Wynsloe Road - sold

[Ray H]

The wiring is complete as far as it can go, the layout has been re-assembled as detailed in post 50 and test running is ongoing (with the track diagram now as shown in post 31 and not as shown below.
 
The scenery is progressing slowly and we've now got as far as page 4 if you want to initially avoid the pre-amble.
 
Post 93 takes readers to the start of the discussion on freight train movements.
 

 
After several false starts I’ve finally managed to find a plan that ticks a lot of boxes and baseboard construction is imminent.
 
The attached diagram shows the station of the planned layout – all that is missing from the plan is the non-scenic section which comprises the rest of the continuous run to the fiddle yard which will be a multi-track traverser and a few stub sidings.
 
The siding at bottom right is the coal yard and the three sidings at bottom left are the general sidings and will include the goods shed.
 
The platform road will be signalled for bi-directional working and be the normal through route. The plan is that through goods trains can be routed via the loop in either direction to cross trains in the platform.
 
The period being modelled is early to mid-1960s and the location is about 50 miles north west of London.
 
I am aware that two trains would not be allowed to enter the station/loop area together. Both trains need to come to a stand at their respective home signal and then one train is allowed to enter the station at a time (presumably unless the first train to arrive does so before the second train has been accepted by the signal person.
 
Operation Question No. 1
 
Would it be prototypical for passenger trains be routed (non-stop) via the loop assuming the points were fitted with FPLs and the relevant signalling was installed? This would enable a non-stop passenger train to cross a stopping passenger train or possibly an over-long freight that has to use the platform as it is too long for the loop.
 
Operation Question No. 2
 
Because of the lack of the second platform face – the cost of an island platform is a reduction in the length of the loop which don't want to do – would it be prototypical to run two trains into the platform to reverse from opposite directions and return back from whence they came or would the first to arrive be shunted to the loop whilst the second train was there.
 
Operation Question No. 3
 
Would the through wagons on the local trip freight be left in the platform whilst the train engine shunted the sidings or would the wagons be left on the running line outside the station (with the single line authority retained on the train whilst the section is blocked)?
 
Signalling Question No. 1
 
I presume that a starting signal is required at each end of the platform and that (exit) shunt signals would be provided at each end of the loop (unless passengers trains could be routed that way). Would shunt movements require exit shunt signals on the platform road?
 
Signalling Question No. 2
 
Is it sufficient to have home signals for moves to the platform and disc signals alongside for moves to the loop or would the loop signal be a second arm either on the same post (or as a bracket) as the main signal?
 
Signalling Question No. 3
 
Am I right to presume local arrangements would allow shunts outside the home signals for moves between platform and loop rather than having to resort to outer home and advanced starting signals?
 
Comments & answers to my questions appreciated and will be gratefully received.

[Katier]

Regarding Op2 - Similar things definitely happen at New Street with 2 trains on one platform face not being uncommon. Can't help on either the signalling or whether such things have happened on small stations, but definitely seen it at NS.

[RailWest]

"... the location is about 50 miles north west of London..."

 

Are we talking ex-GWR, ex-LMS or what please?

[Oldddudders]

"... the location is about 50 miles north west of London..."

 

Are we talking ex-GWR, ex-LMS or what please?

"Wynsloe" sounds awfully like "Winslow", and given the OP's previous contributions on that route, I think LNWR/LMS is a safe bet.

[The Stationmaster]

The platform road will be signalled for bi-directional working and be the normal through route. The plan is that through goods trains can be routed via the loop in either direction to cross trains in the platform.

 

The period being modelled is early to mid-1960s and the location is about 50 miles north west of London.

 

I am aware that two trains would not be allowed to enter the station/loop area together. Both trains need to come to a stand at their respective home signal and then one train is allowed to enter the station at a time (presumably unless the first train to arrive does so before the second train has been accepted by the signal person.

 

Operation Question No. 1

 

Would it be prototypical for passenger trains be routed (non-stop) via the loop assuming the points were fitted with FPLs and the relevant signalling was installed? This would enable a non-stop passenger train to cross a stopping passenger train or possibly an over-long freight that has to use the platform as it is too long for the loop.

