Sheffield Exchange, Toy trains, music and fun!

[Clive Mortimore]

It is now 4 Y points gone straight, I have done a code 100 one as well.

 

I have been thinking about the signals again.

My first go at sighting more shunt signals, it soon became a forest. I also reduced the number of levers for the main line signals after realising I could have the route setting thingy which I think I understand.

 

Whilst I was busy adding a shunt signal to every where, Paul and I had a short exchange of PMs and he suggested where I could put some shunt signals so here goes my revision on Paul's suggestion.

The numbers do not relate to the number the lever is on the frame but just a means of counting things, red are points, green mainline signals and PURPLE shunt signals.

I have been staring at this photo, looking at the under thingies of the DMBS and moaning the lever frame is in the way.....lever frame, loco release, Oh that is an idea. So lever frames again cutting down the number of levers. 

 

I might be on my way...

 

[danstercivicman]

Sounds like a good idea

[Regularity]

Ground frames were usually released by a lever on the main frame, so that is one lever you have to retain.

Depending on the company, the ground frame might have a lever for locking the release, a lever for unlocking the points, and then a lever for the points on the engine release turnout. Done this way, pulling the first lever means that the frame is in use even if the turnout has not yet been thrown over, and the turnout is locked when the frame is not in use.

I have also seen arrangements with two levers, where pulling the first lever locks the frame in use, locking the lever in the cabin, and even a single lever, released electrically from a further distant cabin, and where the release was beyond the platforms. (Not applicable in your instance, but no levers saved back in the cabin!

[Clive Mortimore]

Ground frames were usually released by a lever on the main frame, so that is one lever you have to retain.

Depending on the company, the ground frame might have a lever for locking the release, a lever for unlocking the points, and then a lever for the points on the engine release turnout. Done this way, pulling the first lever means that the frame is in use even if the turnout has not yet been thrown over, and the turnout is locked when the frame is not in use.

I have also seen arrangements with two levers, where pulling the first lever locks the frame in use, locking the lever in the cabin, and even a single lever, released electrically from a further distant cabin, and where the release was beyond the platforms. (Not applicable in your instance, but no levers saved back in the cabin!

Hi

 

I based the idea from viewing the Kings Cross signal diagram where all the loco release crossovers have a lever frame which is released by a lever from the main frame, one lever as on my plan.

[MarshLane]

Hi Clive,

Following along, all looking good.  Cant beat having a layout properly signalled!

Rich

[5BarVT]

Afternoon Clive,

Thanks for posting again about shunt signals. I intended to but didn't get round to it (a characteristic of mine!). Rather than write a very long post, answers will come quicker if I do bits at a time. So here is:

 

Part 1 Ground Frames

At the box end, you will need two releases for the plat 3/4 GF because there is no reason why you wouldn't want to be using one for a signalled move (in or out) whilst the other is in use for run round. 7/8 is correct with only one release as you need both platforms to do the move.

At the GF end of 7/8 you only need one lever for both FPLs but you will need a GF end release lever. (*). For 3/4 one lever for each FPL as shown but two extra for the release levers at the GF end.

* For completeness, G(WR) didn't use a release lever at the GF end as they had a different way of achieving the same thing.

Paul.

[Clive Mortimore]

Afternoon Clive,

Thanks for posting again about shunt signals. I intended to but didn't get round to it (a characteristic of mine!). Rather than write a very long post, answers will come quicker if I do bits at a time. So here is:

 

Part 1 Ground Frames

At the box end, you will need two releases for the plat 3/4 GF because there is no reason why you wouldn't want to be using one for a signalled move (in or out) whilst the other is in use for run round. 7/8 is correct with only one release as you need both platforms to do the move.

At the GF end of 7/8 you only need one lever for both FPLs but you will need a GF end release lever. (*). For 3/4 one lever for each FPL as shown but two extra for the release levers at the GF end.

* For completeness, G(WR) didn't use a release lever at the GF end as they had a different way of achieving the same thing.

Paul.

Hi Paul

 

Thanks. So 5 levers for platforms 3 and and the middle road and 3 levers for platforms 7 and 8. In the box two release levers for platforms 3 and 4 and one for platform 7 and 8. So number of point levers is now 20 (well 17 plus 3 release levers), and spares 3. 5 levers, thank goodness I am using Peco track centres they could be fouling the loading gauge.

