Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in 00

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Mike, thanks for the idea of a two-armed backing signal - that will really get folk scratching their heads!

Just a quick thought Mike - are we talking about two arms on one post, one above the other, or a two-doll bracket?

[Martin S-C]

17 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Quasimodo is about right. The real answer is no bells. I don't need 'em so I won't have 'em...

I'm curious to know what method you do intend to use. I am leaning towards a normal "morse clicker" switch to communicate with other signal boxes but the closed switch illuminates a lamp on the other control panel, rather than ringing a bell.

[5BarVT]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Just a quick thought Mike - are we talking about two arms on one post, one above the other, or a two-doll bracket?

I took that as two arms on the same post. Like a double disc but two backing arms. Top arm reads to the left then lower arm next route to the right i.e. LoS. 

 

That has generated a question in my mind about 9/10 and routing from Branch to Up Main. 9, 19, 6 gives goods/main arms throughout but 10, 17, 6 involves a backing signal which I think of as a shunt signal and I don’t like routing a ‘main’ arm to a shunt signal.  The easy way out is to make 10 released by 17 (not what is shown on your lever leads) but that prevents arriving on the down main from the branch to run round back onto the single line. However, there is no equivalent signalled move for a train doing the opposite so perhaps the operational need is not present.

 

So . . . (just like I do in my day job!), is it desired to operate trains between clay branch and single line and vice versa, with the train stopping on the down main and loco running round via the loop?  Then if so, how is it best signalled?

 

Hope that doesn’t cause too many complications.

 

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I'm curious to know what method you do intend to use. I am leaning towards a normal "morse clicker" switch to communicate with other signal boxes but the closed switch illuminates a lamp on the other control panel, rather than ringing a bell.

Martin, I too will be using switches and lights. More on this in due course.

[5BarVT]

20 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

locking tucked away under the baseboard behind the levers and not in front

I like that too. If I ever build a Moderatec frame I will do that too. It gives the feel of a Midland type frame with the locking on the Ops floor. 

20 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

also try to limit the amount of walking up and down for the bobby. Wouldn't having the two backing signals as 6 and 17 rather go against that principle?

If the move is ‘right away’, it’s no problem as the next lever needed will be 5. If it’s a run round then once 6 is back in the frame it will be back to the middle to set the next move anyway.  The worst will be a move onto the Up Siding as point to point locking will require the crossover normal before pulling the siding points. 

Paul. 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

I took that as two arms on the same post. Like a double disc but two backing arms. Top arm reads to the left then lower arm next route to the right i.e. LoS. 

 

That has generated a question in my mind about 9/10 and routing from Branch to Up Main. 9, 19, 6 gives goods/main arms throughout but 10, 17, 6 involves a backing signal which I think of as a shunt signal and I don’t like routing a ‘main’ arm to a shunt signal.  The easy way out is to make 10 released by 17 (not what is shown on your lever leads) but that prevents arriving on the down main from the branch to run round back onto the single line. However, there is no equivalent signalled move for a train doing the opposite so perhaps the operational need is not present.

 

So . . . (just like I do in my day job!), is it desired to operate trains between clay branch and single line and vice versa, with the train stopping on the down main and loco running round via the loop?  Then if so, how is it best signalled?

 

Hope that doesn’t cause too many complications.

 

Paul.

Paul, that's what I thought about the backing arms too but I wasn't 100% sure. It will certainly look a bit different.

 

Regarding the routing and the types of signals, as I mentioned the diagram is based, as far as practicable, on the real Bugle, subject to the track layout changes I have made. I can't post the prototype diagram in a form that you can read, for copyright reasons, but you can find a low-resolution version on the Signalling Record Society website.

 

The clay trains don't reverse at St Enodoc. The empties arrive from Porthmellyn Road, usually to the Loop, after which the loco runs round using the Down Main and propels the train to Wheal Veronica. After a bit of shunting to get the empties next to the kiln and the van at the other end of the fulls, the train returns to St Enodoc and on to Porthmellyn Road, again usually via the Loop.

 

Hope that makes sense!

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

I took that as two arms on the same post. Like a double disc but two backing arms. Top arm reads to the left then lower arm next route to the right i.e. LoS. 