 

Yes - BUT trap points would be required on all the sidings leading into the loop line

 

Operation Question No. 2

 

Because of the lack of the second platform face – the cost of an island platform is a reduction in the length of the loop which don't want to do – would it be prototypical to run two trains into the platform to reverse from opposite directions and return back from whence they came or would the first to arrive be shunted to the loop whilst the second train was there.

 

It would be possible, but I suspect fairly unusual, provided appropriate signalling is provided - very much dependent on what you prototype railway would have done (ref Railwest's question).

 

Operation Question No. 3

 

Would the through wagons on the local trip freight be left in the platform whilst the train engine shunted the sidings or would the wagons be left on the running line outside the station (with the single line authority retained on the train whilst the section is blocked)?

 

They should normally be left on the platform line, and not outside the Home Signals on the single line.

 

Signalling Question No. 1

 

I presume that a starting signal is required at each end of the platform and that (exit) shunt signals would be provided at each end of the loop (unless passengers trains could be routed that way). Would shunt movements require exit shunt signals on the platform road?

 

Presumption is correct, answer to the question is 'no' (but again depends on how your chosen prototype did things).

 

Signalling Question No. 2

 

Is it sufficient to have home signals for moves to the platform and disc signals alongside for moves to the loop or would the loop signal be a second arm either on the same post (or as a bracket) as the main signal?

 

Depends entirely on what the loop is used for and the way the Region/Company you are modelling did things.

 

Signalling Question No. 3

 

Am I right to presume local arrangements would allow shunts outside the home signals for moves between platform and loop rather than having to resort to outer home and advanced starting signals?

 

Basically 'yes' although gradients and possibly other factors might present reasons for not doing it that way - again Regional practice can make a difference.

[Ray H]

Thanks for the responses.

 

Ian is right. My idea is basically that the shortage of money that prevented the Verney Junction to Banbury line from being doubled also prevented the entire line from Bletchley to Oxford from being doubled. Provision was made for double track where possible at build time but the extra cash never became available and the line stayed single (which is why it is single now!)

 

So to answer the question the railway has LNWR/LMS origins although I have to admit that a few early (ex) GE diesels may appear from time to time because I grew up in Essex and spent quite a bit of time around Stratford and grew to like several of the classes.

 

One question I meant to ask related to shunting of the yard. Would individual shunt moves be limited in load to keep the movements within the home signal (or the home signal positioned well back from the turnouts), there being no option but to shunt via the running line. I presume flags/lamps would be used to authorise movements unless the shunts went outside the home signal.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the responses.

 

Ian is right. My idea is basically that the shortage of money that prevented the Verney Junction to Banbury line from being doubled also prevented the entire line from Bletchley to Oxford from being doubled. Provision was made for double track where possible at build time but the extra cash never became available and the line stayed single (which is why it is single now!)

 

So to answer the question the railway has LNWR/LMS origins although I have to admit that a few early (ex) GE diesels may appear from time to time because I grew up in Essex and spent quite a bit of time around Stratford and grew to like several of the classes.

 

One question I meant to ask related to shunting of the yard. Would individual shunt moves be limited in load to keep the movements within the home signal (or the home signal positioned well back from the turnouts), there being no option but to shunt via the running line. I presume flags/lamps would be used to authorise movements unless the shunts went outside the home signal.

There would be no problem shunting outside the Home Signals - pretty flat round there (in railway gradient terms) and the Home Signal would in any case be at the toe of the loop points.

 

As far as the loop signalling concerned my inclination would be to forget it for passenger trains - if you do it right it would  simply look 'well overdone' and unrealistic with such a track layout - especially with loops that short.  That the route remained single in your version of it also suggest that it wasn't too busy and that it even escaped doubling in wartime so clearly something of a backwater in railway terms.  You could I think reasonably use disc signals to read into the loop but my own inclination would be for a miniature are on a small bracket (well portrayed in the Ratio LMS signals kit and I'm sure available in metal from the other well known supplier of signals to the railway modeller).

