The Great Bear

Thanks. I'm nervous to question someone with your knowledge, given how limited mine is but my interpretation of SRS plan is that 7 was for the branch, 4 for to the down main with ground disc 24 for entry to the branch siding. Would that make sense? Must admit the bracket arrangement then seems wrong way around, as surely the branch is the main route? Think what I've shown is how it appears in photos.

Thanks, again. The arm below 41 (No.37) is calling on arm. Discussed in here Whether or not I actually include this not sure, but it's a slightly unusual feature I think so maybe yes. Still head scratching on the crossover/slips. Finding hard to visualise; need to go out to the shed and figure it out!

Yes it does - a lot, as usual. Thank you, Mike. A fuller response, likely with some follow up questions some time later. The signals themselves I'm not going to add for ages - don't want to damage them, several accidents with the branch ones learnt that lesson - main reason for doing the diagram now: Before I place scenery e.g. No.42 move bridge not signal(!), I'm pretty set on idea of this one being "on-scene" To inform discussion on how I'm going to do this technically especially interlocking (see related thread) - currently looking promising in this regard; fingers crossed the bit of kit I'd bought in haste will actually do the job, though will need at least one more of them based on number of lever's I'll have and I need to find space for the lever frame - the DCC concepts levers suit me, look good enough for my purposes, and easy to use, but are a bit large. A 50 lever frame is going to be best part of a metre long! Once again thanks and trust you had a good holiday. I see your interest in signals is not limited to just railway ones;) All the best Jon

Thanks, Miss P Yes, that bit I've taken straight from the real plan. Now, this is something I am not sure on. For the one by the station I think that is needed to allow full range of movements from down main to down branch, down main to bay/goods yard, up branch to up main and then chuck in for good measure backing move from down main to up main. In similar vein, for the end of the down siding I have allowed I think for full range of options of moves so goods train on mainline could reverse into siding to place/collect wagons from the branch if too long to make a forward move. Or have I got my levers to do this messed up? Good spot! I deleted that from the prototype to save a lever (along with the 4 no. spares: levers I'm going to use like my branch, £14 for one that does nothing is a bit too profligate). Is it necessary? If I allowed a shunting move in the branch siding to use part of the branch (hidden on the layout) I suppose it is? Once again, thanks Jon [Edited to put more detail on envisaged moves at end of down siding]

By the way, I have been considering having a level crossing to the left of the station. I have moved away from that idea, for now at least, and have it off-scene which then allows me to get two distants for it in on scene in same locations as protoype. (Why are there two of them?) Also for now I've shown the distants for this box, again they'll be off scene but I am currently minded to include the levers for them anyway, may be link in some way with fiddle yard operation.

Here's the signal diagram for Begbrooke, the mainline station on my layout under construction: The layout is GWR 1940s, largely based on Kidlington on the Oxford-Banbury line which was the junction for the Woodstock branch. On my layout it's the junction for Marlingford, my existing branch line terminus. The SRS plan for the prototype can be found here though squinting is necessary. I have the full version of the this and so most of the signalling has been taken straight from this and is hopefully then ok. Where my layout differs from the protype is at the far end of the branch siding where due to space contraints the connection to the mainline has been moved before the farm bridge (as it was inded in the prototype originally) and a double slip used to save space. This is the bit where I have doubt as to what I've done, again I've tried to follow as much of the original as possible. I am not sure to what extent routes in this area each need to be fully signalled to/from the siding. I have had some discussion on how to control the signals and points and interlock the two here Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated as always. If anything's unclear please don't hesitate to ask. Many thanks Jon

Agree about the point, looks good - much more in keeping with the high standard of the rest of the model. I think on The Far North Line Ben has added cut chairs to the outside of his Peco points, another subtle improvement if one has the inclination, patience and steady hand. (I lack the last two.) Will be great to see more now layout safely in its new home, Cheers Jon

Thanks, Sarah. Lots of useful info for me to explore and consider. I've just remembered I've had a copy of "Inland Waterways of Great Britain" on the cupboard next to my desk at work, this I'm sure has similar info in it. I haven't personally ended up looking at it in relation to my work project (we go over a few, including the Oxford canal) but may well in relation to my own project. All the best, Jon

Ditto

Realised what I've shown isn't that sensible and am going to go with the two trap points, like the prototype as that means the switch between the goods shed line and avoiding loop can be hand operated, easier for shunting. (Because of the bridge, this area is out of sight of the signal box anyway.)

Thanks, Gary - some interesting ideas for me to consider. How to treat the edge of the canal and the bridge has always been something I've been unsure about. I will flick through my collection of magazines, modelling books to see what's been done on other layouts to see how they look when finished with completed scenery. I can remember one layout which had something what I was looking for but haven't a clue where I saw it, in print or on here.

A bit more experimenting to try and improve things, the road/canal bridge and also the points entering the goods yard. I find doing the mock up very rewarding: nice to get a tangilble taster of where things are heading. (Taking pictures of them and posting on here helps me think about things to try and improve the end result plus I am getting to grips with new phone's camera.) A An alternative arrangement to the points/trap arrangement at entrance to the goods yard. (The geometry of the double slip didn't fit as well, didn't give enough diverge away from the bay line, Mike). I think this looks better and hopefully is ok way of doing it - I noted from the SRS signal diagram of Kidlington the prototype appears to have similar arrangement but with trap points to rear of the y on both branches. I'm not sure that both are needed, the setting of the points as shown in the photo trap things from the bay line, though I'll await the expert opnion! The masking tape is the canal and you can see I am testing the turning circle of a narrow boat (taking this mock up business too far pehaps!) This arrangement avoids the pronounced kink in the road and fits better, don't need to widen the baseboard over my (messy) workbench. I think things are heading in the right direction. I will sleep on it then get on with laying the track in goods yard over the weekend. Thanks for looking, Jon

Alan, the photos of the 26th July I find particularly good, even by the high standards you routinely set, the first platform view and the one with the Prairie tank heading out especially. And when I get around to rolling stock on my layout, I am going to have remember this thread and find what you did to your Hornby Colletts, they look much better; some of it weathering but the handrails too. I need to check up on what Jules has been doing with his on Mayshill. All the best, Jon

OK, thanks. The "two back" locking seems eminently sensible.