 

That has generated a question in my mind about 9/10 and routing from Branch to Up Main. 9, 19, 6 gives goods/main arms throughout but 10, 17, 6 involves a backing signal which I think of as a shunt signal and I don’t like routing a ‘main’ arm to a shunt signal.  The easy way out is to make 10 released by 17 (not what is shown on your lever leads) but that prevents arriving on the down main from the branch to run round back onto the single line. However, there is no equivalent signalled move for a train doing the opposite so perhaps the operational need is not present.

 

So . . . (just like I do in my day job!), is it desired to operate trains between clay branch and single line and vice versa, with the train stopping on the down main and loco running round via the loop?  Then if so, how is it best signalled?

 

Hope that doesn’t cause too many complications.

 

Paul.

Two arms on the same post definitely.  Alas I don't have a photo of my own of one but my link did show one (with a 4ft arm as well  ) with a route indicator - they were not particularly rarer - except on model railways.  I do havea photo of a bracket with two separate Backing Signals (one for each of two adjacent lines) 

 

Now as 'St Enodoc' has explained the real world equivalent in the shape of Bugle did have a backing arm at No.17.  It was probably put there on purpose by the GWR to catch out folk coming along a century later and talking about it in disbelieving fashion but in fact in the context of its time it wasn't anything like as odd as it might now seem.  And with two routes one of them is very definitely a backing route towards the LoS.  Further until sometime around 1930(ish) Backing Signals applied to movements 'to or along lines in the wrong direction' and the situation at Bugle was where a movement was being made along a line in the wrong direction so the use of a Backing Signal was absolutely correct at the time the 1916 lever frame was installed.

 

It is very easy to confuse them with shunting signals and the Rule Book and odd occasions of GWR confusion about the meaning of these signals (and what colour light to use in them in the 'on' position) probably doesn't help one bit.  Dead easy from January 1950 when an Instruction was issued that where such signals were replaced they were to be replaced by shunting signals elevated if necessary.  in other words by then they were effectively considered as shunting signals.  But the $64,000 question at Bugle is what, if anything, replaced the Backing Signal and because it was used for a running movement I would be a little surprised if it was a shunting signal - more likely in my view a semaphore with a 3ft arm as happened at some other places.

 

The question of the locking is an interesting one.  Translating from the Bugle Locking Chart but using the St Enodoc lever numbers 17 would be released by 23  (or now that 23 reads additionally to the LoS it would be released by 24 23).  Additionally (as standard in GWR locking practice) at St Enodoc 10 would lock 21.   The opposing signal locking at Bugle  for St Enodoc's  =17 was worked via the lead and not signal to signal, i.e. via 24 reversed in the St Enodoc situation  - not atypical of GWR locking practice at that period from what I have seen on other locking charts although Reading later altered their Office Instruction in respect of locking between signals to avoid reliance on point or FPL levers if they happened to be disconnected for any reason and it wasn't possible to work the lever to maintain the interlocking (vide conversation between myself and John Madeley back in 1985 when he was the WR's best expert on Western mechanical locking).

 

In the short distances involved I wouldn't worry over much about teh Signalman getting a bit of walking exercise.  Sometimes that is inevitable especially on older frames before work study principles began to be applied in the late 1950s and with opposing running signal at opposite ends of the frames and points having to go somewhere in between them some distance was unavoidable.  But don't forget the levers were at 4inch centres so the entire Bugle frame could probably be easily accomodated in the spavce allocated for the 4mm scale Mid Cornwall Lines

 

PS the Backing Arm seen in my Newquay picture in that same link read to a bracket signal which had a similarly bracketed Backing Arm reading to an LoS (the other doll had a running arm reading to the proper direction Up line - for deartures off a platform the other side of teh signal box).  So a Backing Signal reading to an LoS is perfectly ok -  if the GWR did that's good enough for me

Edited July 3, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[5BarVT]

Many thanks Mike.  Although I’m a paid up member of SRS I haven’t found out yet how to get at the full PDFs so I’m limited to the hazy version online. I thought that ‘17’ looked as if it could have been a backing signal on the Bugle sketch. I also know I don’t know much about the technicality of backing signals so thanks for coming to my aid.

 

Having ‘sat at the feet’ of John Madeley myself I’m very happy to accept what he said about WR locking.  I don’t have a set of WR A/B series instructions mores the pity, so if you know anyone who has I would be very pleased to  know.  But to clarify for St Enodoc, 10 can read up to 17 as it has sufficient status to stop a main move.

