Out of the armchair part two - Signalling Expertise sought - REPOST

[AHW]

Hi All,

 

I'm going to repost this one here in the hope it reaches a wider audience - hoping someone is ready with some knowledge that I don't have.

 

Previously I asked for advice regarding point work for a DCC layout. You were very helpful. I now  have need of signal experts.

 

I have a track plan - I have NO idea where to put signals. I could spend hours (days) trying to find out - or I could ask people who've already done it got the t-shirt etc.

 

My layout plan is basically a length of East Coast Mainline with two junctions (see images) allowing access to a small dockyard trapped on the bend of a river.

 

Points and crossovers take traffic off or on the mainline into or from two loops. Inside the loops points and three double slips allow 'shunting puzzle' access to two sidings which are on the dockside.

 

(I was asked for extra info which is;

 

1. Layout is based in the Fens - just north of Peterborough

2. The double track is the ECML - BR - May 1957 - so passengers and freight - (NB based on ECML - not a prototype location)

3. Line is ex GNR/LNER

4. This layout will be a groundhog day experience - 12th May 1957 is the time setting. (Allows me early and late crests - blood and custard and all crimson/maroon)

 

Finally in this scenario the mainline speed is restricted because of a swing bridge - so my Pacifics will be able to rumble slowly through before picking up once off stage.

 

Traffic in the loops will be either freights waiting for a path, or dropping off - picking up from the quay)

 

I'm assuming that the loops and sidings can be controlled with ground signals? However the two junctions should need bracket signals.

 

To complicate matters the mainline also crosses a swing bridge which presumably needs signal protection for the down mainline. (We can assume the up line is covered by a signal off stage?)

 

To assist in understanding the above I enclose three images - a badly drawn 'sketch' of the overall layout, which will occupy four scenic boards, and a diagram view of the likely control panel - this is two images - note the panel joins together on the line A to B.

 

If anyone is interested in making helpful comments I would very much appreciate it.

 

Finally just to set the scene as it were - this is not a model of a prototype location - my interest is in making a good looking stage for running trains - but I don't want glaring errors in 'prototypical' operation to cloud the eventual product. On that point if anyone thinks the track plan is 'wrong' by all means say so - but I might not necessarily alter it (Yes I know some catch points are needed to protect the main line - removed for clarity)

 

Many thanks - apologies for a long post. (I'll have to upload the images in separate posts below this one)

[AHW]

Control panel images

[5BarVT]

Big question: are you looking for a colourlight or semaphore solution?  Both would be possible for an East Coast 1957 layout.

Paul.

P.S. Swing bridge won’t make any difference to the signals required.  Might make a slight difference to position but probably not even that.

Edited June 2, 2023 by 5BarVT
P,S. added

[AHW]

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Big question: are you looking for a colourlight or semaphore solution?  Both would be possible for an East Coast 1957 layout.

Paul.

P.S. Swing bridge won’t make any difference to the signals required.  Might make a slight difference to position but probably not even that.

Semaphore is the preferred option. Thank You

 

[5BarVT]

I’m working on something that will be generic semaphore rather than specific GNR/LNER.  Others may then be able to modify to improve (if they don’t get there first).

I have realised that the swing bridge will significantly affect the signalling.  There will need to be a box by the swing bridge as it can’t be worked remotely, but (as well as distance) the lie of the junction means it cannot be worked from the swing bridge box.  That will then impose block working between the two ends of the loop and add lower distants on the main lines.

Paul.

[5BarVT]

Here’s a first attempt. I’ve assumed that the dock lines have no signalling beyond the junction.  Trains enter on one line and depart on the other, although there is a need to use both in the wrong direction when running round to depart.  There will be notice boards down at the dock sidings to instruct drivers where to stop etc. Distant signals are not shown as they are off the scenic area.

I’m not sure if the signals marked ‘?’ become a requirement with two boxes.  If there were no swing bridge and only one box in the V of the junction I would remove them.

Paul.

[AHW]

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Here’s a first attempt. I’ve assumed that the dock lines have no signalling beyond the junction.  Trains enter on one line and depart on the other, although there is a need to use both in the wrong direction when running round to depart.  There will be notice boards down at the dock sidings to instruct drivers where to stop etc. Distant signals are not shown as they are off the scenic area.

I’m not sure if the signals marked ‘?’ become a requirement with two boxes.  If there were no swing bridge and only one box in the V of the junction I would remove them.

Paul.

Paul - that's really helpful - thank you so much. I'll digest this and then in all likelihood come back to you with some questions if that's ok.

[AHW]

Morning all. Sometimes there's nothing worse than a forum entry that starts, makes demands of the community,  and then just goes dark.

 

I'd just like to apologise for the radio silence on this topic.

 

Many of you have viewed it and I have some very helpful contributions back in response to my lack of knowledge. I've been very busy elsewhere, but intend to return to this thread as soon as time allows and conclude it with the chosen solution. Thank you all for your patience.

[Flying Pig]

While this thread is temporarily awakened from its slumber, here are a couple of ideas about the track plan.

 

First, simplifying access to the docks, which are now shunted from the yard.  You could simplify this further by removing facing access to the yard from the main lines and having trains back in.  And as far as I can tell, you don't need any further traps, as the headshunts perform that function.

 

 

Second, some sorting sidings added for making up trains from the docks.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

Swing bridges tended to be associated with rather unusual signal boxes in semaphore days.  Boxes were often of non-standard design - for example the box at Boston Docks is octagonal, rather like a tollkeeper's cottage on a turnpiike.

 

Sometimes there is a box on the bridge itself to operate the bridge; that does not have to be a block post however.  Operating a swing bridge isn't a process you can do by hand using something like a level crossing gatewheel, nor is it possible to push it round by hand like a loco turntable if it stands on an island in the midddle of a river.  Some sort of power (often hydraulic) is required.

 

It was not unusual to find Lock and Block working on lines approaching a bridge where there rest of the line was worked by standard block instruments, this seems to have been a paranoid concern that train might run off the end of the track into the river, though it's not clear why signal protecting a bridge would be any more likely to be passed at danger (and anyway, it's still possible to run past signals even if they are worked by Lock & Block).  

 

Any rodding or signal wires which control equipment on the other side of the waterway have to be interrupted by an uncoupling device so that the bridge can swing - you obviously can't just run unsupported rodding and wires over the water.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

On 08/08/2023 at 17:28, Flying Pig said:

You could simplify this further by removing facing access to the yard from the main lines and having trains back in. 

 

Like this. I've added another crossover between the headshunts at the left for extra fun and you probably also want to make the diamond on Board Two into a single slip to provide a trailing crossover between the main lines (edit - now done).

 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Flying Pig

[AHW]

Guys - I'm really appreciative of the suggested edits to the track plan. Suffice it to say it will remain as it is. (Here's the back story) These docks, on a tidal river in the fens were at one point very busy - today (in 1957) they are run down and have limited timber trade and some minor aggregate/mineral traffic. BR Eastern Region never downgraded the docks,  or the junction which now is used for lay byes as the mainline in this area is down to two lines.

 

Those of you looking at this with signalling expertise and querying, or thinking about the swing bridge - it has its own control cabin on top of the main turning span. I'm not sure if this cabin would control the signals protecting the bridge or if a dedicated box would be required. I'm hoping to avoid having two boxes and am considering a single box mounted over the lay by loops. My thinking is that land between the two loops of the river was tight and placing the box over the track negated that issue - also it gives the box height and visibility across both bridges - swing and fixed.

 

Further comments welcome. I'm still absorbing the most helpful signal plans put forward.

Edited September 17, 2023 by AHW
punctuation