Windmill Street Signalling

[richard_t]

As you may have seen from my post in the Layout & Track Design forum, I’m planning a layout that is a cut down version of Manchester Central. Now I have finalised the track layout I’m now moving onto the signalling design. The layout is set in the mid-80s, with the signalling based on the late 50’s re-signalling at Central. Unfortunately I don’t have the official signalling plan for the re-signalling, only the earlier 1935 scheme – which had 2 aspect signals, whereas later photographs show 3 aspects, which is the scheme I’d rather follow. Below is my first attempt at a signalling diagram, based on the location of the signals from the earlier scheme:

 

Although I’m still working my way through the Weekday timetable, I have completed the Sunday timetable, and I think I have identified the following routes:

 

Does this all make sense, or am I wildly off the mark? As ever any help would be much appreciated.

[The Stationmaster]

Your diagram looks ok to me for mid(ish) 1950s LMR practice although from the few photos I can find I do wonder if miniature yellows were continued at Central after that date as at least two of them (or what appears to be two of them) can be seen co-located with 3 aspect running signal heads in one of the pics I found from a quick Google and miniature yellows were still de rigeur in 1950s schemes - but I don't know where the ones at Central read of course (it being a very long time since I last got off a train there). BTW independent ground position lights should be at the point toe, not some distance in rear of it but that might just be the way you had to draw them of course.

[richard_t]

Thanks - I'm glad it's not complete bobbins!

 

I did notice that the ground signal 21's miniature theatre indicator should have 4 routes not 3, so I've amended the plan to reflect this. Also I've given the limit of shunt indicator a signal number of 32, but I'm not sure if they should be given numbers.

 

I didn’t know that the ground signals should be at the toes of the points, to many thanks for that – again I’ve modified the plan, with judicious use of the background eraser tool!

Would miniature yellows replace the position light on the main signals, on signals 1, 2, 3 and 4? Also signal 30 perhaps? Any chance of a link to the photographs you’ve found or the google search term. A quick search myself didn’t really find anything.

 

In the linked picture what are the indicators on the back of the signals at the end of the platform? And would they be represented on the signalling diagram? In pictures I have from various books, there are two such indicators on the ground signal between platform 5 and 6 also.

 

(I'll not repost the image yet, as it's not greatly different.)

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks - I'm glad it's not complete bobbins!

 

Quite an impressive start I thought But I have noticed on more careful study of the diagram that you seem to have used a ground position light as the Limit Of Shunt and arrowed it towards the wrong line - that needs to be corrected and if you want to limit shunts on your departing line in that area just put in a 3 aspect running signal (although it would be fairly close to the platform starters of course.

I did notice that the ground signal 21's miniature theatre indicator should have 4 routes not 3, so I've amended the plan to reflect this. Also I've given the limit of shunt indicator a signal number of 32, but I'm not sure if they should be given numbers.

 

The ground signals should have stencil indicators (LMR pattern of course) as it happens you have shown some in that linked picture (see below) and I might somewhere have a pic of an LMR one which I have scanned in the past (I've got plenty of unscanned pics but can't scan them at present) - but you will find a pic of one with a semaphore disc at the end of this post, I hope. LoS needn't be numbered in older schemes.

 

I didn’t know that the ground signals should be at the toes of the points, to many thanks for that – again I’ve modified the plan, with judicious use of the background eraser tool!

Would miniature yellows replace the position light on the main signals, on signals 1, 2, 3 and 4? Also signal 30 perhaps? Any chance of a link to the photographs you’ve found or the google search term. A quick search myself didn’t really find anything.

 

Miniature yellows were used to read to 'no block' lines - e.g. into that line leading off at the top of your layout - including shunt and loco spurs. Moves to another running line - such as towards the LoS would be position lights in the scheme you are modelling. But as I see it you don't actually have any choice of indicated routes - except for shunts - for any departing trains.

In the linked picture what are the indicators on the back of the signals at the end of the platform? And would they be represented on the signalling diagram? In pictures I have from various books, there are two such indicators on the ground signal between platform 5 and 6 also.

