Dapol working signals review

[Tim Hale]

Hi,

 

I have just read Dave's mention of a Southern 'ladder' type, may I ask from which SR constituent company does this originate, I have never heard of this type.

 

Thank you

 

Tim

[Penlan]

And the early pattern one at that - not many of that sort left around by the late 1960s let alone later. .....

I told you I'm getting old !

I can't remember where exactly it's from, but I believe it's from one of the long defunct branches in Wales.

It was left to me in a Will, around 1975. I have got the plate for the front of it somewhere, with it's Number on, no markings inside the case though, but the workmanship is a joy, and very simple.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Hi,

 

I have just read Dave's mention of a Southern 'ladder' type, may I ask from which SR constituent company does this originate, I have never heard of this type.

 

Thank you

 

Tim

 

I think you will find that this is the "Rail Built" variety. To some, the spacers joining the two rails do make the post somewhat "ladder" looking.

In fact, it is possible to climb these posts using the joining spacers as "rungs". (But not really reccommended!)

[Alan Cairns]

I bought a GWR home signal to try it out, and was hugely impressed. (The one I bought didn't work properly, but was promptly replaced by Dapol via my local dealer - again very impressive). I took the working signal to my local n-gauge club, where it generated lots of interest. Thank you Dapol for a real first: I look forward to future products, especially the gantry.

To my problem. I want to work the signals on my layout using a Modratec interlocking frame, and I don't have the first idea how I'm going to wire this up. I could, of course, just place a push-to-make button below the lever, but this ain't really satisfying. Any suggestions, please?

[Tim Hale]

I think you will find that this is the "Rail Built" variety. To some, the spacers joining the two rails do make the post somewhat "ladder" looking.

In fact, it is possible to climb these posts using the joining spacers as "rungs". (But not really reccommended!)

 

It would have been nice to have received the courtesy of a response from Dapol.

 

Tim

[Mod4]

It would have been nice to have received the courtesy of a response from Dapol.

 

Tim

 

I am sure Dave will reply in due course, he is not on here 24/7 and might not yet have seen your previous post.

[DapolDave]

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry that you feel my response to a forum question has been tardy, i'll try to do better next time. You could of course have mailed me or PM'd me if you felt it a reply to a question that was answered in post 224 was needed quicker, i am quite approachable.

 

There were, it seems, lots of these 'ladder' (and they probably have a better name than that) type around and lmany still exist. In fact a few months back i was on the Seaton Tramway and saw 4 of these posts still in situ and not removed then the line was closed etc.

 

Regards

Dave

[beast66606]

There were, it seems, lots of these 'ladder' (and they probably have a better name than that) type around and lmany still exist. In fact a few months back i was on the Seaton Tramway and saw 4 of these posts still in situ and not removed then the line was closed etc.

 

Rail built as mentioned above Dave. Two pieces of rail, vertical, with spacers ?

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Hi Dave.

 

As the rail-built signals were made from rail that was already used for running on (An early example of the now in vogue Re-cycling.), and the scrap prices at the time were depressed by the amount of ex BR scrap being made available, it is not that surprising that many of these posts were not recovered at demolition.

 

A further example was left on the Kent & East Sussex Railway just outside Robertsbridge. (It had no ladder, but the lamp casing was still up there. This was the post that was climbed by using the spacers. I doubt I'd try that now I am older, but not that wiser!)

[Tim Hale]

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry that you feel my response to a forum question has been tardy, i'll try to do better next time. You could of course have mailed me or PM'd me if you felt it a reply to a question that was answered in post 224 was needed quicker, i am quite approachable.

 

There were, it seems, lots of these 'ladder' (and they probably have a better name than that) type around and lmany still exist. In fact a few months back i was on the Seaton Tramway and saw 4 of these posts still in situ and not removed then the line was closed etc.

 

Regards

Dave

Actually,Before I posted my request for clarification at Post 229, I did PM (twice) Dapol Dave on this subject and waited a couple of days but received no reply .

 

Therefore I feel that, politely asking for clarification on the forum is, under the circumstances, both appropriate and helpful to other modellers of the Southern railway who were perplexed by the reference to 'ladder' signals. In fact, when Dave had not responded, I had contacted Graham Muzzpratt for his 'take' on the term ladder and found another possible explanation -'lattice' possibly a spell checker error (the SR did use latticework signal extensively) but now, thanks to Dave's explanation, that was wrong.

 

Thank you for providing an explanation and thanks also to Sarah for solving the puzzle,I am sure that many Southern modellers will find the 'rail-built' SR signals to be most useful.Thanks also, to the two Mods for their help.

