signals for terminus approach

[Andrew F]

Hello there. Can anyone help me regarding this plan?

 

 

As you see, trains approach the station on lines A , B (via crossover) and C. Trains terminating at platforms 2 and 3 will use line B which forms part of the station run-round/shunt loop.

 

Obviously I'm not sure about the 3 doll bracket that protects the platforms. The dolls correspond to each platform respectively but could this signal be used by both approaching lines A and B?

 

I hope that's clear ; I can fumble away with the platform starters and shunt dollies but I'm convinced my platform access signal is ill sorcery.

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[The Stationmaster]

As you see, trains approach the station on lines A , B (via crossover) and C. Trains terminating at platforms 2 and 3 will use line B which forms part of the station run-round/shunt loop.

 

Obviously I'm not sure about the 3 doll bracket that protects the platforms. The dolls correspond to each platform respectively but could this signal be used by both approaching lines A and B?

 

I hope that's clear ; I can fumble away with the platform starters and shunt dollies but I'm convinced my platform access signal is ill sorcery.

Andy

Well it is sort of sorcery but nothing to be too ashamed of except when you only give it a quick glance. If you intend to use a single bracket structure like that what it does suffer from is a lack of separation between the single doll applying to Line A and the 2 dolls applying to Line B - the gap between them needs to be much more obvious and distinctive.

 

But different Companies (and signalling contractors) did things in slightly different ways so your first step ought really to be to delve out a prototype with similar signalling for the same period and try to find a few pics of signals carrying out broadly similar tasks to the one you have in mind. For example on some Railways the signals for the two parallel lines might be carried on a gantry while other Companies would have used totally separate signals structures for the two separate lines. Thus what you have drawn might be 'almost right' if you're modelling the correct Company/area or it might be desperately wrong if you are trying to tell us that your railway represents, say, a former GWR line in the late 1950s.

[beast66606]

In addition to SMs comments.

 

You are missing a doll .. the bi-directional line can access all three platforms

 

I would be inclined to move the crossovers so that all trains arrive on the correct line - move the trailing one (near the platforms) to be at the junction and move the facing one to it's right.

[Andrew F]

I'm missing a doll? .Got so many of 'em I never noticed one gone:)

 

Thanks SM and Beast. I appreciate both your signalling knowledge and backgrounds

 

I'm modelling ex NBR in mid 60's and they seemed to favour a lot of posts rather than gantries. I don't like the idea of siting a post in the 6ft or particularly to the right of the tracks although I see that's fairly prototypical in some limited areas. I've got quite a lot of regional books showing these signal types but not with any similar plans and the IA 'Signalling in the days of steam' is not a lot of help for siting and arms in this situation.

 

Beast, you've pointed out the loop adjustments to make the plan prototypical; I've just built it my way so I can reverse a 5 coach train out , run it round and push it back into another platform. So the layout operates practically in a small space but not realistcally perhaps. I'm trying to depict a scene close to closure where the plan has been rationlised but if it's wrong anyway it begs the question 'why build correct signals for a wrong plan?' well if they just look right at first glace they'll look nice and fool people; except you fellas of couse:). So MSE 'pretty' but wrong or Ratio 'two small and dry' but wrong.....got to be the brass:)

 

That missing doll....I've no idea what it's purpose would be ....is the bi-directional line having access to all platforms a bad thing....Oh, I get what you mean now, I intended that bi line to obey the 3 dolls. Platform 1 doll , the middle doll to the bay and the bottom doll for platform 3. My signalling understanding needs revison...big time.

 

Andy

[beast66606]

I'm missing a doll? .Got so many of 'em I never noticed one gone:)

 

 

I'm modelling ex NBR in mid 60's and they seemed to favour a lot of posts rather than gantries. I don't like the idea of siting a post in the 6ft or particularly to the right of the tracks although I see that's fairly prototypical in some limited areas. I've got quite a lot of regional books showing these signal types but not with any similar plans and the IA 'Signalling in the days of steam' is not a lot of help for siting and arms in this situation.

 

As it's a 1960s layout you could choose the structures to be NBR or LMS or even BR(ScR) so anything (sensible !) goes.