 

The ones on the ground signal are route indicators - as in the example below (except my pic is with a semaphore disc signal of course). The ones on the back of the platform 'starting' signals are supplementary route indicators and repeat the display given in the indicator at the other side of the signal (I think they were actually theatre indicators on the 'business' side although stencils of this pattern were probably provided for shunt routes. The idea of the supplementary indicators on the back of the signal are to warn staff on the ground that the signal has been cleared and to tell them where the movement from that signal will be going - practice varied a bit on the way this was done but you only need the LMR version anyway. This practice was officially prohibited on new signals in the 1990s and is now rare

[beast66606]

The idea of the supplementary indicators on the back of the signal are to warn staff on the ground that the signal has been cleared and to tell them where the movement from that signal will be going - practice varied a bit on the way this was done but you only need the LMR version anyway

 

Indeed - and of course Stockport had its infamous one which indicated the 'S'low or 'F'ast line and showed OFF when the signal was clear, the S OFF wasn't too much of an issue, as for the Fast well ...

 

I'm keeping out of the discussions as StationMaster is dealing with it, no point in adding another cook to the broth, but I'm lurking if necessary

[Fay Singpoint]

Quite an impressive start I thought

 

Seconded, especially the amount of research that Richard seems to have undertaken to get this far.

 

F

[PWSlack]

It's good to see the correct approach being applied to the design process: look at the traffic and the movements first, and then work out what the signalling needs to be to handle it all.

[richard_t]

Thanks all for the comments.

 

Just a quick post to say we're off for the weekend (darkest Kent), with no access to rmweb, so I didn't want to seem rude in not replying.

 

I'll read the comments in detail and take heed when we get back.

 

Cheers again!

 

 

[richard_t]

Many thanks all for the kind words and help in getting this nearer to "right".

 

Quite an impressive start I thought But I have noticed on more careful study of the diagram that you seem to have used a ground position light as the Limit Of Shunt and arrowed it towards the wrong line - that needs to be corrected and if you want to limit shunts on your departing line in that area just put in a 3 aspect running signal (although it would be fairly close to the platform starters of course.

I copied the symbol for the limit of shunt from “GK/RT0004 – Symbols for Use on Signalling Plans and Sketchesâ€, which is obviously too “new†for my plan, even though it’s now out of date, I wanted the symbols to be consistent. And saying all that I may have picked the wrong symbol out of the two shown in that document! I’ve modified the plan to remove the limit of shunt from the down line, and the timetable doesn’t require one on the up line. I’ve replaced it, as you’ve suggested with a standard 3 aspect running signal. Would the shunt moves back into the station be controlled from shunt signal 32 in this case, and therefore need an indicator on which route is to be taken (turntable road, onto signal 20, or onto signal 21.)

 

The ground signals should have stencil indicators (LMR pattern of course) as it happens you have shown some in that linked picture (see below) and I might somewhere have a pic of an LMR one which I have scanned in the past (I've got plenty of unscanned pics but can't scan them at present) - but you will find a pic of one with a semaphore disc at the end of this post, I hope. LoS needn't be numbered in older schemes.

Thanks for the explanation for the miniature yellows and the stencils. As signal 20 has six possible routes, I take it that 6 separate stencils would have been needed. How would these be represented on the diagram?

 

The ones on the ground signal are route indicators - as in the example below (except my pic is with a semaphore disc signal of course). The ones on the back of the platform 'starting' signals are supplementary route indicators and repeat the display given in the indicator at the other side of the signal (I think they were actually theatre indicators on the 'business' side although stencils of this pattern were probably provided for shunt routes.

Again, should these be represented on my diagram?

 

I’ve reposted the diagram to reflect these changes; the routing list can wait until we’ve got the signalling plan right.

 

 

I’ve got a few more questions if I may:

 

1. Would signal 31 be a 2 aspect, yellow/red, or a 3-aspect, but never show green?
2. Would signals 1, 2, 3 and 4 have miniature indicators for things like “closing doorsâ€, “right awayâ€? Any others?

I’ve more questions to follow, once I’ve got this bit of the plan right.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I copied the symbol for the limit of shunt from “GK/RT0004 – Symbols for Use on Signalling Plans and Sketchesâ€, which is obviously too “new†for my plan, even though it’s now out of date, I wanted the symbols to be consistent. And saying all that I may have picked the wrong symbol out of the two shown in that document! I’ve modified the plan to remove the limit of shunt from the down line, and the timetable doesn’t require one on the up line. I’ve replaced it, as you’ve suggested with a standard 3 aspect running signal. Would the shunt moves back into the station be controlled from shunt signal 32 in this case, and therefore need an indicator on which route is to be taken (turntable road, onto signal 20, or onto signal 21.)