 

Paul.

[5BarVT]

19 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The clay trains don't reverse at St Enodoc. The empties arrive from Porthmellyn Road, usually to the Loop, after which the loco runs round using the Down Main and propels the train to Wheal Veronica. After a bit of shunting to get the empties next to the kiln and the van at the other end of the fulls, the train returns to St Enodoc and on to Porthmellyn Road, again usually via the Loop.

How refreshing: the signal engineer being able to clearly state the operational needs!

Paul.

Edited July 3, 2019 by 5BarVT
Grammar

[The Stationmaster]

41 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Many thanks Mike.  Although I’m a paid up member of SRS I haven’t found out yet how to get at the full PDFs so I’m limited to the hazy version online. I thought that ‘17’ looked as if it could have been a backing signal on the Bugle sketch. I also know I don’t know much about the technicality of backing signals so thanks for coming to my aid.

 

Having ‘sat at the feet’ of John Madeley myself I’m very happy to accept what he said about WR locking.  I don’t have a set of WR A/B series instructions mores the pity, so if you know anyone who has I would be very pleased to  know.  But to clarify for St Enodoc, 10 can read up to 17 as it has sufficient status to stop a main move.

 

Paul.

19 can indeed read to 17 as you have said but if the movement is to be brought to a stand at 17 it would be necessary to first put on a 2-4 Block Back to Porthmellyn Road but if the movement is going to proceed past 17 onto the Up Main without coming to a stand the Block Back won't be necessary.  Obviously if a movement is going towards the LoS a 3-3 Block Back would be required before the movement is allowed to pass =17.

 

Paul I'll have to see if I do have a spare copy of the 1960 WR Block Regs.  I have got two copies but one is my original issue so is fully amended while the other is 'clean' copy so I find it useful to have both.  But you never know (and neither do I at times) what might be lurking elsewhere as I have all sorts of things squirreled away - the other day I even found a load of drawings I didn't think I'd got, mostly locking drawings.  And I found my 1990s set of the Signalling Principles (they came courtesy John Wagstaffe, who you might also have known and with whom I did a lot of scheme work over the years.

[5BarVT]

Many thanks for your kind offer Mike. As it happens, I recently purchased a copy of the 1960 WR Block Regs so that I had in black and white not needing to repeat 2-1. I haven’t read them in detail yet.  I have a 1980 Derby School set of SSPs.

Interesting the need to BBI for a train at a stand but not for one passing through the clearance point.  Understandable, as one could be forgotten about, the other needs points to be operated first and even if that were forgotten the train would be well out if the way before any incident could occur.  (They were good at safety engineering in those days, they just didn’t call it that!)

I did know John Wagstaffe - he was in charge of scheme development towards the end of my training: they doing Westbury and Exeter at the time.  I still see one of the TOs who worked for JW when I visit York. 

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Two arms on the same post definitely.  Alas I don't have a photo of my own of one but my link did show one (with a 4ft arm as well  ) with a route indicator - they were not particularly rarer - except on model railways.  I do havea photo of a bracket with two separate Backing Signals (one for each of two adjacent lines) 

 

Now as 'St Enodoc' has explained the real world equivalent in the shape of Bugle did have a backing arm at No.17.  It was probably put there on purpose by the GWR to catch out folk coming along a century later and talking about it in disbelieving fashion but in fact in the context of its time it wasn't anything like as odd as it might now seem.  And with two routes one of them is very definitely a backing route towards the LoS.  Further until sometime around 1930(ish) Backing Signals applied to movements 'to or along lines in the wrong direction' and the situation at Bugle was where a movement was being made along a line in the wrong direction so the use of a Backing Signal was absolutely correct at the time the 1916 lever frame was installed.

 

It is very easy to confuse them with shunting signals and the Rule Book and odd occasions of GWR confusion about the meaning of these signals (and what colour light to use in them in the 'on' position) probably doesn't help one bit.  Dead easy from January 1950 when an Instruction was issued that where such signals were replaced they were to be replaced by shunting signals elevated if necessary.  in other words by then they were effectively considered as shunting signals.  But the $64,000 question at Bugle is what, if anything, replaced the Backing Signal and because it was used for a running movement I would be a little surprised if it was a shunting signal - more likely in my view a semaphore with a 3ft arm as happened at some other places.

