Signalling for new club layout

[43110andyb]

We are hoping to crack on with a new layout in the new year, set in the mid 80's no particular region as such. After the track plan was agreed I set about the signalling. I think/hope I have covered every thing but a few expert eyes would be appreciated. (the track plan runs from left 'above' to right 'below') Sorry please see diagram further down post as I have posted wrong one

[Foulounoux]

I think you are missing a feather from the DF to DS.

 

Colin

[PaulRhB]

I would think that the 4 aspect on the Down fast would have a feather to take you to the slow line for flexibility and probably a calling on for the sidings.

 

The calling ons should be 3 light sub signals on the arr/dep roads and would be for access to the headshunt only as you wouldn't have permissive working and calling ons for the Up lines.

 

Possible that you would have ground signals on the crossovers on the Up lines to bring you back to the sidings on the Down side?

[flyingsignalman]

I've just had a quick look and the signalling looks OK but the running signals would be either all 3 aspect or all 4 aspect.

The only other thing I can add is that you could put in a couple of ground position light signals (gpls) one reading from the up slow to the down side and one reading from the up fast to the down side (they would be positioned near the down fast and slow signals and have route indicators for four routes); also gpls could be provided for moves from the down fast and slow lines to the up fast and slow lines (both having a route indicator for the up fast and slow), they would be near signals 6 & 8.

[43110andyb]

Sorry guys. Just realised I posted the unfinished diagram. Does this make more sense.

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry guys. Just realised I posted the unfinished diagram. Does this make more sense.

 

That is quite ok for mid 1980s as the requirement for either 'all 3 aspect' or 'all 4 aspect' was not about then (or if it was it certainly was not always applied).

 

The addition, or otherwise, of route indicators to gpls was still very much a matter of regional practice even in the 1980s (as indeed were signal numbering conventions and such humdrum things as the colour signal posts were painted ).

[43110andyb]

I've just had a quick look and the signalling looks OK but the running signals would be either all 3 aspect or all 4 aspect.

The only other thing I can add is that you could put in a couple of ground position light signals (gpls) one reading from the up slow to the down side and one reading from the up fast to the down side (they would be positioned near the down fast and slow signals and have route indicators for four routes); also gpls could be provided for moves from the down fast and slow lines to the up fast and slow lines (both having a route indicator for the up fast and slow), they would be near signals 6 & 8.

Thanks for the input. I will have a look at putting in some GPL's (I will see if the guys at the club want to have that option) As for 3/4 aspect I belive that it would be ok. We have them on our area between northallerton and york.

[beast66606]

Sorry guys. Just realised I posted the unfinished diagram. Does this make more sense.

 

it's unlikely the 3 and 4 aspect signal positions would be identical - it would look better if you make them either all 3 or all 4 aspect.

As has been mentioned its highly likely there would be ground signals for shunt moves.

 

Remember when you plant them that the signals go on the left of their running line, you will probably need some bracket structures.

 

hth

[The Stationmaster]

it's unlikely the 3 and 4 aspect signal positions would be identical - it would look better if you make them either all 3 or all 4 aspect.

 

Would you like photographs or drawings of such an arrangment

[43110andyb]

it's unlikely the 3 and 4 aspect signal positions would be identical - it would look better if you make them either all 3 or all 4 aspect.

As has been mentioned its highly likely there would be ground signals for shunt moves.

 

Remember when you plant them that the signals go on the left of their running line, you will probably need some bracket structures.

 

hth

 

 

Thanks I think we will use some gantries as suggested. I dont know about the rest of the country but it is the norm up here to have the 3/4 mix on slow/fasts and they are usually sited together.

[robrailltd]

not being funny but from a drivers point of viewit is possible to get 3 and 4 aspect signlas along side each other as shown in the diagram right to this day.

[Grovenor]

Three aspect on the slow lines alongside 4 aspect on the fast was an accepted practice but it was strongly recommended that fast and slow signals were co-located to avoid risk of misreading which line they were for. This effectively meant that the speed on the slow was limited by the braking distance available from the double yellows on the fast, since the signal spacing would be designed for the required running speeds on the fast lines. If you wanted higher speeds than this on the slow then the signalling had to change to 4 aspect to keep the signals co-located

Regards

Keith

[Grovenor]

Three aspect on the slow lines alongside 4 aspect on the fast was an accepted practice but it was strongly recommended that fast and slow signals were co-located to avoid risk of misreading which line they were for. This effectively meant that the speed on the slow was limited by the braking distance available from the double yellows on the fast, since the signal spacing would be designed for the required running speeds on the fast lines. If you wanted higher speeds than this on the slow then the signalling had to change to 4 aspect to keep the signals co-located

Regards

Keith

[beast66606]

not being funny but from a drivers point of viewit is possible to get 3 and 4 aspect signlas along side each other as shown in the diagram right to this day.