On LM practice of that period the shunt would have a stencil pattern route indicator. To be honest i would seriously consider having an LoS on the other line - you might not need it in this week's timetable plan but things might be different next week, or next year etc - it is always far simpler to get the facilities in from the start than find later on taht you haven't got them when you need them - but that's your decision of course.

Thanks for the explanation for the miniature yellows and the stencils. As signal 20 has six possible routes, I take it that 6 separate stencils would have been needed. How would these be represented on the diagram?

Again, should these be represented on my diagram?

Yes and yes - route indicatior should always be shown on the plan in the relevant style for the type of indicator.

 

I’ve got a few more questions if I may:

1. Would signal 31 be a 2 aspect, yellow/red, or a 3-aspect, but never show green?
2. Would signals 1, 2, 3 and 4 have miniature indicators for things like “closing doorsâ€, “right awayâ€? Any others?

I’ve more questions to follow, once I’ve got this bit of the plan right.

 

Question 2 first (it's the easy one) 'CD' indicators only came in with Driver Only operation AFAIK so are totally 'period modelled' dependent. Practice on 'RA' indicators varied enormously but basically long platforms with long trains on the LM in your period and I would consider them more likely than not. Use a stencil indicator mounted vertically - a solution adopted by the LM in a number of places.

Question 1 is very period dependent and there were variations in practice - on some LMS schemes a 3 aspect signal was used with a green for the longer platforms and a yellow reading to any shorter ones and some of these lingered into the 1950s, possibly even the early '60s. Otherwise by the late 1950s the LM appears to have been using 2 aspect signals in that situation and in fact converted from 3 aspect to 2 aspect at Liverpool Lime St in 1960 (as part of other works) but what I can't tell you is if they were using a yellow or green proceed aspect at that time. (the WR was using yellow but then altered to green before going back to yellow in the mid 1970s)

 

 

[beast66606]

in fact converted from 3 aspect to 2 aspect at Liverpool Lime St in 1960 (as part of other works) but what I can't tell you is if they were using a yellow or green proceed aspect at that time.

 

Green, until the around late 1970s (iirc) at Lime Street, I can remember flying down the cutting on greens, until the red at the buffers !

[beast66606]

PS - I'm not convinced that the in route GPLS would be provided in the cut down scenario, but it depends on what space is available for a shunt move I guess.

[richard_t]

To be honest i would seriously consider having an LoS on the other line - you might not need it in this week's timetable plan but things might be different next week, or next year etc - it is always far simpler to get the facilities in from the start than find later on taht you haven't got them when you need them

Oh so true, so I’ve added a limit of shunt on the up line.

 

route indicatior should always be shown on the plan in the relevant style for the type of indicator.

Any examples?

 

Thanks for the answers to the two supplementary questions, RA’s added to signals 1, 2, 3, 3 REPEAT and 4. In my fiction, I think I’ll have signal 41 as a three aspect, that following the Moorgate incident in 1975, had the green aspect disconnected (and covered?).

 

Use a stencil indicator mounted vertically - a solution adopted by the LM in a number of places.

Is the example shown in first image on this link, or at least similar?

 

PS - I'm not convinced that the in route GPLS would be provided in the cut down scenario, but it depends on what space is available for a shunt move I guess.

The layout is cut down in width, 4 platforms instead of 9, and length only on the length of platforms. The track work between the end of the platforms and the up/down main lines is pretty well the right size for the real Manchester Central. The reason being that I’m not clever enough to compress it!

 

As ever thanks for all the people that are continuing to help. I’ve included an updated signalling plan, and an updated route list.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

(re Route Indicators shown on drawings)

Any examples?

 

Alas I can't find any on the 'net and I can't at present scan any scheme drawings I've got (which are all post 2000 or thereabouts although i have older locking sketches - all to WR Drawing Office standards in the case of the latter)

 

 

Thanks for the answers to the two supplementary questions, RA’s added to signals 1, 2, 3, 3 REPEAT and 4. In my fiction, I think I’ll have signal 41 as a three aspect, that following the Moorgate incident in 1975, had the green aspect disconnected (and covered?).