 

Tim

 

I am not sure what relevance this has to Post 224 as Stationmaster makes no mention of Southern signals, did you mean Post 225?.

[Tim Hale]

That is very odd, despite inserting spaces and returns at the appropriate places, the above text is one amorphous blob.

 

Tim

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Lattice Signal Posts.

 

I can see where that could have been mashed into "ladder".

 

The London & South Western Railway was one of the constituent parts of the Grouped Southern Railway, and they certainly used Lattice Posts.

 

I think most of the pre-grouping railways used Metal Lattice Posts, as they were lighter than wood posts, and less likely to rot without any surface sign (Dangerous!).

 

Some used reinforced concrete posts (as did some electricity companies, and some telegraph poles were concrete.) These were not solid, they had weight relieving holes, looking a bit ladder-ish.

 

I believe Rail-Built signals were a Southern Railway invention. Though it is possible the South Eastern & Chatham Railway may have thought about this?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Sarahagain

[Tim Hale]

I am very pleased that the Southern will not be left 'in the cold' and Dapol's efforts will be much appreciated.

 

Thanks to whoever sorted out the formatting of Post 234.

 

Tim

[DIRTY DIESEL]

Just a quick question before I open my newly arrived signals, both of my LMS home signals have a slight droopy does this correc it's self when they are wire up etc?

If you look at the one on Hattons web page it shows what I mean, where the one on Rails does nt droop.

 

Thanks

 

Stu

[sotars]

In post #15 Andy Y said that it was possible to drive the signals from Lenz LS150s.

 

The inputs on the LS150 have 3 connectors, + C (Common?) and -.

 

When yellow cables are connected to + and - the signal activates but then does not repond to the next change. How are the signals wired to work with the LS150s?

 

Thanks

Alex

Edited June 15, 2012 by sotars

[beast66606]

Just a quick question before I open my newly arrived signals, both of my LMS home signals have a slight droopy does this correc it's self when they are wire up etc?

If you look at the one on Hattons web page it shows what I mean, where the one on Rails does nt droop.

 

I guess it depends on how much it droops - I've seen prototypes with droopy arms.

 

(Not seen the signals in the flesh so can't comment if it corrects when power is applied, sorry)

 

 

Look at the one around the 25s mark.

[The Stationmaster]

Mine have just arrived from Cornwall so some initial impressions (4mm scale GW timber post variety) -

 

1. Packaging and instructions -

generally very good, the packaging is neat and fairly robust while not difficult to get into and the instructions are nice and clear. My only criticism of the instructions is that it might have been helpful to some many modellers to show how far from/near to the line the signal should be placed, something to perhaps bear in mind for any future re-write?

 

2. The Signals - appearance and construction only at this stage, no testing done as yet) -

For a mass produced product overall they are pretty impressive at first sight and the ladder - in particular - very much so (although the rung spacing looks rather underscale). Some of the detail is regrettably incorrect - the finial ball looks to be a bit underscale, the back blinder arrangement is not absolutely correct - with an extraneous piece added (albeit it serves an obvious purpose and it's difficult to see how that purpose could better be served, especially in a mass produced signal), and the spectacle plate (which isn't a plate in reality but was built up from steel angle on this pattern of arm) is a bit 'heavy' looking. There are 3 'ribs' right around the post which were not there on the prototype but two of them serve obvious assembly functions) and worst of all the white band (on the stop signal arm) and black chevron (on the distant arm are out of proportion and the chevron is misshapen); perhaps an opening here for someone in the transfer business? On the positive side the size of the arm (which I haven't measured) 'looks right' and the lamp case also looks to be right. (oh and there's an omission I haven't mentioned but I bet someone else will ;|) )

 

Crikey some of that lot sounds awful but let's look at the important positive aspects having had a moan about details (some of which are clearly unavoidable for mass production reasons). The critical thing is that the overall proportions - or definitely the overall impression of proportions - is top notch; the signal is obviously what it is meant to be and very recognisable as such. And in my view that is a tremendous plus because it looks right, albeit slightly let down by the colouring error(?) on the arm. A lot of what I have criticised above is minor and, if you wish, some of it can be corrected with a little (and I do mean little) work.

 

We must not overlook the basic fact that these are mass-produced signals offered at a reasonable price and and requiring very little work to install them on a layout and get them operational - and for that Dapol are to be commended. Would I buy another one - well I've bought three to start with and at the moment this pattern doesn't figure in any greater number in my plans but - testing etc still awaited - I reckon they're a pretty good answer to many a modeller's prayers and wishlist entries. I await the tubular steel post version with great interest because it is the real test of getting the overall proportions right.