 

Beast, you've pointed out the loop adjustments to make the plan prototypical; I've just built it my way so I can reverse a 5 coach train out , run it round and push it back into another platform. So the layout operates practically in a small space but not realistcally perhaps. I'm trying to depict a scene close to closure where the plan has been rationlised but if it's wrong anyway it begs the question 'why build correct signals for a wrong plan?' well if they just look right at first glace they'll look nice and fool people; except you fellas of couse:). So MSE 'pretty' but wrong or Ratio 'two small and dry' but wrong.....got to be the brass:)

 

Always build the correct signals ... (imho) unless the layout is so un-prototypical the signals look ridiculous, then pretend they are off scene (your layout is nowhere near this)

 

That missing doll....I've no idea what it's purpose would be ....is the bi-directional line having access to all platforms a bad thing....Oh, I get what you mean now, I intended that bi line to obey the 3 dolls. Platform 1 doll , the middle doll to the bay and the bottom doll for platform 3. My signalling understanding needs revison...big time.

 

 

You need a straight post for the right line arrivals into platform 1, 2-arms, a main and a call on and a three doll bracket for the bi-directional line, again with call-ons although these weren't always provided and as you are propelling out to run round they possibly wouldn't be provided for all lines, certainly P2 could survive without.

 

You will need to carefully consider the other signals if you are running around trains ... if you want to revise your plan and add the other signals I (and I'm sure StationMaster) will take a peek for you ...

 

hth

[The Stationmaster]

Pop a three doll bracket structure in on the 'wrong' side of Line B and all will be well (such things could even be found on the 'wrong' side in low speed situations on the NBR And, alas, you're quite right about IA's 'Signalling In The Days of Steam' - not much help for the modeller in many respects although it has some bits which might be useful.

[Andrew F]

Thanks again for the additional information you two. On the basis of your help, I've sent a large denomination of currency Hullwards and am eager to make a start on proper signalling.

The felt tip pens and tippex will be produced to update the plan when work lets me off the hook for a bit:).

 

Cheers

 

Andy

[clecklewyke]

As it's a 1960s layout you could choose the structures to be NBR or LMS or even BR(ScR)

 

LMS? LNER surely!

 

I would think that most railways would have 3-way splitting home signals both before the facing crossover on the double track main line and also on the single track branch line. These posts should also have small arms controlling access to the goods lines. Given these I do not think there need be a signal where you have your questionable signal.

 

Some railways (the over-signalled NER comes to mind) would have had calling-on arms below the main arms but others, such as the frugal LNWR, would probably not.

 

 

Ian

[beast66606]

 

LMS? LNER surely!

 

 

I'm not sure all North British lines went to the LNER ...

 

I would think that most railways would have 3-way splitting home signals both before the facing crossover on the double track main line and also on the single track branch line.

 

Not necessarily, that makes the locking a lot more complicated.

 

These posts should also have small arms controlling access to the goods lines. Given these I do not think there need be a signal where you have your questionable signal.

 

Some companies used ground signals for main to yard movements, not sure any of the signals are questionable ?

 

Some railways (the over-signalled NER comes to mind) would have had calling-on arms below the main arms but others, such as the frugal LNWR, would probably not.

Ian

 

The LNWR were actually pretty liberal with signals on the running lines, they were not so generous with ground signals, but often over generous with main line signalling, frequently providing routing outer homes and in some instances even repeating the ground signal controlling the siding connections.

[micknich2003]

It is not quite true the NER was "Over signalled", as with other companies and especialy at large and complex instalations the so called multitude of signals was required to "Hold the Road". In many cases it was the later instalation of track circuits that enabled the signalling to be simplified and also at numerious location the removal of mechanical clearance bars. As for Calling On arms into terminal platforms, these as a general rule were only to be found at the larger stations, they were not a "Standard Issuie". Also, if you must have them, they always procceded the stop arm above. Mick Nicholson.

[ForestPines]

 

I'm not sure all North British lines went to the LNER ...

 

I'm pretty sure that they did. Are there *any* cases of a pre-Grouping company's network being split on Grouping at all?

[beast66606]

 

I'm pretty sure that they did. Are there *any* cases of a pre-Grouping company's network being split on Grouping at all?

 

I was merely highlighting the fact that the signals could be one of the "big 4" standard structures if required.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I was merely highlighting the fact that the signals could be one of the "big 4" standard structures if required.

