Good's Yard Signalling Question

[TomCrewe]

I have been putting it off and probably left it too late. But its one area I have no idea about.

Who knows best or where do I get information for positioning signals and ground signals relatively correct for my layout and era??

 

This is my layout plan, It a Good's Shunting end to end, Around 1960 - 1965. What type of signals semaphore or aspect and where (I have been told only one protection main line) and what about ground signals??

[Ray H]

You wouldn't necessarily need any signals if the area is freight only.

 

The possible exception could be the link to the main line and that would depend on how close the main line is to the area modelled.

[TomCrewe]

Thanks Ray. 'To Main Line' should really be to Fiddle Yard, The distance to Main line is what ever my mind imagines (sometimes strange things).

I would like to have some signalling therefore the distance to mainline is requiring a signal.

Its a well maintained modern (for its time) goods yard 1960 - 1965. What type and where should a signal go bearing in mind a crafty little curve with wall.

 

 

[Rivercider]

I like what you have done there, I always enjoy urban goods layouts.

 

I won't propose how to signal it as I am no expert, but it might help to know a bit more about the layout.

It would help to know which company originally built the line and how it was originally signalled,

I am assuming it is set in Crewe, would that make it former LNWR/LMS?

 

Also how do you operate the layout, I assume arrivals and departures are from the uppermost two lines?

The signalling would need to prevent conflicting moves, principally for movements arriving and departing.

For example you would need a ground signal to prevent a move from the uppermost shunt neck when a train is arriving or departing the yard. 

 

I would assume the lower half of the yard would be all hand points, with no signalling required,

 

cheers

 

[C126]

Regret I can contribute nothing to answering your question, but may I take my hat off to you for the layout/photographs.  It looks beautiful, and I am envious.  Would like to see more pictures when you have time.

 

[n9]

I'm going to try to play match maker by mentioning @The Stationmaster and @5BarVT, simply because I was reading this post on western region signalling the other day, and their knowledge of signalling (and so much more!) was quite staggering. Perhaps if they see this they will be able and kind enough to help you out with some suggestions too. Granted the region and period may not quite match, but thought I'd reach out in case they can help you.

 

Unfortunately the only other thing I can contribute to this thread is just to say that your layout looks fantastic! I'm envious too!

[Ray H]

The only signal that I think would be appropriate would be one located at the toe of the point leading off the layout towards the fiddle yard.

 

A double disc - one above the other - should suffice with the top disc clearing for trains towards the fiddle yard and the other disc being clear at all other times.

 

Another option would be two arms on a post with either both being short/shunt arms or, perhaps, with the upper one being of a more conventional size and the lower one a shorter/shunt arm. Again, the upper arm would clear for the link to the fiddle yard, the lower arm left clear at all other times, possibly with the exception, of when a train is arriving from the fiddle yard.

[beast66606]

While it's not unheard of for goods yards to be signalled it's unlikely on your scenario, it would be local control - ie men on the ground.

 

It's possible the connection to the main line could be signalled but it's more likely the actual signalling would be through the tunnel, very near to where the main line connection is located however with there being a tunnel you could provide signalling to ensure only one train on the single line at one time and so on that basis ..

 

Crewe was resignalled to colour lights from LMS days through to today - the line through Coppenhall was resignalled on the cheap ca 1960, existing boxes were mostly retained but controlling colour lights, these boxes were slowly absorbed into bigger installations, Coppenhall (Jcn) being an example which succumbed to Winsford having lost it's slow / fast connections

 

You could use colour lights* - a 3-aspect colour light with subsidiary in the middle of the toe to toe points to control exit, the subsidiary controlling the shunt into the neck (where the tarpaulin wagon is parked), you'd also have a GPLS (ground position light) controlling exit from the neck.  An arrival signal is not really required unless the tunnel is envisaged to be quite long, if so then a simple 2-aspect, red / green could be used reading to all routes, which would be locally controlled as mentioned above.

 

You don't really need a motor on the left most point but if you like it then leave it.

 

* you could use semaphores if you like.

[Cwmtwrch]

The tunnel isn't really a problem; such situations could be dealt with by a local instructon that the signalman on the other side of the tunnel must not permit any train to proceed to the yard without telephone confirmation from the person in charge at the yard that the line and loop are clear and the train can be sent, and similarly in reverse for trains leaving the yard. Since it isn't a passenger line there is no requirement for absolute block working, or signals or a signal box.