 

Don't let Mike know but I am pleased I am not modelling G*R if they do it different .

Edited November 6, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Paul

 

Thanks. So 5 levers for platforms 3 and and the middle road and 3 levers for platforms 7 and 8. In the box two release levers for platforms 3 and 4 and one for platform 7 and 8. So number of point levers is now 20 (well 17 plus 3 release levers), and spares 3. 5 levers, thank goodness I am using Peco track centres they could be fouling the loading gauge.

 

Don't let Mike know but I am pleased I am not modelling G*R if they do it different .

 

You'd be much happier doing it the proper (i.e. GWR) way as that would save you three levers in the signalbox and all three release levers at the ground frames  

 

BTW Clive why is the GN side release crossover that way round - it will limit the length of train you can run round.

[5BarVT]

Don't let Mike know but I am pleased I am not modelling G*R if they do it different .

Perhaps Mike might tell you how I know WR do it differently and which company installed a lot of 5BarVT frames!

Paul.

[Regularity]

Don't let Mike know but I am pleased I am not modelling G*R if they do it different .

They only do it differently when the other railway hasn’t copied them, even if the other railway developed it first...

 

Anyway, why are you being so horrible about the GER?

[Clive Mortimore]

I am only trying to do it the LMS way

 

As for G*R it is my self censoring keyboard, see if I write GER or GNR see what happens. But when I try to put a W in the middle as in G*R it won't let me.

 

Thank goodness no one thought the SR was great, I dread to think what my keyboard would do.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[5BarVT]

So 5 levers for platforms 3 and and the middle road and 3 levers for platforms 7 and 8. In the box two release levers for platforms 3 and 4 and one for platform 7 and 8. So number of point levers is now 20 (well 17 plus 3 release levers), and spares 3.

Almost, but not quite. For every release lever in the box you need a corresponding release lever at the GF, so 3/Middle/4 needs a six lever frame. That’s how I think LM(S)R did it. Someone with more detailed Northern knowledge may be able to confirm.

5 levers, thank goodness I am using Peco track centres they could be fouling the loading gauge.

There is always Irwell Bridge GF between Deal St and Victoria West Jn - a 15 lever miniature lever GF.

 

They say the research is the interesting bit: I’m enjoying looking at the plans and stuff that I can access for Deal St and Lime St and trying to work out the principles that have been applied. Thanks.

Paul.

[The Stationmaster]

Almost, but not quite. For every release lever in the box you need a corresponding release lever at the GF, so 3/Middle/4 needs a six lever frame. That’s how I think LM(S)R did it. Someone with more detailed Northern knowledge may be able to confirm.

 

Paul.

 

Not always Paul, herewith one LMS 'box diagram but note the release is mechanical not electric.   Some of the components are of Furness origin so it might not have been a standard LMS arrangement (click on the pic to enlarge)

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Mike,

 

Now I am in a real pickle, not only with how many levers I need for the loco releases but that damned trap point. There is me so pleased with my engineering skills in converting Peco Y points to straight points then down sizing the planned order. Mrs M very pleased I have cut the cost down. I totally forgot I was going to use the Y points to make that trap point. I have now some how increase the planned spending to buy two more points........

 

Back to the loco releases, last night I tried to find some L&YR/LMS track diagrams with loco releases. The only one that was helpful was Liverpool Exchange. There was a central road with releases form both platforms, and looks like it was a tandem point. It had a ground frame either side, with both having their own  bolt lock. I think there must have been some sort of interlocking from one frame to the other. The engineer who set up Sheffield Exchange realised that six levers might clonk a coach or two so put 3 levers each side.

 

He has also now placed the trap point lever towards the middle of the frame, therefore pleasing Charlie. Charlie's mate isn't impressed, because the kettle is down the far end and as Charlie works the L&YR end he doesn't go near the kettle, at least with the trap lever at that end he had no excuse for not putting the kettle on.

 

I must remember to paint three levers blue and brown should I ever get as far as building the interior for the box.

[5BarVT]

With two separate 3 lever frames the easiest way to do the locking between them is back in the main box: each release locks the other so you can only give one at a time.  The engineer at Sheffield Exchange was (is) sensible.