Indeed in Scotland you could find signal structures from 3 of 4 of the 'Big Four' Companies/their regional successors - the LMS. the LNER, and the Western (Region) plus combinations thereof in various ways plus, as noted by Beast previously, a whole variety of Pre-Group signals including those from a number of different contractors.

[Andrew F]

Thanks for the replies chaps; more food for thought and facts I never knew. I've opted for the old Stevens invisible lattice posts that seemed in abundance over the Scottish region. Trawling through my books I've noticed the LMS tubular posts on virtually all routes in Scotland; BR adopted this signal as a standard ?. The typical LNER bracket with heavier gauge lattice post seems much rarer and I could only find pictures of examples at Fort William. I will attempt to scratchbuilt some NB brackets; they look fairly simple with just four diagonal supports. Does anyone know if the treads were cross or lengthways?

 

Mick. Admittedly my small station would probably only be served by units in reality and wouldn't warrant call ons but I'd like to operate loco-hauled trains and a pilot just for fun which will result in a unit entering an occupied platform.

 

I've amended my plan and you can probably gather it's not perfect and I don't know what I'm doing.....shunting mayhem!

I'm really not clear on the distinction between call on and shunt signals or rather whether a loco is released with a call on and then obeys shunt signals or can in fact be started with a shunt signal or if they are really needed at all in a certain situation.

 

 

When the roman alphabet is exhausted there's always the cyrillic ones .

Anyway, let me know what needs changing anyone, if you have the time or just to have a banter about signalling.

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[phil-b259]

I'm really not clear on the distinction between call on and shunt signals or rather whether a loco is released with a call on and then obeys shunt signals or can in fact be started with a shunt signal or if they are really needed at all in a certain situation.

 

The first thing to note is that in many cases, especially in later years when discs became more common for both types, shunt and calling on signals could end up looking very similar and so it is easy to confuse them. However as far as signalling principles are concerned both are treated as separate items with distinct roles and relate to different classes of route.

 

Basically a call on signal indicates to a driver that that he is being signalled into a platform which is already occupied and he should approach cautiously. Thus it is only found on the approach to platforms where permissive working of passenger trains (two trains in the same section of track) has been authorised. Any driver getting a proceed from a call on signal can be sure that the route into the platform has been set in its entirety i.e. any shunt signals between the calling on arm and the platform pertaining to his route will be showing a proceed (just as they would if he were entering an unoccupied platform using the main signal arm). This is because fundamentally the only difference between a main class route and a call on class route is the presence of a train in the platform, otherwise it still runs from main signal to main signal (a buffer stop counts as a main signal in terminus stations). Hence with reference to your diagram the call on signals are the smaller arms on the bracket indicated with the pink line and the single post opposite it.

 

Shunt class routes on the other hand run from shunt signal to shunt signal until they get to either a standalone main running signal, buffer stop or a limit of shunt sign. Furthermore shunt signals do not indicate the line ahead is clear of trains - thats the job of main signal arms - nor do they indicate in cases of goods yards that all points are set correctly - so drivers must proceed cautiously and be prepared to stop short of an obstruction or at the next shunt signal if it has not been cleared. As said before a shunt signal can look very much like a call on signal in terms of size and location, for example the small arms below the main ones on your platform signals are shunt signals (needed for moves into siding F) and as such having exactly the same meaning as the dics featured elsewhere

 

Hope this helps

[The Stationmaster]

Right - mid 1960s gives us a useful clue about what the signalling will look like and some relative functions of subsidiary and shunt signals 9where meanings have undergone change over the years. Subsidiary signal (i.e little arms mounted below normal running signal arms) can have a variety of meanings and even they have changed a bit over the years so I'll stick to the 1960s because that is where your layout is.