[Ray H]

Many thanks Mike, as always.

 

So a bracket signal as a home in both directions, single arm on post at each end of the platform and discs at each end of the loop. No other signals required on the scenic area.

 

Seems like a plan and possibly even within my as yet unexplored capabilities! I think that actually totals more signals than Winslow (double track) actually had.

 

One final question - well, maybe not utterly final! Would the loop discs need to be doubled with one applying to the siding and the other to the running line or would the single disc clear for both moves? Would it then remain in the off position as long as the route into the sidings was set, regardless of the direction of the train movement past it?

[The Stationmaster]

Many thanks Mike, as always.

 

So a bracket signal as a home in both directions, single arm on post at each end of the platform and discs at each end of the loop. No other signals required on the scenic area.

 

Seems like a plan and possibly even within my as yet unexplored capabilities! I think that actually totals more signals than Winslow (double track) actually had.

 

One final question - well, maybe not utterly final! Would the loop discs need to be doubled with one applying to the siding and the other to the running line or would the single disc clear for both moves? Would it then remain in the off position as long as the route into the sidings was set, regardless of the direction of the train movement past it?

That's it for the signals Ray.  

 

As far as the discs are concerned I think - by your date - you could reasonably justify using yellow arm discs with the advantage that they would only be cleared for the route leading back out onto the single line - The LMS were using them from Pre-War (WWII) years so more than likely to have been perfectly ok for your period modelled.  And before you ask,  the signalbox - whatever structure you use - would have14 working levers.

[Ray H]

......  And before you ask,  the signalbox - whatever structure you use - would have14 working levers.

 

Thanks Mike.

 

I presume you mean something like this:

 

 

The only one I'm dubious about is No. 7 point although I presume that you included it in the count to avoid me having to have a single hand-worked point!

 

Winslow Signal Box had 34 levers of which 9 were spares. The building looks very similar to a Bachmann Scenecraft model (44-011 & no longer available) that I bought some while ago. Whilst obviously way over the top for what is needed for my plan, how likely is it that even though money was short they would have installed a larger box than originally needed ready for the double tracking?

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Mike.

 

I presume you mean something like this:

 

Wynsloe Road Signal Diagram 3.gif

 

The only one I'm dubious about is No. 7 point although I presume that you included it in the count to avoid me having to have a single hand-worked point!

Definitely 'something like that' Ray - signals shown so far are spot on but you need to add worked distant signals (presumably they'd be 'off scene'?)  and make No,s 7 & 9 into hand points.  And then move disc No.8 to the toe of points No.10 in the sidings.

[Ray H]

. . . you need to add worked distant signals (presumably they'd be 'off scene'?)  . . . .

Yes, they are off scene. I didn't count them as I presumed that they'd be fixed as it is a single line.

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, they are off scene. I didn't count them as I presumed that they'd be fixed as it is a single line.

As far as I understand things on the LM they would have been worked distants; the GWr was the main user of fixed distants on single lines as far as I'm aware.

[Ray H]

Mike

 

This is what I've arrived at now. The two hand worked points in the yard will be assigned to the two spare levers in the box (i.e. on the frame on the layout) - the levers would be painted white in the box and outside so they'll match! I may yet revert to fixed distants simply to avoid the need to provide two levers that'll really only be used for the sake of it.

 

I'm quite taken by the DCC Concept lever frame especially after someone posted that they'd managed to design (electrical only) interlocking using it. I am hoping that I can do the same and to cover for the lack of mechanical interlocking add a small red LED below each lever; the LED being illuminated when the lever is electrically locked.

 

I'm not sure if you saw my question about box size in post 10 which I think I was updating when you posted a reply to the original post.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Wynsloe Road Signal Diagram 4.gif

Mike

 

This is what I've arrived at now. The two hand worked points in the yard will be assigned to the two spare levers in the box (i.e. on the frame on the layout) - the levers would be painted white in the box and outside so they'll match! I may yet revert to fixed distants simply to avoid the need to provide two levers that'll really only be used for the sake of it.

