Correct type of ex-LNWR signal - advice needed

[Dave Holt]

I recently posted an update on my Delph blog regarding the signals I've had made for the layout (ex-LNWR but set in mid-1950's BR era). Control of entry into the platform road or into the run-round loop/goods yard is by means of a bracket signal illustrated below:

 

 

This has attracted a comment (from Beast) that LNWR used miniature arms for loop/yard entry. I had pondered this question prior to construction but couldn't establish a definitive answer from either the Foster or Nelson books. In the end I plumped for the signal shown - perhaps in error.

I appear to be faced with three options:

1) Live with the signal as it is.

2) Attempt to have it modified to replace the susdiary arm with a "calling on" type miniature arm (as illustrated in Nelson fig 4-40 & Foster fig 7.8, possibly on a shorter doll.

3) Replace the bracket signal with a single post home signal with a side bracket mounted miniature arm on the right hand side, as illustrated in Foster, Plates 7.14 & 4.3 (opposite hand).

 

I understand that the LNWR was very cost concious with signal installations, so perhaps option (3) would be more realistic for a small single line branch terminus?

 

Any thoughts and advice would be most appreciated.

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

Without delving out Nock's article (one part of a series in which he really was good and the ball) to check for any potential differences my understanding is the same as Beast's - you have used a full size running arm (and bracketed doll) to signal a movement which is not a running movement and you should instead be using the arrangement shown in plate 7.14 in Foster

OR

You can, provided the date is consistent with the change of LNWR practice, use a co-located ground signal as described by Foster (on the page following Plate 7.14).

 

Hope that helps.

[beast66606]

This has attracted a comment (from Beast) that LNWR used miniature arms for loop/yard entry. I had pondered this question prior to construction but couldn't establish a definitive answer from either the Foster or Nelson books. In the end I plumped for the signal shown - perhaps in error.

 

The forum is good for asking questions

 

It's definitely not right - but "liveable with" is your choice.

 

As StationMaster says plate 7.14 is a good example, also 7.16 shows a front view.

[Dave Holt]

Thanks for your advice, both.

 

What I now propose is something like this:

 

 

Does that look more appropriate?

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for your advice, both.

 

What I now propose is something like this:

 

Does that look more appropriate?

 

Dave.

It does indeed.