My assumption for wanting a separate release lever is to protect the electric lock.  If the release went straight onto the FPL, then a shunter who thought he had been given the release when he had not would put more oomph onto the FPL than he would a release lever.  With the (G)WR Annetts Key release, the lock on the frame was square not tapered so no amount of pressure on any of the levers would apply a releasing force.

Paul.

[Clive Mortimore]

With two separate 3 lever frames the easiest way to do the locking between them is back in the main box: each release locks the other so you can only give one at a time.  The engineer at Sheffield Exchange was (is) sensible.

My assumption for wanting a separate release lever is to protect the electric lock.  If the release went straight onto the FPL, then a shunter who thought he had been given the release when he had not would put more oomph onto the FPL than he would a release lever.  With the (G)WR Annetts Key release, the lock on the frame was square not tapered so no amount of pressure on any of the levers would apply a releasing force.

Paul.

Hi Paul

 

Thanks. You haven't seen Skinny Steven the shunter, even when he is having a good day a Baby Deltic has more oomph. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just a thought Clive.

 

To me the track layout of your terminus seems very symmetrical. Would two separate companies have almost identical track layouts?

 

On another point, Mike makes a very good point re-the crossover between plat 7 and 8. Reversing it would give a greater run-round length.

[Regularity]

Just a thought Clive.

 

To me the track layout of your terminus seems very symmetrical. Would two separate companies have almost identical track layouts?

 

Bradford Exchange

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bradford_exchange/index17.shtml

Edit: this is also worth a look!

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/416500/432500/12/100392

Edited November 7, 2017 by Regularity

[Clive Mortimore]

Just a thought Clive.

 

To me the track layout of your terminus seems very symmetrical. Would two separate companies have almost identical track layouts?

 

On another point, Mike makes a very good point re-the crossover between plat 7 and 8. Reversing it would give a greater run-round length.

Hi Peter

 

Mr Regularity beat me to Bradford Exchange.   Remember I have used Kings Cross 1977 track plan for my inspiration. I am suggesting it is two railways to increase the variety of trains. It was because it looked too symmetrical that I added the centre road between 3 and 4 and slued it round a bit to try and take out the symmetry.  Black fives and Sulzer Bo-Bos one side and B1s and Brush Type 2s the other that will make it look uneven.

 

The loco release on Platforms 7 and 8 (read but not taken on board when I viewed Mike's post)  is only going to be used by the empty loco coal train when the steam shed gets some more coal. Plus I have gone and straightened my Y points so they are lefties.

 

Anyhow you have caused enough problems with that trap point.   While I was exchanging PMs with Paul regarding the trap point this evening I had a light bulb moment and thought "Why not make one from copper clad. I have a burnt finger   and a trap point.   I have just got to try and make the blades go opposite ways with one point motor, if not two old Seeps wired together but opposite.

 

edited to add little yella mens

Edited November 8, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Clive Mortimore]

Bradford Exchange

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bradford_exchange/index17.shtml

Edit: this is also worth a look!

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/416500/432500/12/100392

Cheers.

 

With Bradford Exchange, trains couldn't cross from the L&YR side to the GNR side within the station limits. The signal box was basically two boxes, one for each side of the station with almost identical signals and track plan sharing a building. Other wise could have been on different planets with the amount of railway interaction.

[Clive Mortimore]

Following everyone's concern about my burnt finger, I will bore you with my wide to gauge trap point.

 

Set to allow trains through it.

 

Trap set.

 

Whoops. It actually works.

[Ray H]

Could you put a pin in the centre of the sleeper between the two tie bars and use that as a falcrum through which you more the adjacent tie bars and, possibly, get away with only a single point motor?

[Clive Mortimore]

Could you put a pin in the centre of the sleeper between the two tie bars and use that as a falcrum through which you more the adjacent tie bars and, possibly, get away with only a single point motor?

Hi Ray

 

Thanks. That is the plan, trouble is the PW gang when assembling the point put the sleeper with the hole in it for the fulcrum in the wrong place.   Someone has to drill another hole.

[Budgie]

I have just got to try and make the blades go opposite ways with one point motor, if not two old Seeps wired together but opposite.

Why not leave it set to allow trains through it?

<cynical>

After all, it's only a model.    

</cynical>

[Clive Mortimore]

Why not leave it set to allow trains through it?

<cynical>

After all, it's only a model.    

</cynical>

Hi Jane

 

Gotta have it working after how many pages of waffle we all have done?