 

I'm quite taken by the DCC Concept lever frame especially after someone posted that they'd managed to design (electrical only) interlocking using it. I am hoping that I can do the same and to cover for the lack of mechanical interlocking add a small red LED below each lever; the LED being illuminated when the lever is electrically locked.

 

I'm not sure if you saw my question about box size in post 10 which I think I was updating when you posted a reply to the original post.

 

Sorry Ray but I didn't see it - must have been some sort of psychic transmission that suggested tome it would be the next question  (or the downright obvious).  Now looks very good I think and I do like the drawings which are excellent - very clear.  And I like the idea of the white levers - very creative that one.  So I'm looking forward now to its emergence.

[The Great Bear]

I'm quite taken by the DCC Concept lever frame especially after someone posted that they'd managed to design (electrical only) interlocking using it. I am hoping that I can do the same and to cover for the lack of mechanical interlocking add a small red LED below each lever; the LED being illuminated when the lever is electrically locked.

 

Here was how I did it, not elegant and a lot of trial and error: I have negligible electical skill. For the number of levers you have doing it this way should be feasible. Your LED idea sounds good, too.

 

Good luck

 

Jon

[Ray H]

Jon

 

Yours was the post that I had seen although I couldn't remember where or by whom.

 

Circuit wise was your interlocking all achieved through the magic of wires and switch contacts on the lever or did you toss in a few diodes and or relays? Are you aware of the existence of any documentation on-line that details what switching the levers provide. I couldn't see reference to the frame an the website.

 

I'm wondering if it would be possible to house the frame into a "box" like structure such that only the top of the frame and levers is visible.

[The Great Bear]

Yes, interlocking just done through wires and the spare switch contacts - the solenoid point motors and signals used the momentary contacts so the latching contacts were free to use for the connections to link things up. You can find documentation for the Cobalt-S levers (and other DCC concepts stuff) on the Gaugemaster Website

 

For my mainline signalbox I am looking at another way of doing the interlocking as the points are already set up for DCC and I don't think I could manage the same approach for 40 plus levers.

 

All the best,

 

Jon

[Ray H]

Many thanks. I can believe you didn't find interlocking easy with only two sets of change over switches.

[Ray H]

 

As suggested earlier and can be seen in the attached diagram, I've reverted to fixed distants to save a bit of cash having been to a well known builders merchant for some plywood for the baseboard yesterday and spent over £100, I feel I need to save a bit on the levers!

 

Anyway, I've been out for much of today so I'm reluctant to start using power tools at this late hour to start building the baseboards - you wouldn't want to see the mess I can make of a straight line with a hand saw - so I've been doodling with the locking chart for the above and have arrived at:

 

Lever      Locks                    Releases

1          4N, 11N, 13N, 14N
2          11N, 14N

3          5R, 6N, 12N

4          1N, 13N, 14N             5
5          4R, 13N, 14N             3, 6

6          3N, 5R

7

8
9          10R, 12N

10         1N, 2N, 11R              9, 12
11         1N, 2N, 14N              10

12         3N, 9N, 10R

13         1N, 4N

14         1N, 2N, 4N, 11N

 

Would anyone care to comment on what I've missed - I envisage the FPLs being locked when the lever is normal.

 

All being well baseboard construction starts tomorrow although SWMBO wants me to take her out for lunch! However, unbeknown to herself, it will provide me with the opportunity to call in at Screwfix on the way to buy some screws to help advance the baseboard construction!

[beast66606]

As far as I understand things on the LM they would have been worked distants; the GWr was the main user of fixed distants on single lines as far as I'm aware.

 

LNWR was generally fixed distants.

[Ray H]

Apologies for the several threads that I've started about layout build plans and never seemed to get anywhere with them. I hope this post marks the turning point and we'll see trains running and scenery built to the plan below. Anything other than a little bit of green by way of scenery will generally be a first for me!

