Signalling Salcombe Harbour?

[Highlandman]

For some while now I have been running a thread on my layout Salcombe Harbour to share my successes and errors with others, and to learn from them. All the track is down but before I ballast it I would like to at least get some of the signalling done and in place. I have made a start on a simple advanced starter but I also need to make some more complicated brackets as you will see from the track diagram below.

 

 

I would welcome any comments or if you think I should add or remove any signals from the plan. Unfortunately I cannot change any of the track design as this is already fixed.

 

Below are some pictures of the advanced starter so far completed. Who said building 4mm signals was good for 50 year old eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

[Highlandman]

I forgot to mention the green numbers in the plan are the turnout switches and the red circled numbers ar for the Kadee uncouplers.

[Grovenor]

Signals look pretty fair to me, some issues with the green numbers however, the main should really be trapped from the loop , maybe its to late for that but at least you can trap the main from the sidings by making 5 and 8 a crossover and locking it normal except when 9 is reverse, ie 8 released by 9. The shunt signal for leaving the sidings should then be a yellow one at the toes of 5. Also the trap on the quayside, 3, should work as a crossover with 7.

Regards

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

The track layout poses one or two problems because of the lack of trap points as already noted by Grovenor. While I understand the period is BR I presume it is 1950s or at latest very early 1960s which suggests to me basically unaltered signalling from pre-war (was there ever a major layout update or change in your scenario for the line because that is when the style of signalling would have been established if it was in, say, the 1930s?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that the GW/BR(W) would have simple starters on the platform and an advanced starter (with bracket goods signal to branch) located by the level crossing. But that might depend how close the level crossing is to the throat pointwork.

[The Stationmaster]

I think that the GW/BR(W) would have simple starters on the platform and an advanced starter (with bracket goods signal to branch) located by the level crossing. But that might depend how close the level crossing is to the throat pointwork.

That is much more likely in this situation. But I'm not going to make any major comments as yet as I'm still a bit sparse on what is being aimed at on the layout until my questions are answered but the platform starting signals would not have been in the form shown and a subsidiary signal wouldn't be used to read to the harbour branch. If bracketed at all the platform starters might have been on a balanced bracket although the GWR didn't make much use of those and in any case the dolls would have the arms at equal elevation. Not really possible to reliably answer on the signal reading to the branch until more is known about the date modelled/history of the location.

[Highlandman]

Thank you everyone for looking at my thread and replying.

 

Signals look pretty fair to me, some issues with the green numbers however, the main should really be trapped from the loop , maybe its to late for that but at least you can trap the main from the sidings by making 5 and 8 a crossover and locking it normal except when 9 is reverse, ie 8 released by 9. The shunt signal for leaving the sidings should then be a yellow one at the toes of 5. Also the trap on the quayside, 3, should work as a crossover with 7.

Regards

Keith

 

5 and 4 are a double switch and I presumed the yard could be shunted by hand while protecting the main and then using the ground signal to release the train/loco on to the main. The trap on the quay side can still be made to operate as a cross over by rewiring the switch on the panel.

 

I'm not sure if the first box diagram was accurate so here is an updated version.

 

 

Below is the paln I am working to.

 

 

The track layout poses one or two problems because of the lack of trap points as already noted by Grovenor. While I understand the period is BR I presume it is 1950s or at latest very early 1960s which suggests to me basically unaltered signalling from pre-war (was there ever a major layout update or change in your scenario for the line because that is when the style of signalling would have been established if it was in, say, the 1930s?

 

The layout is set in the last days of steam and introduction of diesels during the early to mid sixties. My son want to be able to run more diesels so I ws hoping to extend that period to the late seventies early eighties, before semaphore signalling was removed from the West Country.

 

The branch is as built by the GWR with the original quay road beside the bay platform, but during WWII the harbour branch was added to the established quay round the corner to help with the war effort. Parts of the layout were resignalled because of this new branch and life expired wooden post signals were replaced throughout the latter years when needed. The original quay siding was used for fish and general merchandise from ship to shore. The new harbour branch would serve exisiting warehouses further up the inlet, timber, wool, cider and chandlers being some of the businesses operating from the quayside. During the war this was enlarged to handle troop ships for the D-Day landings and extra traffic from the brick works further along the Yealmpton Branch.

 

I think that the GW/BR(W) would have simple starters on the platform and an advanced starter (with bracket goods signal to branch) located by the level crossing. But that might depend how close the level crossing is to the throat pointwork.