 

The question of the locking is an interesting one.  Translating from the Bugle Locking Chart but using the St Enodoc lever numbers 17 would be released by 23  (or now that 23 reads additionally to the LoS it would be released by 24 23).  Additionally (as standard in GWR locking practice) at St Enodoc 10 would lock 21.   The opposing signal locking at Bugle  for St Enodoc's  =17 was worked via the lead and not signal to signal, i.e. via 24 reversed in the St Enodoc situation  - not atypical of GWR locking practice at that period from what I have seen on other locking charts although Reading later altered their Office Instruction in respect of locking between signals to avoid reliance on point or FPL levers if they happened to be disconnected for any reason and it wasn't possible to work the lever to maintain the interlocking (vide conversation between myself and John Madeley back in 1985 when he was the WR's best expert on Western mechanical locking).

 

In the short distances involved I wouldn't worry over much about teh Signalman getting a bit of walking exercise.  Sometimes that is inevitable especially on older frames before work study principles began to be applied in the late 1950s and with opposing running signal at opposite ends of the frames and points having to go somewhere in between them some distance was unavoidable.  But don't forget the levers were at 4inch centres so the entire Bugle frame could probably be easily accomodated in the spavce allocated for the 4mm scale Mid Cornwall Lines

 

PS the Backing Arm seen in my Newquay picture in that same link read to a bracket signal which had a similarly bracketed Backing Arm reading to an LoS (the other doll had a running arm reading to the proper direction Up line - for deartures off a platform the other side of teh signal box).  So a Backing Signal reading to an LoS is perfectly ok -  if the GWR did that's good enough for me

 

4 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Many thanks Mike.  Although I’m a paid up member of SRS I haven’t found out yet how to get at the full PDFs so I’m limited to the hazy version online. I thought that ‘17’ looked as if it could have been a backing signal on the Bugle sketch. I also know I don’t know much about the technicality of backing signals so thanks for coming to my aid.

 

Having ‘sat at the feet’ of John Madeley myself I’m very happy to accept what he said about WR locking.  I don’t have a set of WR A/B series instructions mores the pity, so if you know anyone who has I would be very pleased to  know.  But to clarify for St Enodoc, 10 can read up to 17 as it has sufficient status to stop a main move.

 

Paul.

Thanks again Mike and Paul. Two backing arms on a single post it shall be then. I'll play with the numbering at the weekend once I'm back in Sydney.

 

The Mid-Cornwall Lines live in a room 7m x 6m so yes the Bugle frame would fit - if the layout wasn't taking up all the space!

 

The future Pentowan (Newquay) terminus won't need any backing signals as, for various reasons, it will be single rather than double track. There will be a "cash register" route indicator on the Down Home though. At the moment I think that will have to be a static dummy although my friend Charles has two fully-working ones in 7mm scale...

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

How refreshing: the signal engineer being able to clearly state the operational needs!

Paul.

Oi, who are you calling a signalling engineer? I'm a rolling stock engineer mate...

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

19 can indeed read to 17 as you have said but if the movement is to be brought to a stand at 17 it would be necessary to first put on a 2-4 Block Back to Porthmellyn Road but if the movement is going to proceed past 17 onto the Up Main without coming to a stand the Block Back won't be necessary.  Obviously if a movement is going towards the LoS a 3-3 Block Back would be required before the movement is allowed to pass =17.

 

Paul I'll have to see if I do have a spare copy of the 1960 WR Block Regs.  I have got two copies but one is my original issue so is fully amended while the other is 'clean' copy so I find it useful to have both.  But you never know (and neither do I at times) what might be lurking elsewhere as I have all sorts of things squirreled away - the other day I even found a load of drawings I didn't think I'd got, mostly locking drawings.  And I found my 1990s set of the Signalling Principles (they came courtesy John Wagstaffe, who you might also have known and with whom I did a lot of scheme work over the years.

 

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Many thanks for your kind offer Mike. As it happens, I recently purchased a copy of the 1960 WR Block Regs so that I had in black and white not needing to repeat 2-1. I haven’t read them in detail yet.  I have a 1980 Derby School set of SSPs.