 

I last had track fixed to a baseboard over a year ago.

 

I then got as far as a re-design after the chance of some more space arose. Alas this coincided with my wife's health taking a tumble just before Christmas and scuppered any idea of doing most things including finding the enthusiasm to move forward with the layout. In all honesty the thought of building eighteen curved points for the fiddle yard and only half that number for the station probably had a significant sub-conscious impact.

 

My wife's health returned to normal (for the time being at least) a couple of months ago and I have since been able to contemplate the next steps in a layout design/build.

 

This eventually culminated in the track plan shown above. It had been designed for some time when I started the thread and I was hopeful that my usual re-thinking process every few days had finally ceased although I had a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the above plan was not going to set the operational interest rocket on fire for any length of time.

 

I managed to avoid finding an excuse to re-think the plan for several weeks and actually started building the baseboards for it. I even mocked up a few very basic cardboard cut-outs for buildings. And then the day of our holiday arrived!

 

We were due to fly at 07.10 and planned to be up and out of the house just after 04.00. We did it but only after I'd had virtually no sleep the evening before as I mulled over the germ of an idea that evolved around the shots of Warley club's Broom Junction layout in the Right Track DVD 15 that I'd watched several weeks earlier.

 

This was something that I felt could hold my interest operationally if only I could fit it into the space available - approximately 7ft square.

 

I'd all but given up trying to mimic Broom's track plan when I suddenly realised that some well-earned compression might work. I could use a Peco double slip and a three-way point that I had in stock from an earlier attempt instead of five points and a diamond crossing to compress the layout area considerably although everything except the fiddle yard would still need to be on a more or less continuous curve.

 

The running lines on the scenic section generally use a minimum 2ft radius curve but the sidings and some fiddle yard curves drop as low as 5rd radius (19.8") in places. I have a desire to be able to run three rather than two coach trains so need FY sidings long enough to do so. I also want to have the option like so many people to be able to set trains running and watch them run and run (or simply to be able to run them in).

 

And so I have arrived at the plan below. I still like the idea of basing it on the Bletchley/Oxford line because it provides an excuse to run virtually anything (apart from Southern and Scottish) from the early sixties planned timescale. The scenario is that neither Verney Junction nor the Met link thereto were ever built. There was minimal capacity for most of the Buckingham & Banbury branch trains beyond the junction and they generally reversed at Wynsloe Road (as the Stratford trains do at Broom) as the line from Bedford to Oxford was single throughout (with passing loops at many stations).

 

There is little traffic specifically to or from the junction so, like Broom, the passenger and freight facilities are minimal - Winslow, Buckingham and Bicester are the larger conurbations and provide the nearest main facilities. Freight via Banbury is re-marshalled at Wynsloe Road and attached to or detached from Bletchley trains there.

 

There was an impressive traffic of the famous Banbury Cakes by rail - Broom had its banana trains! The cakes are brought from Banbury to the junction by the local trip engine (normally shedded at Bletchley). The train would then be worked forward via Oxford by whatever motive power was available although the local council had an aversion to too much brass and copper on locos so locos from IKB's line were never used!

 

Furthermore BRB had decided that Wolverton & Bletchley represented an excellent base near to London to trial the various stock being delivered under the 1955 re-shaping plan so anything was likely to put in an appearance. I was raised in west Essex and spent a lot of time around Stratford & Liverpool Street in the early sixties so have developed a liking for the Class 15 & 16 locos plus the main stay of the Norwich & Cambridge services, classes 37 & 47 (or D67xx and D15xx). An all green Airfix Class 31 that will also put in an appearance if I ever get round to changing the wheels.

 

We know Derby Lightweights were trialled to Buckingham but (in my mind) so were others - the Class 101 being the nearest I can get to the early Metro-Cammell Yellow Diamond units that worked the North Woolwich branch when I was a booking clerk on the line. I have an affinity for roof mounted headcode boxes (with train reporting numbers rather than Mickey Mouse ears)!