 

So let's look first at the subsidiary arm and take a lead from an ex NBR piece of railway in Scotland in the 1960s where many (all?) sub arms were actually no more than miniature versions of the running arms and coloured in the same way, i.e red arm with a vertical white stripe near the outer end. In Scotland these seem to have been used in the same way as they were on some other Regions with the same difficulty of describing them and the 1930s edition of the Rule Book had got round this by using the catch all term 'Draw Ahead Signal' which in practice meant different things at different places because it could function as a Calling-On signal or a shunting signal, or either

 

So if you make all your sub arms to that colour scheme (instead of horizontal red & white stripes) what you will have is a subsidiary signal with two potential meanings and what it actually means for any particular movement will depend on what that movement is. So on you innermost Home Signals the arm could either be cleared for a Call-On for a train or it could be cleared as a shunting signal for a shunt. However for your platform Starting Signals there is no need for a Call-On train movement so exactly the same sort of arm in the same sort of subsidiary position is functioning only as a shunting signal. I hope that makes sense - it clearly had taken the Railway Companies several years to get to that position after the Grouping and was probably a compromise due to numerous different types of subs left over from Pre-Group days.

 

So you don't need a disc coming out of platform 1. Your subs from Platforms 1-3 presumably read to Siding F but you do need a two arm signal - one arm to main line, the other to Siding F. The double disc going towards Platform 2 actually has 3 routes so should be a triple and I'm not entirely sure how a train movement could enter any of the sidings as you have no incoming signals reading towards them (the subs below your innermost Home Signals can only read to the same place as the running arms).

 

Hope that lot has helped without injecting too much confusion.

[Andrew F]

First, thank you Phil and Mike. The pennies are beginning to drop I think/hope regarding the miniature subsidiaries.

 

I see my error with the sidings. Only the platforms have signals and a train would have to pass that signal to gain access to a siding.

Mike, you say that there needs to be two arms on the platform starter signals to make siding F accessible as the subs only pertain to the same route as the home on the doll . If I replaced the miniature subsidiaries with full size home signals, would that give access to siding F from all platforms and likewise, adding extra homes to the left and right dolls on the in-coming 3 doll signal would give access to both sets of sidings or am I still cutting the jigsaw pieces to fit ?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[beast66606]

Basically a call on signal indicates to a driver that that he is being signalled into a platform which is already occupied and he should approach cautiously. Thus it is only found on the approach to platforms where permissive working of passenger trains (two trains in the same section of track) has been authorised.

 

We need to be careful using modern thinking in older layouts, plenty of locations had call ons for shunt moves, normally locomotives onto trains, which were not covered by permissive regs, that may be true in modern terms but it certainly wasn't true in the 1960s

 

 

Andy F,

 

time to redraw/amend and repost your plan so we can see where you are up to,

[The Stationmaster]

I see my error with the sidings. Only the platforms have signals and a train would have to pass that signal to gain access to a siding.

Mike, you say that there needs to be two arms on the platform starter signals to make siding F accessible as the subs only pertain to the same route as the home on the doll . If I replaced the miniature subsidiaries with full size home signals, would that give access to siding F from all platforms and likewise, adding extra homes to the left and right dolls on the in-coming 3 doll signal would give access to both sets of sidings or am I still cutting the jigsaw pieces to fit ?

Andy

 

Big apology due here Andy as part of a sentence in my reply seems to have got lost (which is probably even worse than losing the entire correction I just typed and which then vanished).

 

This sentence contains an error of omission in that instead of reading - Your subs from Platforms 1-3 presumably read to Siding F but you do need a two arm signal - one arm to main line, the other to Siding F

 

It should have read

 

Your subs from Platforms 1-3 presumably read to Siding F but you do need a two arm signal - one arm to main line, the other to Siding F from Siding E.

 

So what you will then have is the subs reading to F from all of those signals and the running arm (the big one at the top) reading to the next running signal in advance) and it would also be used for engine etc moves towards that signal the logic being that in that direction they are very unlikely to be moving towards an occupied Signal Section.

The signal from E might be sub below running arm but it might instead be two short (same size as sub) arms - the difference would depend on purpose, i.e. if trains started as part of regular working from E there would be a running arm but if that did not happen on a regular basis then the small arm would be used instead, top one reading to Siding F and the lower one reading to the running signal in advance (yes - that is correct, what has happened is that where the two arms are of equal status the standard 'top to bottom = left to rights splitting signal ruling applies).

 

I hope that makes things clearer and apologies for my previous omission. :blush:

[micknich2003]

 

We need to be careful using modern thinking in older layouts, plenty of locations had call ons for shunt moves, normally locomotives onto trains, which were not covered by permissive regs, that may be true in modern terms but it certainly wasn't true in the 1960s

 

Indeed we do, for example the North Eastern used Calling On signals to draw a train into a CLEAR platform at a through station. A typical example being Botanic Gardens Hull. The reason being the level crossing gates were open to road traffic, and although protected by a fixed signal in the usual way a CO arm was provided under the Outer Home. I have purposly chosen Botanic as an example as the location/model is known to many on here. Mick.