 

And I only hope that modellers will be as good at getting these signals in the right places on their layouts as Dapol has been in making them.

[Stubby47]

Mike,

 

What are the correct distances for signals to be from the track ? Does it depend on type (Home / Distant) or company (GWR/ LMS) or line use (branch / main ) ??

 

Stu

[The Stationmaster]

Mike,

What are the correct distances for signals to be from the track ? Does it depend on type (Home / Distant) or company (GWR/ LMS) or line use (branch / main ) ??

Stu

Same(ish) question twice two days running in two different threads - but I did say same-ish, see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/57610-wrong-side-signals-possible-if-needed/page__fromsearch__1 Right Stu in the 1950 edition of the Requirements the normal minimum was 4ft 5.75ins from the nearest inside running edge of rail, but that was to the signal post or the ladder and ladders tended to be wider than signal posts. In certain circumstances where clearances were tight and there was difficulty in meeting the normal clearance requirements the figure could be reduced by 6ins - giving an absolute minimum of 18ins clearance between structure and vehicle bodywork (but don't forget the GWR had some wide coaching stock.

 

Looking at drawings with real numbers on them I can alas only find GWR details for bracket and gantry signals and they varied between 5ft 3ins and 6ft depending on the type of signal structure. However the final type of Reading 'ordinary' bracket design seems to have been standardised at 6ft. Straight post signals are probably a bit less but it's quite a long time since I erected one (an extra mural activity you will understand) but as it was 'wrong side' we had to allow for keeping the arm clear of loading gauge and I think we probably put it at 6ft.

[Guest Moria]

Answering here as well Mike Thanks for that. In my case, it's because of the size of the baseplate in N gauge that triggered the question. To get it 6' from the track is pretty much putting the edge of the baseplate alongside the sleepers, and so could be done without trimming it, especially allowing for the slightly narrower track gauge. That was my primary concern.. with a 14mm hole and a 20mm wide baseplate thats going to make it a nice flush fit with an accurately drilled hole for spacing. The 5'3" would need some thinning of the plate. It will be interesting to see, when brackets arrive, whether we still have the same size baseplate as there will need to be 2 mechs underneath.

 

I may trim the plate anyway, or at least try to mill a recess for it so as to get it level with the baseboard top so it vanishes into the surroundings some anyway (mindrill with a router/cutting bit or similar).. just need to be careful that close to the trackbed .

 

Obviously in 4mm theres a little more leeway.

 

I'm ordering a couple of these in 2mm today as a result of these threads, and will be interested to see when they arrive, whether the arms could be replaced with MSE arms if I really wanted to.. theres a couple of places where a completely non-standard arm may be just what I need, but we will see, certainly if not, I can still use the MSE circle or S for goods loop or shunting.

 

Regards

 

Graham

Edited June 15, 2012 by Moria

[Martin_R]

Lattice Signal Posts.

 

I can see where that could have been mashed into "ladder".

 

The London & South Western Railway was one of the constituent parts of the Grouped Southern Railway, and they certainly used Lattice Posts.

 

I think most of the pre-grouping railways used Metal Lattice Posts, as they were lighter than wood posts, and less likely to rot without any surface sign (Dangerous!).

 

Some used reinforced concrete posts (as did some electricity companies, and some telegraph poles were concrete.) These were not solid, they had weight relieving holes, looking a bit ladder-ish.

 

I believe Rail-Built signals were a Southern Railway invention. Though it is possible the South Eastern & Chatham Railway may have thought about this?

 

There is a very good picture showing both lattice post and ladder type signals at Newport IOW on page 62 of the Ian Allan book 'On Southern Lines' by Roy Hobbs.

[gwrrob]

Sorry if its already been asked but whats the overall height of the 4mm version from baseplate to top of finial ?

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry if its already been asked but whats the overall height of the 4mm version from baseplate to top of finial ?

I make it 110mm Rob (from the underside of the baseplate - the arm centre line is 98mm from the underside of the baseplate).

So I think you'll have to put it on the station side of the bridge

Edited June 15, 2012 by The Stationmaster

[gwrrob]

I make it 110mm Rob (from the underside of the baseplate - the arm centre line is 98mm from the underside of the baseplate).

So I think you'll have to put it on the station side of the bridge

 

Thanks Mike and Yupp !

[DIRTY DIESEL]

 

 

I guess it depends on how much it droops - I've seen prototypes with droopy arms.

 

(Not seen the signals in the flesh so can't comment if it corrects when power is applied, sorry

Look at the one around the 25s mark.

 

Thanks Beast,

I'v now wired it up and is working and you can't really see the droop, as you say it's like the real thing.

Cheers

Stu