Interesting the need to BBI for a train at a stand but not for one passing through the clearance point.  Understandable, as one could be forgotten about, the other needs points to be operated first and even if that were forgotten the train would be well out if the way before any incident could occur.  (They were good at safety engineering in those days, they just didn’t call it that!)

I did know John Wagstaffe - he was in charge of scheme development towards the end of my training: they doing Westbury and Exeter at the time.  I still see one of the TOs who worked for JW when I visit York. 

Paul.

I think you've given me yet more reasons not to bother with bells...

[Barry O]

Cue...the bells are ringing but no trains to be seen running.. aka Heckmondwike

Baz

[Clive Mortimore]

The best layout for bells I have seen was Jas Millham's "Three Mills". Even being placed the other side of the hall to him I could still hear Ding Ding Ding , then the reply . The funny part about it there was only Jas operating the layout.

 

 

Edit I did type the reply but it looks like RMweb censor doesn't line D  ong , D  ong  D  ong

Edited July 4, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The best layout for bells I have seen was Jas Millham's "Three Mills". Even being placed the other side of the hall to him I could still hear Ding Ding Ding , then the reply . The funny part about it there was only Jas operating the layout.

Three Mills, three bells. Makes sense...

 

A pint of Long Man at the Eight Bells, Jevington, would make even better sense but that's another story.

 

http://www.theeightbellsjevington.co.uk/

 

https://www.longmanbrewery.com/

 

Usual disclaimer (hic).

Edited July 4, 2019 by St Enodoc

[St Enodoc]

During the tea break at Wednesday's Mousehaven Railway running session (see https://modelrailmusings.weebly.com/layout---mousehaven.html), one of the team showed off his latest creation. It's a 1:350 scale model of Monbulk Creek trestle bridge on the Puffing Billy Railway just outside Melbourne. and is powered by a linear motor:

 

https://modelrailmusings.weebly.com/layout---monbulk-creek.html

 

Now, that got me thinking. As you know, Pentowan is inspired by the seaside town of Newquay and every self-respecting seaside town needs a miniature railway. My plan had been to use a T gauge starter set as the basis for this but now I'm tempted to try the linear motor technology, perhaps using something like this as a basis:

 

https://www.teenytrains.com/product-page/Miniature-Track-Set-PS100B

 

Set in a park, with the passengers sitting astride the coaches in traditional style, I think it will be great fun.

 

Watch this space (but don't hold your breath...).

Edited July 5, 2019 by St Enodoc
Speling

[DougN]

Ah yes 

 

 

its even here! Martin has amazing skills with these types of trains! 

[St Enodoc]

59 minutes ago, DougN said:

Ah yes 

 

 

its even here! Martin has amazing skills with these types of trains! 

Thanks Doug. Yes he does.

 

I thought Martin was on RMweb but since the changes at the beginning of this year my list of "friends" has disappeared. He's not the only one whose RMweb name I can't remember (must be an age thing...). Thanks for rebuilding the connection and linking to his thread.

 

Perhaps we should have an optional field in the BRMA membership list for RMweb names?

[nerron]

Good idea John, you should raise it at the next Exec C'tee meeting.

[Sharky]

Looks excellent!
Will look forward to seeing it at the Caulfield Exhibition this year.

As for using this method for a miniature railway for your layout, I think it defiantly has potentially.
Not as much maintenance as a T gauge layout would require.
Would also be a hell of a lot easier to place rolling stock on the 'track'.

Certainly would be worth looking in to, and maybe even experimenting with.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, nerron said:

Good idea John, you should raise it at the next Exec C'tee meeting.

I will! It's on 10/8/19 at my place as it happens.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Sharky said:

Looks excellent!
Will look forward to seeing it at the Caulfield Exhibition this year.

As for using this method for a miniature railway for your layout, I think it defiantly has potentially.
Not as much maintenance as a T gauge layout would require.
Would also be a hell of a lot easier to place rolling stock on the 'track'.

Certainly would be worth looking in to, and maybe even experimenting with.

Yes, and I"m sure I'd get all the technical advice I need from Martin at mate's rates!

[St Enodoc]

On 05/07/2019 at 16:04, Sharky said:

Looks excellent!
Will look forward to seeing it at the Caulfield Exhibition this year.

Not sure whether Ray and his mates are taking their 0n30 Puffing Billy layout but if there are it might be fun to have that and Martin's side by side - or even one in front of the other...