 

Yes but not on all lines and as the requirement was for "no particular region" I suggested keeping the same as it's the most generic.

[43110andyb]

Very good point about the regionless signalling. I guess I am North East practice biased about the signalling of the layout. I sometimes think 'go with what you know' policy may be best. I think the vast differences between systems and practices over the regions are fascinating and the learning curve is steep. Thanks again for the input.

[Glorious NSE]

Somewhat of a personal preference, and depending very much on what moves you want to be able to do I would add, some of this is as already suggested...

 

US - GPL to back onto DF, DS or yard

UF - GPL to back onto DF, DS or yard

DF - 4 aspect signal & feather allowing you to depart wrong road from the DF platform to the US or UF

 

That would let you terminate an MU at your station from either direction if needed, an Up terminating move would shunt south and then crossover back into the DF (it could even lay over on the US line if you need to clear traffic) - terminating a down train would just involve reversing it in the platform.

[43110andyb]

Here is the latest version. Hot off the press!

[beast66606]

For "regionless" signalling I would go for all 3-aspect, this being the most common.

 

Only a couple of comments ...

 

you need an SAI board for the group of sidings at the bottom and one reading back off the headshunt

 

I would also add the signal suggested by Martyn to the end of the DF platform for wrong road departures.

[phil-b259]

it's unlikely the 3 and 4 aspect signal positions would be identical - it would look better if you make them either all 3 or all 4 aspect.

As has been mentioned its highly likely there would be ground signals for shunt moves.

 

Remember when you plant them that the signals go on the left of their running line, you will probably need some bracket structures.

 

hth

 

On a trip to York last year I noted that on the four track bits of the ECML outside of London the slow lines had three aspects while the fasts had four. All signals were however all spaced an equal distance apart regardless of the number of aspects. This makes sense however as the fasts were cleared for 125mph while the slows had a maximum of 100mph. Thus the logical conclusion that the extra top yellow had to be provided to obtain the extra braking distance on the fasts and that a driver getting a double yellow should reduce his speed to about 100mph at the next signal. Thus trains on both the fast or the slow lines would be traveling at the same speed when encountering a single yellow and would be able to stop at the next signal.

[robrailltd]

you are correct about the double yellow increasing braking distance for higher speeds.

[The Black Hat]

Id hate to quibble, but if the box on the left is a platform, then trains would have to stop on both fast lines in order to serve the station. This surely would hold things up. While I know stations down south have all four lines served Im not sure if the Darlington group is after something looking more northern. Thirsk station has platforms serving just the slow lines. I dont know if the intention is to hammer through on the fast lines, or whether it might not be the main line proper, but stopping on the fast makes me think that just freight uses the slow, as slow passenger trains would have to use the fast line to stop at the station. However way you want to run it, I think it needs more platforms, the platforms moving, or leaving as they are and interesting moves resulting from it.

 

In any case, Im going to follow this thread closely, knowing how well the Darlington club are at organising layouts and building them. This is certainly a good project to watch and learn from.

 

Enjoy and best of luck....

[The Black Hat]

For "regionless" signalling I would go for all 3-aspect, this being the most common.

 

Only a couple of comments ...

 

you need an SAI board for the group of sidings at the bottom and one reading back off the headshunt

 

I would also add the signal suggested by Martyn to the end of the DF platform for wrong road departures.

 

 

Wouldnt all the down lines have a signal controlling movements in case of bi-directional working. Im assuming that there is some given the loop and sidings at the bottom suggest that trains can work in either direction to use the loop. It would make sence that lines through the station are bi-directionally controlled so they could get to the ladder of points to take them to the correct lines and then conventional signalling from there. Seems to look more and more like Leicester when I think of it, with trains accesing the station, and freight looped around the side using bi-direction for all lines near the station, then conventional working following the junction after the station. Means its flexible, in case of some workings needing to move, but largely your plan for up and down remains the same.