 

The level crossing is approximately 3 feet from the platform ends and about 2-3inches from the turnout leading to the bay and platform.

 

That is much more likely in this situation. But I'm not going to make any major comments as yet as I'm still a bit sparse on what is being aimed at on the layout until my questions are answered but the platform starting signals would not have been in the form shown and a subsidiary signal wouldn't be used to read to the harbour branch. If bracketed at all the platform starters might have been on a balanced bracket although the GWR didn't make much use of those and in any case the dolls would have the arms at equal elevation. Not really possible to reliably answer on the signal reading to the branch until more is known about the date modelled/history of the location.

 

Many thanks Stationmaster for looking at this thread. I have read your posts about the different types of Western Region Signals with great interest. I hope the brief history above is helpful as up to now I hadn't really padded out or put down in writing what I had swirling around in that void I call my mind.

[Grovenor]

5 and 4 are a double switch

Logically that makes no difference, 4(or 5)# and 8 can still be a crossover, you have to set both normal to protect the main and reverse to go in or out.

# On the latest plan its not clear which number refers to which end of the double slip.

Now its more apparent what the harbour branch consists of I would see it worked as a siding rather than a branch and give it a trap point and shunt signals in and out. However Stationmaster is much more knowledgeable on detailed GW matters than I am.

Regards

Keith

[Highlandman]

I have had a play around with the signal plan and adjusted some of the types and placing.

 

 

I have made the main and bay starter individual signals and placed a bracketed advanced starter just short of the crossing. This shows a 4ft arm for the main and the smaller 3ft arm for the harbour. This signal would be about 3ft away from the starters at the platform ends.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not 100% sure but I think the bracket signal to the quay branch/siding would be to the left of the level crossing, the crossing being protected by the platform starters. It makes interlocking simpler.

[The Stationmaster]

All duly understood now Andy - and basically straightforward although the level crossing is a bit of a nuisance so I will in some respects ignore its presence from asignalling viewpoint (just like the real railway would have because I suspect we might not be looking at a public road but a private road to the quay - albeit with 'regular' level crossing gates - but not worrying too much about it being blocked by shunting moves and stationary trains etc).

 

Adding the new harbour connection incidentally is no problem signalling etc wise - the lever frame would simply have been extended at the right hand end by the addition of 5 extra levers which might have been possible without extending the structure as the original from would only have had no more than 21 levers.

 

The signals will also be very straightforward although some featutres will depend on exactly the period you want to portray - assuming you want to do it exactly. For example the signal protecting, and reading into, the 'new' harbour connection would logically be of the pattern that was being erected in the year that connection was installed (i.e. the first pattern of tubular steel bracket structure) and that would have lasted until closure, some of them lasted into the 1990s and I think there are still a few about now. But for simplicity/availability you might chose to use the later, and far more common, style of tubular steel bracket - and most folk won't know the difference unless they're into reading the right books or RMweb . Equally it should have the right pattern of pressed steel arms for the date when it was erected and I see you've got those among the ones you have painted - they're the ones with the small ridge on the top and bottom edge at the front.

 

The only potential area of awkwardness is the Inner Home Signal - which will stand at the toe of the points you have numbered as 9. Here you have a variety of choices depending as much as anything else on how you would like things to look as there are a couple of likely variants pre-tubular steel post (and possibly a third - all being right!!) and two possible variants, with a subvariant of each, once the signal had been renewed in tubular steel format. I think the most likely tubular steel form would have taken the form of a single post with one running arm and a GWR style route indicator plus a double ground disc co-located at the foot of the signal. If more extensive alterations were being made then a Calling On Arm would have been added but this would have been unlikely during wartime and to do it subsequently would have involved substantial locking alterations which I think would unlikely as they would require 2 additional levers (which would have been in the original frame as spaces but no doubt in the wrong place - hence the big alteration. The alternative to the route indicator is a bracket signal but I would think it unlikely in such a situation.

 

And that is it. I shall now - sometime today - alter the part drawn sketch to include the level crossing and alter to a more representative appearance the position of the original quay and bay platform connections. And you can get on with two nice and plain single post signals with just the one arm each as your platform starting signals (and possibly a third as your Home Signal (if there's room for it on the hidden sidings side of the 'new' harbour connection. So any comments time for you and then i can finish the sketch.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not 100% sure but I think the bracket signal to the quay branch/siding would be to the left of the level crossing, the crossing being protected by the platform starters. It makes interlocking simpler.