Thanks, one to look at home. Fouling point being where things would hit each other http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61551-your-layout-track-plan-mistakes/?p=789185 How far close to this can the signal go, is there margin for safety? The crossover is slightly longer, the point on the up line a bit futher...erm...up because I set the spacing of the tracks is a bit wider, so toe might be too far back. Will also try and relate to photos etc of real thing tonight.

Thanks, Mike, I'll try that. The short Y point looks a bit weird to me, a longer Y looked better. Are the clearances to the signal in the last photo OK, if you don't mind me asking? As long as the arms, posts are clear of the loading gauge is that it? The prototype used smaller arms in this location due to lack of space, I think I read in caption under one photo in a book.

Thanks, David. My layout is primarily going to be set post war for a variety of reasons: so I can sneak in a railcar in due course, the slim majority of locos & coaches I have are in post war livery, I succumbed to a couple of Hawksworths (so license there too, depending on opinion), I have acquired a Hornby LNER B1 and I may repaint odd item in wartime brown and black liveries. But, yes, the railway infrastructure like signals and bridges I am going to keep a bit earlier. This gives me scope to acquire and run older locos like Cities, Churchward Counties, a GCR Director - just need RTR coaches for all of these and, should one appear - please Mr Bachmann, a railmotor. The original brick and girder bridge over railway is more interesting than the concrete single span replacement, with the interestng arrangement of the branch shoehorned through the backspan. Just looking at Old-Maps, prompted by your reply gives me an idea to try later: realign the canal. Or I'll skew the canal bridge as suggested. Thanks Jon

At long last I am moving forward with the mainline station, Begbrooke. Ages ago, when I'd completed a couple of the baseboards, I mocked things up. Having completed the mainline track last year I am about to sort out the track in the station area and move on to the structures and scenics. One of the reasons for the delay was lack of ideas for a backscene. So to move things forward, for now at least it's just plain painted MDF. As the railway is a cutting in not too hilly land, I am not sure really how much of a backscene was needed and commerical ones I could find didn't fit the bill. Something to think about later. To check things out I've revisted the mock ups from before, pieces of card I'd numbered and stored away to my surprise found again. Yes the baseboard by the end of the siding and goods shed does need an extension piece! Platforms still stop just by the lift up section, phew! Orginally the canal was going to be over the edge of the baseboard, on dropped section but this is going to impinge too much onto my view of my messy table so things have been squeezed a bit with walls next to the ramp on the canal side. The highly skew rail bridge like the prototype is a definite must, wondering whether the canal bridge should be skewed too, the bend in road looks bit weird to me; in reality the canal and railway were much much further apart. (I can't stop making comments on highway design: my day job is designing roads/under a railway Ours are, in general, a bit smoother than this!) The goods shed is also going to need the baseboard extended not such an issue in what location. I'm wondering whether I can squeeze the pointwork more to pull it a bit closer to the mainline to gain a few precious centimetres I think I can legitimately butcher the trap and y points to get them closer together, this would gain a couple of centimetres. Can I do same for the tap point and the right hand one or does there need to be a decent separation here so runaway vehicle less likely to block the running line, the bay patform line in this case? The platform end by the bridge is narrow, as was the real thing I believe. OK so not the right signal (bracket wrong side and missing an arm methinks?) but looks like right one should fit albeit tight? Thanks for looking and any comments/suggestions welcome, as always. Jon

I wouldn't bet on that! The wiring especially the interlocking involved a lot of trial and error. I have hopefully noted it down correctly for future reference. Thanks, Jon

I've recently completed working signals and signal box levers to the rationalised plan above. The levers and frame aren't spruced up, there's trim to add and lever numbers, but holding fire on that in case I decide to try and add some working ground signals at later date. Lever colours were paint I had to hand, likely not the proper GWR shade! I have managed to interlock after a fashion the signals and points (lever can move but does nothing) and in same way facing point locks and ground frame release. Bit of a mess, but works (touch wood). This was hard enough to do and the levers aren't cheap (but do seem good to me and easy to use). The mainline box would have around 50 levers by my reckoning The branch has been wired up for dcc but I need to chip suitable locos before services will recommence. Thanks for looking, Jon

After a period of hibernation, back to shed. After quite a bit of tidying my first project is to get the branch line going again, it having fallen into disrepair and overgrown with rubbish dumped on it, somewhere flat to put stuff. The branch needs to be converted to DCC, done and I want to get signalling working. Due to damage to some of the ratio signals, lack of patience and skill and to keep wiring simple the branch has been converted to One Engine In Steam operation, the signal box reduced to ground frame and signalling rationalised. Here's the modified signal box diagram. I've gone for DCC concepts Cobalt-S levers. I've painted them based on this. Hopefully it's right?! Thanks for looking, Jon

Great pictures of a fantastic layout. Love the pictures of the Hall. And I do like that creamery.

Great photos, Robin. I particularly like the second one of the prairie, I can't put my finger on it but this one looks especially realistic. Look forward to seeing more, Jon

360kph is max speed at opening from what I have read, alignment and structures provide for 400kph where possible.

That is already happening to a small extent for some...