 

So there we are. Save for a nasty attack of flu like symptoms less the cold that seem to have struck me since I visited the show in Aylesbury yesterday, I shall be going ahead with the plan below. That is unless there are general cries of you'll regret the tight radius curves.

 

I had planned to build the track for this layout but am not too sure that the slightly larger points will fit (and if truth be known didn't want to delay the build any longer whilst I found the impetus to build the double slip and three way point). I can lay two points, the double slip and the main running lines once the baseboards are built and have trains tail chasing quite quickly. I can then add the extra track and build the traverser over a longer period.

 

And so I ask for views on my proposals. An initial signalling diagram will appear soon for comment.

 

 

There will be stub sidings on either side of the traverser to align with each track  The innermost of the "hidden" tracks top left may end up being partially on the scenic section and I haven't completely ruled out the option of making the access lifting flap scenic as well as I've long wanted a rail over bridge layout on a layout.

[john flann]

Ray, at a first glance and given the constraints you are working under I don't think you could improve that except with minor tinkering as experience is gained and with actual working. Get some track down and see how it goes. One can think too long about these things.

 

I like too the 'story' and the background of fact nicely told.

 

And I hope your wife's health will be better and your own too.

 

All good wishes.

[Ray H]

John
 
Thanks for the good wishes. I'm feeling better today but am not planning to go too mad. Perhaps the baseboards will see some progress over the next day or two. My wife's health is now back to normal at least for the time being.
 
I've now had a first stab at the signalling diagram:
 

 

It is devoid of lever numbers at present (to allow for change without having to re-number) and is my take on the requirement to cater for the movements most likely to take place. I don't intend to do anything that different from what I understand Warley do with their similar layout (and which, as I understand it, is what happened in practice on the prototype) but note that their layout has less signals than I am planning.

 

Movements include:

• Through (direct) trains in each direction to/from any branch although predominantly between Winslow & Claydon. I don't propose to attach anything to or detach anything from through passenger trains.
• Trains from Padbury running round in the down platform, shunting to the down sidings to allow connecting services to arrive and depart as required, then returning to the platform prior to heading back to Padbury.
• Freights from Padbury arriving and splitting their train and leaving part in the down sidings (to go onward to Winslow & beyond) and the remainder (and brake van) in the up yard to go onward to Claydon & beyond. In due course the loco off the inbound trains collects wagons left by through trains from the other two branches and returns with them to Padbury & beyond.
• Occasional freights between Padbury and Claydon branches that reverse at Wynsloe Road where they may change locos and possibly brake vans. The train my layover in the down sidings awaiting an engine or may depart without delay.
• At least one daily trip working in each direction between the Winslow and Claydon branches in each direction that will shunt/attach/detach in both the up yard and down sidings. This may include the odd wagon to be or that has been unloaded in the up yard.

Comments would be appreciated.

 

I hasten to add that signalling is an aspiration possibly more so than scenery! I'd sooner see a layout devoid of signals that have signals that don't work (or are used inappropriately), but I stress that that is very much a personal view

[The Stationmaster]

The only potential problem I can see is the lack of Outer Home Signals.  Technically a train cannot be accepted from either Claydon or Padbury cannot be accepted unless the line is clear, and points set for it, to the Down Starting Signal and (unless Regulation 5 is authorised) that would would not be possible with a train already in that platform unless there is an Outer Home Signal in rear of the Homes protecting the junction.

 

The same of course also applies in the opposite direction where the line would have to be clear to the Starting Signal for the Up platform before a train could be accepted from Winslow.

 

the only thing on what you have drawn which causes me to ask a question is the disc adjacent to the Starting Signal in the Up platform as I can't see any reason for it.  If you intend to shunt into the section (which you clearly have to) there would either be no signal or if such moves are regular there would be a Shunt Ahead subsidiary below one (or both?) arm on the bracketed Starting Signal.

 

Incidentally  the junction should be double track on both routes, then coming down to a single line beyond the junction, but some were accepted as single by - I think - possibly the mid to late 1950s.