It would be at the toe of the points - and thus on that side of the level crossing - but it wouldn't make any difference to the interlocking (pulling off the signals would still lock the gates and vice versa and in this situation I suspect all the other signals reading towards the crossing would lock it and vice versa notwithstanding the nature of the crossing). It will also look better scenically by the point toe and thus clear of the Inner Home Signal reading in the opposite direction which would be at the toe of the point end numbered 9.

[Highlandman]

Many thanks for you reply Mike. This is how I understand it so far.

 

 

Running signals

 

1: Starter for platform

2: Starter for Bay

3: Advanced Starter to Main

4: Advanced Starter to branch

5: Home

6: Inner home with route indicator. Would the routes shown just be to Main & Bay? If my skills are not good enough to get a working route indicator would a bracket be feasible?

 

Ground Signals

 

a: Protecting exit from quay

b: Protecting exit from loop

c: Protecting exit from yard (rest of yard is hand signalled and operated by the shunter)

d: Protecting exit from branch

e & f I presume signals route into the loop and the yard

 

I have a couple of question if you don't mind. Would the Advanced Starter 3&4 still be on the right of the crossing or moved to the toe of point 10, as the two starters and ground signals a,b & c would protect the crossing? I envisage longer passenger trains running round and then pushing back beyond the crossover (1) so all carriages fit the platform. I know the ground frame would have to have a facing point lock installed but would the crossover need ground signals to protect it.

 

Once again many thanks for helping those of us uneducated in the ways of signalling. It doesn't matter how may good books you read it's always great to get info from the horses mouth , so to speak.

 

[EDIT] Seems I have answered my own question regarding the advanced starter. That will teach me not read all posts clearly as regards your post #12 and the signal being at the toe of point #10

[Grovenor]

I think this is closer to the state of play.

Regards

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

Many thanks for you reply Mike. This is how I understand it so far.

 

 

Running signals

 

1: Starter for platform

2: Starter for Bay

3: Advanced Starter to Main

4: Advanced Starter to branch

5: Home

6: Inner home with route indicator. Would the routes shown just be to Main & Bay? If my skills are not good enough to get a working route indicator would a bracket be feasible?

 

Ground Signals

 

a: Protecting exit from quay

b: Protecting exit from loop

c: Protecting exit from yard (rest of yard is hand signalled and operated by the shunter)

d: Protecting exit from branch

e & f I presume signals route into the loop and the yard

 

I have a couple of question if you don't mind. Would the Advanced Starter 3&4 still be on the right of the crossing or moved to the toe of point 10, as the two starters and ground signals a,b & c would protect the crossing? I envisage longer passenger trains running round and then pushing back beyond the crossover (1) so all carriages fit the platform. I know the ground frame would have to have a facing point lock installed but would the crossover need ground signals to protect it.

 

Once again many thanks for helping those of us uneducated in the ways of signalling. It doesn't matter how may good books you read it's always great to get info from the horses mouth , so to speak.

 

[EDIT] Seems I have answered my own question regarding the advanced starter. That will teach me not read all posts clearly as regards your post #12 and the signal being at the toe of point #10

 

Can't be bothered with cranking up the scanner at this time of night but hopefully It will be done tomorrow and a full sketch will follow - but that will be basically confirmatory as you seem to be getting to grips with it quite well.

 

Signal 6 would in my view most likely have a route indicator - albeit just for the two routes of 'Main' and 'Bay'. I don't think it would be 'wrong' to use a bracket signal instead - just unusual in comparison with the normal way of doing it when tubular post signals were provided in that situation.

 

Ground disc c needs to be between lines with the numbers 3 & 4 and be at the toes of the double slip and would apply to both of those lines (i.e at the other end of the slip from where you have drawn it.

 

Ground disc e reads to either the goods yard or the loop. Ground disc f reads to the quay.

 

The GF would not have any ground signals - it would be worked by a Shunter and he would control all movements with hand signals (apart from arriving trains of course - they are controlled by No. 6. Ithink it reasonable to assume taht by the date you are modelling the ground frame would have been provided with two levers and thus there would be an FPL in the platform line - you might be surprised to find out that quite a number of release crossovers never received FPLs!

[The Stationmaster]

I think this is closer to the state of play.

Regards

Keith

 

It is - apart from ground disc c (see my post above) and the omission of the other two trap points plus in reality the points numbered 2 and 5 would be handpoints of course (hence I haven't even bothered to include the one numbered 2 on my signalling plan as it's nothing to do with the signalling per se - even tho' Andy might include it on his lever frame or whatever for convenience).

[Grovenor]

Indeed, I took it from earlier responses that putting in the missing traps was a step to far for the OP.

As regards ground disc c you said,

Ground disc c needs to be between lines with the numbers 3 & 4 and be at the toes of the double slip and would apply to both of those lines (i.e at the other end of the slip from where you have drawn it.

But if between lines 3 & 4 it could not be at the toe of the switches without being foul, it either has to be where I showed it or between lines 4 & 7, depending on sighting. If you go for the latter to keep the signal on the left then shunt signal b should be moved to the other side of line 7.

Regards

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed, I took it from earlier responses that putting in the missing traps was a step to far for the OP.

As regards ground disc c you said,

 

But if between lines 3 & 4 it could not be at the toe of the switches without being foul, it either has to be where I showed it or between lines 4 & 7, depending on sighting. If you go for the latter to keep the signal on the left then shunt signal b should be moved to the other side of line 7.

Regards

Keith

Should fit ok just a little way in rear of the switch toes - the GWR seemed to manage it ok and it provided much better sighting for the converging road which would otherwise have had the other road between it and the signal although they were sited like that in some cases.

 

Yes - and ground disc b should indeed be on the other side, sorry I forgot to mention that one.

[The Stationmaster]

Herewith one sketch plan of the signalling plus number of signalbox levers and their colours (but not in numbered order)

 

[Highlandman]

Herewith one sketch plan of the signalling plus number of signalbox levers and their colours (but not in numbered order)

 

 

That's absolutely fantastic. I came up with the plan below based on your great instructions. Not to far from your sketch I'm pleased to say. I will definately have a go at making a working route indicator but if I fail I can always go down the bracket signal route, (pardon the pun). The colours for the levers is a useful aid for detailing the box interior.

 

 

As for the two extra trap points I'm not sure if I can retro fit them but I might be able to fit a dummy representation in the existing track work. Why I didn't think about fitting them when I had already done so in the quay siding I don't know. Mind you it would be nice and add more operating interest to the layout.

 

I can't thank you, and everyone else, enough for the help you've given me. This is really what RMWeb is all about. It's going to be fun trying to build operating ground signals and I'm not sure I can even accomplish it but will give it a go. Keep watching this space or my other thread Salcombe Harbour.

[The Stationmaster]

Dummy trap points will be pretty simple I think Andy as the GW/Western usually used single switch traps for most applications, almost no more than a bit of filed dowmn rail and a few changes to the sleepers.

 

Glad it's all coming together well - nice layout with lots of potential I think so it ought to keep you occupied for a week or three

[Highlandman]

Things seem to be coming along nicely. The first working ground disk has been pruduced and I'm really pleased. But I was wondering about the bracket signal before the harbour branch. Which way would the bracket project? Or does it matter?

 

 

Would it be as position A or could you use position B. I have seen one example of B at St. Erth's but it is platform mounted.

 

I wasn't sure if the longer doll had to be inboard of the bracket because of it's extra mass.

[The Stationmaster]

Do it whichever way you think looks best. Yes, really - either is ok in signalling terms as you have the higher elevation arm for the principal route. Beyond that it really dpended on getting the optimum sighting so either could be right depending on local circumstance. and don't forget you need a short arm on the left hand doll reading towards the siding.

[Highlandman]

Do it whichever way you think looks best. Yes, really - either is ok in signalling terms as you have the higher elevation arm for the principal route. Beyond that it really dpended on getting the optimum sighting so either could be right depending on local circumstance. and don't forget you need a short arm on the left hand doll reading towards the siding.

 

Asthetics in railways, who'd have thought. Many thanks for that Mike, I'll let you know how I got on.

[The Stationmaster]

Asthetics in railways, who'd have thought. Many thanks for that Mike, I'll let you know how I got on.

 

In modelling I think it is always something which should be considered. When it comes to signalling you clearly should satisfy the technical matter of getting it correct to avoid the likes of Beast or me leaping down your throat with red hot indignation and a proper plan but when it comes to the signals themselves provided you think about the two necessaries of siting and sighting you can still have a bit of leeway for making things look attractive (or unattractive if that is what you want).