[beast66606]

Id hate to quibble, but if the box on the left is a platform, then trains would have to stop on both fast lines in order to serve the station. This surely would hold things up. While I know stations down south have all four lines served Im not sure if the Darlington group is after something looking more northern. Thirsk station has platforms serving just the slow lines. I dont know if the intention is to hammer through on the fast lines, or whether it might not be the main line proper, but stopping on the fast makes me think that just freight uses the slow, as slow passenger trains would have to use the fast line to stop at the station. However way you want to run it, I think it needs more platforms, the platforms moving, or leaving as they are and interesting moves resulting from it.

 

I'd picked up on the platforms on the fast lines only, but to be honest I'm getting a bit fed up with people who have missed the "not specific to any region" part of the original statement and are picking on my comments regarding making it all 3 or all 4 aspect (although I think the requirement has now moved to have a more "North Eastern" bias)

the simple answer to the issue is to swap the fast with the slows ... :icon_idea:

 

Wouldnt all the down lines have a signal controlling movements in case of bi-directional working.

 

Not necessarily, it's not full bi-di, it's simply providing a departure signal for the up direction, off the down platform

 

Im assuming that there is some given the loop and sidings at the bottom suggest that trains can work in either direction to use the loop.

 

The loop is within the siding area and would not be under the control of the PSB.

 

It would make sence that lines through the station are bi-directionally controlled so they could get to the ladder of points to take them to the correct lines and then conventional signalling from there.

 

See above and below !

 

Seems to look more and more like Leicester when I think of it, with trains accesing the station, and freight looped around the side using bi-direction for all lines near the station, then conventional working following the junction after the station. Means its flexible, in case of some workings needing to move, but largely your plan for up and down remains the same.

 

bi-directional working is only provided where there is a need, all that extra route locking and physical signals cost money, Leicester has terminating services which may need to sit in through platforms (don't know the track plan at Leicester, last time I was there I photographed the Midland signal on the good line !!) so there is a requirement for trains to be routed around each other but a "plain" station would probably not be provided with full bi-di signalling, just the odd signal to facilitate reversal.

[43110andyb]

Going to club tonight so might iron out a few points that can answer some of the operational questions. I will post as soon as the "board" has decided.

[The Black Hat]

I'd picked up on the platforms on the fast lines only, but to be honest I'm getting a bit fed up with people who have missed the "not specific to any region" part of the original statement and are picking on my comments regarding making it all 3 or all 4 aspect (although I think the requirement has now moved to have a more "North Eastern" bias)

the simple answer to the issue is to swap the fast with the slows ...

 

I'm not picking on your comments - in fact having good discussion is something thats got to be a good thing! The whole way I was thinking was merely to think of ideas the Darlington club lads might use. I was thinking of east coast ideas, where the lines have four lines and platforms on each, like at Finsbury Park I think and trains still scream through, or places like Hatfield where the platforms are just on the slow. Thirsk is like the latter being up north but they are slewed around a bridge too, and do have sidings nearby.

 

Any comments that I've made about it being more north eastern was purely on the basis of the fact that the ones building the layout are from Darlington! Not far from me, hailing from Bishop Auckland.

 

 

The loop is within the siding area and would not be under the control of the PSB.

 

Well see Im learning something new from this too. Although what threw me was the fact that at one end there are two signals on the slow passing line / loop area that is also connected to the sidings. If there are signals at one end, why not t'other? Although if this whole, bi-directional is sorted then, that would answer whats going to have to go where. One thing I might ask - which could help me planning my layout is that are ground frame signals easier to wire up, or even good accurate ones available, compared with working colour light signals?

 

 

bi-directional working is only provided where there is a need, all that extra route locking and physical signals cost money, Leicester has terminating services which may need to sit in through platforms (don't know the track plan at Leicester, last time I was there I photographed the Midland signal on the good line !!) so there is a requirement for trains to be routed around each other but a "plain" station would probably not be provided with full bi-di signalling, just the odd signal to facilitate reversal.

 

Leicester was were I was at University from 2001 to 2004. The whole idea of having four platforms for the station on this layout made me think that the operation could be similar, but yes as you suggested, it was bi directional due to junctions north and south of the station meaning there was flexibility to cross trains to other platforms and allow for terminating trains to come, stand and move out again. The station has an avoiding line whereby freight passes round the side of the station and can get further south before having to stand awaiting a path onto the mainline proper and avoid the congestion that Leicester often created, but that too is similar to having a loop and sidings near the station as Leicester has sidings for tampers and engineers stuff, which admitadly comes from the line off platform 4.

 

Still, all this I find interesting, but profess I dont know everything, just trying to learn and offer suggestions of my own that might help - sometimes tinged with some good and proper Northern Bias!