Andy F,

 

time to redraw/amend and repost your plan so we can see where you are up to,

[phil-b259]

 

We need to be careful using modern thinking in older layouts, plenty of locations had call ons for shunt moves, normally locomotives onto trains, which were not covered by permissive regs, that may be true in modern terms but it certainly wasn't true in the 1960s

 

 

But to be pedantic if the move is a shunt class move then the signal authorising that particular move must be a shunt signal at that moment in time. Equally if its a call on move made from the same signal logically then the signal becomes a call on signal for that particular move. As Mike has said earlier in this topic, call on and shunt arms could very well look the same and by logical extension if provided with some form of indicator, could in fact be the same arm i.e. just as a modern subnsidurary signal can be both a shunt and a call on depending on the destination. That said you are right to point out how my thoughts are based on current practice and the further back you go the less clear things become.

 

 

Indeed we do, for example the North Eastern used Calling On signals to draw a train into a CLEAR platform at a through station. A typical example being Botanic Gardens Hull. The reason being the level crossing gates were open to road traffic, and although protected by a fixed signal in the usual way a CO arm was provided under the Outer Home. I have purposly chosen Botanic as an example as the location/model is known to many on here.

 

 

Interesting. I admit to not being particularly familiar with Botanic Gardens and I would have thought that in the situation you describe, the signalman would have applied rule 39a (approch control as used in modern signaling where reducded overlaps occur) therby slowing the train down and also giving an indication to the driver he should proceed cautiously. I admit this does assume a main signal was located between the crossing and the platform though because if it wasn't then you could argue the gates represented an obstruction within the section between two main signals (i.e. just like a train) and a call on would be approprate.

[micknich2003]

To clarify, attached a sketch of the situation at Botanic Gardens. As I mentioned earlier, Botanic was not uniquie it was just the North Eastern's way of doing things. To best of my knowledge the LNER had removed all such Calling On signals by about 1938.

The lower sketch shows the Hull & Barnsley's way of doing things, here the arms instructed the driver to draw forward to the signalbox for instructions. See also my current piece "Hull & Barnsley Bracket signal. Mick.

[beast66606]

 

But to be pedantic if the move is a shunt class move then the signal authorising that particular move must be a shunt signal at that moment in time. Equally if its a call on move made from the same signal logically then the signal becomes a call on signal for that particular move. As Mike has said earlier in this topic, call on and shunt arms could very well look the same and by logical extension if provided with some form of indicator, could in fact be the same arm i.e. just as a modern subnsidurary signal can be both a shunt and a call on depending on the destination. That said you are right to point out how my thoughts are based on current practice and the further back you go the less clear things become.

 

 

Certainly on the LM, Call-ons had a horizontal white stripe whereas Shunt (aheads) (or Warnings) had a vertical ? - call ons display a 'C', Shunts (ahead) display a 'S' and Warnings display a 'W' next to the lamp - this is not the case on modern signals, which is why care has to be taken over the period and the points raised.

 

A Shunt ahead is not the same as a miniature arm reading into a siding, which is why the 'S' was displayed.

[micknich2003]

I admit this does assume a main signal was located between the crossing and the platform though because if it wasn't then you could argue the gates represented an obstruction within the section between two main signals (i.e. just like a train) and a call on would be approprate.

Level crossing gates are not an obstruction. At all the NE locations there were inner and outer Homes/signals as per my sketch. Mick.

[The Stationmaster]

I admit this does assume a main signal was located between the crossing and the platform though because if it wasn't then you could argue the gates represented an obstruction within the section between two main signals (i.e. just like a train) and a call on would be approprate.

Level crossing gates are not an obstruction. At all the NE locations there were inner and outer Homes/signals as per my sketch. Mick.

Absolutely true Mick although I do wonder about the locking of the running signals with the crossing gates - would that have allowed the signal in rear of the platform to be pulled off with the gates open to road traffic (I know that shouldn't be the case, but .........) or was there some 'history' somewhere on the NER of a train and gates unintended interface?