 

For the RA indicator - rather more like the one illustrated in the pic below - just like the one illuminated 'DE' on NN35 in fact (n.b the signal structures are to WCML electrification style as used in new work from c.1958/59 onwards on the WCML).

As far as the signal conversion is concerned variety was, I think, the spice of life and there were signals where a 3 aspect head was used and the change was simple - often with the green left looking fairly normal, presumably as a money saver or possibly as kiddology with Drivers.

 

The layout is cut down in width, 4 platforms instead of 9, and length only on the length of platforms. The track work between the end of the platforms and the up/down main lines is pretty well the right size for the real Manchester Central. The reason being that I’m not clever enough to compress it!

 

As ever thanks for all the people that are continuing to help. I’ve included an updated signalling plan, and an updated route list.

 

 

 

My final comment on the plan is that GPLs would normally be sited to the left of the line to which they apply unless some particular reason (a very good one) prevents that.

 

[beast66606]

Alas I can't find any on the 'net and I can't at present scan any scheme drawings I've got (which are all post 2000 or thereabouts although i have older locking sketches - all to WR Drawing Office standards in the case of the latter)

 

Snaphots from CS 129J/79/4 - Chester PSB Phase 2, July 1980 - is this what you want ?

 

 

[richard_t]

Thanks to Mike and Beast66606 for all of their help, hopefully the following might be the last version of the routing table and the signalling plan – well here’s hoping!

 

The next stage is working out where on the plan the physical signals should go, and then I’ve got yet more questions, but that’s for another time.

 

 

 

Again, many thanks for all your help – I doubt I’d got there on my own.

 

(Oh and if there’s anything wrong with this version – please pipe up!)

[Grovenor]

Green, until the around late 1970s (iirc) at Lime Street, I can remember flying down the cutting on greens, until the red at the buffers !

Ditto at Euston, the arrangements in the 60's resignalling can be seen here Euston

Apart from the obvious hazard for a driver who might have been running on greens for many miles having to remember that this last green ran into a buffer with no room left to stop there were other anomalies introduced such as the aspect sequence on the up engine line and up empty carriage where the signal before that last green could only clear to yellow at best (although crews on those lines were unlikely to mistake their location).

Also note that the second signals out on the main lines only had 3 aspect heads so could not show YY. When the lenses in the final signals were changed from green to yellow in the 70s those second signals would have to be changed or the aspect sequence left at consecutive yellows, I don't know what was actually done.

Regards

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

(Oh and if there’s anything wrong with this version – please pipe up!)

 

 

One thing which you really ought to put right is the lie of the switch rails in the trailing crossover between the main lines including the slip connection to the turntable. The two running line ends should work as a crossover with the switch rails in the middle of the slip working in conjunction with the trap point on the turntable sidings - look at it carefully and you'll see what I mean BTW I can see no need to alter the other single slip at the platform end - they could be arranged like that although not so common in my experience.

 

[richard_t]

One thing which you really ought to put right is the lie of the switch rails in the trailing crossover between the main lines including the slip connection to the turntable. The two running line ends should work as a crossover with the switch rails in the middle of the slip working in conjunction with the trap point on the turntable sidings - look at it carefully and you'll see what I mean

Similar to this:

(If correct I'll take a deep breath and modify the original.)

 

BTW I can see no need to alter the other single slip at the platform end - they could be arranged like that although not so common in my experience.

On the 1935 diagram this slip is shown as I have it on the plan, as in fact are all the others. I followed that way as it was easier to draw! Really I'd like the "normal" route through the slip to be from the Up line into Platform 3, but I'm not sure if that's right, and how to represent it.

 

I found that I'd include a "main" route from the "A" Road to the Down, but of course there is no main signal, and was a mistake. I've inlcuded an updated routes list.

 

[beast66606]

I suspect the 1935 arrangement for the platform slip was to make the locking easier.

 

I might have missed your actual thoughts but if you assuming your version of history is controlled from a panel, (mmm, a software panel, now there's an idea, maybe i should set this as a test at the end of my tutorial on RailRoad ), then the normal lie could possibly (probably) have been altered for the platform as per your desire.

 

Can you confirm how your prototype controlled the layout (again, sorry if I've missed it) ?

 

Don't forget to move the ground signals to the toe of their points.

[richard_t]

I suspect the 1935 arrangement for the platform slip was to make the locking easier.

