most interesting.

 

So do these rodding runs look OK?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There's a photo of one on this page: https://www.roscalen.com/signals/Lincoln/StMarks.htm

Brilliant!

[SZ]

This thread is itself great example of why signalling is often overlooked. The tendency is to over-complicate any discussion to a real world degree when what the average modeller requires is actually a simplification of this, some principles not exception after exception. I remember how my first excursions into signalling soon descended into discussions of bell codes, entirely useless to the modeller.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by SZ

[Michael Hodgson]

Rodding is also used where mechanical detection is required, so that signals can only be cleared if the point is in in the correct position.

This is such a point at the Midland Railway Centre in Butterley, although the same approach was used by all railways.

 

 

Here we have detectors, the three little boxes on the right with the signal wires going to them.  As can be seen each wire is are interrupted by a metal bar which passes through metal plates running at right angles.  There are slots cut in those metal plates, so that the metal bar can only be moved and the signal pulled off if the slots in the plates are aligned.

 

The three rods are connected to the point, one to one blade of the point, another to the other blade.  The third rod anchors the detector mechanism so that it can't move laterally relative to the point.  The slots only line up when the blades are in the right position for the movement the signal applies to.  So if the point has jammed and won't go fully over, perhaps because of a large piece of ballast between the blade and stock rail, the slots don't line up and you can't pull the signal lever.

 

Point detection can also be done electrically however.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

16 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Brilliant!

That's not what you usually see however - it shows the mechanism. It is usually covered by a long metal plate to protect it from the crud that might otherwise land on it and necessitate S&T attendance.  The metal cover is much easier to model ! 

[Michael Hodgson]

10 minutes ago, SZ said:

 I remember how my first excursions into signalling soon descended into discussions of bell codes, entirely useless to the modeller.

 

I have been operating a large fully signalled O Gauge railway for over 50 years that requires signalling by bell codes because the operators only control trains within their own station area, and you need to establish whether the line is clear to send a train to next station, since you can't actually see the line outside your own immediate area.