 

I think that the loco shed is what is raising questions; in reality I don't think it would have been there. Where an inner city yard had an dedicated steam shunter it would normally be allocated to the appropriate major shed and appear each day light engine, or on the first inbound train. It would leave at close of play, again either light or on the last outbound train. A diesel shunter would be fuelled for several days, and might just be left overnight, switched off, on a convenient siding, apart from a weekly visit to the shed for inspection and refuelling. As it is, access to the shed means shunting has to stop, and vice-versa. Since the staff involved would belong to two different departments there is the possibility of conflict...

 

Would you consider making the shed area into a industrial siding? A private siding off a yard was not unknown, and would make operation more straightforward.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Cwmtwrch
Spelling!

[Michael Hodgson]

The scenery generally looks pretty impressive for an urban goods station, with the exception of the Airfix MR signalbox on a gantry.  Sorry but that box just looks structurally inadequately supported, and not to the same scenic standard as the rest of the layout, as well as being inappropriate to  the station.

 

With an unsignalled layout as others have suggested, there wouldn't be a box at all.  Even with minimal signalling, it would be overkill, a small ground level hut would perhaps be more appropriate.  I would expect it to be sited among a few "grotty hut" structures, for use by shunters, lamp filling, PW stores etc - probably in the grassed area by the loco shed.

 

I agree that it would be fairly unlikely for a loco shed to be co-located with the station in what would be relatively expensive piece of land in town.

[2E Sub Shed]

As noted a steam shunter would come out daily to such a yard. However there might be an ash pit as at Soho Pool in Birmingham.

 

For a Diesel Shunter as at Soho Pool from 1961, the ash pit was used as an inspection pit and changing and mess rooms were provided from existing buildings at that time. The loco was then changed over fortnightly. 

 

Source "A Locoman's Log" by Bill Alcock published by Silver Link. 

[Rivercider]

I like the look of this layout a lot.

My own layout of a fictional location has a small depot where one would probably never have existed,

but like most of us on here I have many more locos than would be required.

 

In many railway towns where two (or more) companies once existed there was duplication of facilities,

with consequently more than one loco shed in town. I can think of a few examples where once the smaller shed was closed some basic facilities remained. As well as the yard pilot loco another couple of locos could be outbased here

to carry out local freight transfer and trip work to the sorting sidings at the main line.

The signal box may exist because at one time the place was busier, perhaps there was a local passenger service here, the station later closed and the site used by the expanded goods depot. Meanwhile the shunt neck is the truncated remains of another short goods only branch that formerly served a couple of private sidings at that end of town.

And then there is rule 1!

 

cheers

Edited November 5, 2023 by Rivercider
tidying up.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, beast66606 said:

While it's not unheard of for goods yards to be signalled it's unlikely on your scenario, it would be local control - ie men on the ground.

 

 

Indeed - and it’s worth pausing to consider why we have signalling in the first place!

 

Its existence was driven by Parliaments desire not to have passenger trains crashing into each other - or have a freight train get into a place where it could endanger a passenger one. 
 

Goods trains crashing into one other was not a concern to Parliament / the board of trade and neither was it considered necessary for the Heath and Safety of railway workers (in stark contrast to modern regs which very much steer yards to be fully signalled in a bid to avoid  staff deaths / injuries) - plus signalling was expensive to install and required quite a lot of maintenance so no company was going to go round wasting shareholders money on it unless they really had to do so.

 

 

[TomCrewe]

Lots of reply's, Help and idea's. Thank you all. I plan to start a blog about the layout and the why and what for and how I have done things (and pictures)

 

But for now the main thrust of information on the signals is not to have any! The spin off from that is that there is no need for a signal box either??

Which brings me to one more question the dummy point motors would it suit better to replace them all with hand leavers??

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, TomCrewe said:

 

But for now the main thrust of information on the signals is not to have any! The spin off from that is that there is no need for a signal box either??

Which brings me to one more question the dummy point motors would it suit better to replace them all with hand leavers??

Yes, and yes. 

 

If you want to include some over-line structure, I would suggest replacing the box with something such as a cement hopper facility (not necessarily over the same position).  I haven't given any thought to how road vehicles gain access the station to tranship the goods.  The goods shed presumably can be deemed to be reached from the far side, off-scene.  Is there road access to the hard standing area, for the cattle dock etc perhaps from the end not photographed ?  Perhaps another "tunnel" at that end?  A station like this would almost certanly have a fixed crane somewhere in the yard, close to one of the open-air sidings.

[The Johnster]

No need for signals, it's a yard where movements are controlled by handsignals.  The loco shed is unlikely in this sort of location as well, perhaps a rail-served industry, possibly with it's own loco.  That would be licenced and restricted as to which BR tracks it is permitted to run, probably the headshunt into the industry.

 

No speed restrictions either, except that all movements in yards are to take place under caution with the locomotive being able to be stopped within the distance that the driver can see and yards are restricted to 15mph unless otherwise stated in the relevant official publication (Sectional Appendix).  There will (very) probably be a STOP board at the exit to the tunnel; all inbound traffic stops here to await a handsignal or verbal instruction to proceed.  This position may have a telephone. 

 

All turnouts are hand-operated, and the one leading into the loco shed/factory/whatever it is can be sprung, so that it has to be held over against spring pressure to allow traffic into that area.  This is done by the shunter standing on a foot pedal atttached to the lever, his weight holding the turnout in position for the movement.

 

5 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I haven't given any thought to how road vehicles gain access the station to tranship the goods.  The goods shed presumably can be deemed to be reached from the far side, off-scene.  Is there road access to the hard standing area, for the cattle dock etc perhaps from the end not photographed ?  Perhaps another "tunnel" at that end?  A station like this would almost certanly have a fixed crane somewhere in the yard, close to one of the open-air sidings.

 

I think the layout is meant to be a self-contained goods depot and yard, Michael, not a station as such.  Transhipment takes place on the two-faced platform and there is possibly a warehouse at the back of that.  I agree that there will be a fixed crane, about five tons SWL and able to winch loads such as containers clear of the side of a 5-plank wagon, close enough to the hardstanding to load lorries, and also probably an end-loading dock, but I am not sure what traffic TomCrewe is envisaging for it; there may also be need for cold storage, cattle facilities, oil storage, and secure storage in the warehouse. 
 

[DCB]

It looks like the yard is one of those rationalisation yards of the 1970s where the main line has closed and the station has been downgraded to a goods depot served by what was originally a branch.    The signal box is a bit unlikely, perched on a signal gantry...    Thing is in the 1970s a class 25 or similar would roll up with a few wagons for a Gronk to play with and the area would be littered with redundant signals just a couple of which might still be in use, especially that leading to the tunnel, it could be one engine in steam but you want several so really need at least a signal to protect the tunnel.

In steam days as this is not (G)WR its likely a trip would arrive and the trip loco typically an 0-6-0 or 0-6-2T  would shunt basically one engine in steam, requiring no signals.  How you reconcile the engine shed with this beats me. What does the shed provide locos for?   I had exchange sidings on my old layout and had the colliery engine shed by the exchange siding to display my motley collection of NCB shunters...

[Compound2632]

Take a look at Birmingham Central Goods - a purpose built goods station with a layout reminiscent of yours:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/centralgoods.htm

You will see that contrary to the naysayers, it had a signal box:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy911.]

 

... with a number of semaphores controlling exit from different parts of the yard, as well as entry from the approach line:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy909].

 

The working was a boon to space-starved modellers as shunting was done using the departure line into the tunnel as a headshunt. There was a gong in the tunnel, by means of which instructions were relayed to the enginemen.

 

In Midland days at least, Central was shunted by a single 0-6-0T which I suppose was allocated to Bourneville rather than Saltley. At any rate, there was no shed on site, engines of arriving and departing goods trains went and came light engine, increasing the variety of operations; they almost certainly didn't do their own shunting. Towards the end, Central became a parcels depot so some impressive express passenger motive power could be seen, up to Duchesses.

 

The problem with your layout, as I see it, is the division into a rear half, shunted from the approach line, and a front half, shunted from a separate headshunt, that is very awkward to get to from the rear line, which I take to be the arrival line.

 

If you do away with the engine shed, those kick-back sidings could make a good coal yard, or perhaps timber yard with an overhead crane?

[cypherman]

Hi all,

I would have thought that if any signalling was done it would be ground signals attached to manually activated ground frame points. Not sure how this would affect the need for the overhead signal box you have.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Take a look at Birmingham Central Goods - a purpose built goods station with a layout reminiscent of yours:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/centralgoods.htm

You will see that contrary to the naysayers, it had a signal box:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy911.]

 

... with a number of semaphores controlling exit from different parts of the yard, as well as entry from the approach line:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy909].

 

The working was a boon to space-starved modellers as shunting was done using the departure line into the tunnel as a headshunt. There was a gong in the tunnel, by means of which instructions were relayed to the enginemen.

 

In Midland days at least, Central was shunted by a single 0-6-0T which I suppose was allocated to Bourneville rather than Saltley. At any rate, there was no shed on site, engines of arriving and departing goods trains went and came light engine, increasing the variety of operations; they almost certainly didn't do their own shunting. Towards the end, Central became a parcels depot so some impressive express passenger motive power could be seen, up to Duchesses.

 

The problem with your layout, as I see it, is the division into a rear half, shunted from the approach line, and a front half, shunted from a separate headshunt, that is very awkward to get to from the rear line, which I take to be the arrival line.

 

If you do away with the engine shed, those kick-back sidings could make a good coal yard, or perhaps timber yard with an overhead crane?

A fascinating place, but would the signalling have been provided if the tunnel wasn't there?

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

A fascinating place, but would the signalling have been provided if the tunnel wasn't there?

 

I think so. The station was at the end of a 3/4-mile double track branch from Church Road, where it made a double junction with the main line (facing access to the branch) which was worked as a regular block section.

[Wheatley]

Goole goods yard was fully signalled right into the 1980s, and there was no tunnel. It was a bit more complicated than your plan as it was essentially the exchange sidings between the docks and the main line, but the layout was more complex than just a fan of sidings. 

 

I can't find a track plan on line unfortunately. It was a field trip on the Eastern Region signalling course (along with Gilberdyke and Broomfleet) because between them the three sites included most of the operating oddities we were learning about (short sections, multiple running lines etc) but wouldn't necessarily see at our own boxes. No-one dared take a camera, partly because we'd been employed three weeks at that stage and no-one wanted to break cover as the closet enthusiast, and partly because our instructor was terrifying and you would have been victimised and ridiculed for it. 

 

Can't see a problem with a goods yard and loco shed being co-located, although you've made the loco shed a bit more operationally interesting (i.e. a PITA for the crew) to get in and out of than would usually be prototypical. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

you've made the loco shed a bit more operationally interesting (i.e. a PITA for the crew) to get in and out of than would usually be prototypical. 

 

That's the dilemma: if your layout is "operationally interesting" it is unlikely to be prototypical. (Though exceptions will always be found.)

[Cwmtwrch]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The station was at the end of a 3/4-mile double track branch from Church Road, where it made a double junction with the main line (facing access to the branch) which was worked as a regular block section.

According to the note on the diagram, there is also a ground frame close to the other end of the tunnel, unlocked by Annett's key/staff. Taking it out of the frame locks 6, 7 and 22 normal, so that nothing can leave the yard. Presumably the staff allows a wrong line return?

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Take a look at Birmingham Central Goods - a purpose built goods station with a layout reminiscent of yours:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/centralgoods.htm

You will see that contrary to the naysayers, it had a signal box:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy911.]

 

... with a number of semaphores controlling exit from different parts of the yard, as well as entry from the approach line:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrcgy909].

 

The working was a boon to space-starved modellers as shunting was done using the departure line into the tunnel as a headshunt. There was a gong in the tunnel, by means of which instructions were relayed to the enginemen.

 

In Midland days at least, Central was shunted by a single 0-6-0T which I suppose was allocated to Bourneville rather than Saltley. At any rate, there was no shed on site, engines of arriving and departing goods trains went and came light engine, increasing the variety of operations; they almost certainly didn't do their own shunting. Towards the end, Central became a parcels depot so some impressive express passenger motive power could be seen, up to Duchesses.

 

The problem with your layout, as I see it, is the division into a rear half, shunted from the approach line, and a front half, shunted from a separate headshunt, that is very awkward to get to from the rear line, which I take to be the arrival line.

 

If you do away with the engine shed, those kick-back sidings could make a good coal yard, or perhaps timber yard with an overhead crane?

 

As did similar LNWR goods depots.

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/liverpool_great_howard_street/index2.shtml

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/liverpool_waterloo_goods/index.shtml

 

 

Jason