 

I might have missed your actual thoughts but if you assuming your version of history is controlled from a panel, (mmm, a software panel, now there's an idea, maybe i should set this as a test at the end of my tutorial on RailRoad ), then the normal lie could possibly (probably) have been altered for the platform as per your desire.

 

Can you confirm how your prototype controlled the layout (again, sorry if I've missed it) ?

I'm planning to use the location of the Manchester Central Box "A" (lower centre), and my fiction is that it was refurbished in the mid-30’s with a miniature frame with electro-mechanical locking (as in the real MC). Yes I realise by the mid-80’s is that it would probably be the last in the country – again I can blame a lack of investment/will to spend any-more money on the line.

 

In the model form I’ll have an electro-mechanical frame, but the locking will be control by software – software is easier to re-write/debug than firmware. I’ll be using C-BUS to communicate between the two.

 

Don't forget to move the ground signals to the toe of their points.

I think I have, other than signals 20/21 - I couldn't get the others any close without overwriting bits of the plan. Or should I move them further away with a dashed line?

[beast66606]

I'm planning to use the location of the Manchester Central Box "A" (lower centre), and my fiction is that it was refurbished in the mid-30’s with a miniature frame with electro-mechanical locking (as in the real MC). Yes I realise by the mid-80’s is that it would probably be the last in the country – again I can blame a lack of investment/will to spend any-more money on the line.

 

Liverpool Lime Street still has it's Westinghouse frame, and of course, the Manchester Victoria boxes also had them, so it's very feasible.

 

In the model form I’ll have an electro-mechanical frame, but the locking will be control by software – software is easier to re-write/debug than firmware. I’ll be using C-BUS to communicate between the two.

 

My first layout was interlocked / aspect controlled by relays, lots of relays - all done with RailRoad now of course.

 

I think I have, other than signals 20/21 - I couldn't get the others any close without overwriting bits of the plan. Or should I move them further away with a dashed line?

 

You could move them closer, and if they don't fit put an X and the signal to the side with an X too. I will take a look later and see if I have a plan with this on, so don't change it just yet !

 

cheers,

[richard_t]

My first layout was interlocked / aspect controlled by relays, lots of relays - all done with RailRoad now of course.

My idea is one solenoid per lever to control the locking, and lots of microswitches on the levers - I think it was 4 on the last count! Each of the switches fire off events to the PC, that applies the rules, and then unlocks the lever if allowed (or buzzes of some sort if not!)

 

You could move them closer, and if they don't fit put an X and the signal to the side with an X too. I will take a look later and see if I have a plan with this on, so don't change it just yet !

cheers,

Thanks - more fiddling!

[The Stationmaster]

Similar to this:

(If correct I'll take a deep breath and modify the original.)

 

Spot on

 

 

On the 1935 diagram this slip is shown as I have it on the plan, as in fact are all the others. I followed that way as it was easier to draw! Really I'd like the "normal" route through the slip to be from the Up line into Platform 3, but I'm not sure if that's right, and how to represent it.

 

 

If you want to alter it it is perfectly feasible and can be done in the correct fashion (except I am going to have to explain it verbally instead of drawing it, which could be fun.)

1. The 'A' end of any crossover will that nearest the signalbox, the 'B' end is the one further from the 'box and thus nearer the station buffer stops. This the slip at the end of Platform 3 has an A end and a B end.

2. To get what you seem to want you do the following -

a. Alter the lie of both ends to be opposite to the way they are currently drawn - this means that only the facing point in the Up Line has to be reversed to set the route from the Up Line to Platform 3.

b. Alter the lie of the point where the line from Plar

tform 4 joins the line leading from Platform 3 towards the Down Line. This will then form a crossover with the other end of it being the B end of the slip.

c. The A end of the slip now becomes a turnout to enable a route to be set from the Up Line towards Platform 4.

This has the following effect - you now only need to pull one lever to get from the Up Line to Platform 3 but you have to pull 2 levers instead of 1 to get from Platfm 3 to the Down Line although that is balanced by now only having to pull 1 lever to get from Platfm 4 to the Down Line. I hope that all makes sense.

And still a few power frames about of course - you might find this of interest http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/index.htm

 

[richard_t]

If you want to alter it it is perfectly feasible and can be done in the correct fashion (except I am going to have to explain it verbally instead of drawing it, which could be fun.)

(As the dog has the hump), I've found a bit more time. Is it something like this: