RailWest

There was certainly some form of PSR north of Wincanton, as the indicators can be seen in this photo...

..and maybe you don't anyway ? :-)

Can you not try a 25" OS map ?

I have a copy of a 1900 40':1" plan if that would help, but it will take me some while to find the photos....

Are you going to have a bay window? It's questionable as to whether or not that would be needed at a terminus, depending upon what the rationale was for it in the first place.

Do not forget that, at any location where a train was entering or leaving a single-line section there would be a speed restriction for the collection and/or delivery of the tablet. On those sections of the mainline where the Whitaker apparatus was in use, that would have been 40MPH, but a lower speed would have applied on the Branches (not fitted with Whitaker) and also in cases on the main line where hand-exchange was being done for any reason. I'm not sure of the 'hand' limit, but probably 10MPH.

6 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

That's super-helpful. Thanks!

I had forgotten about the facing point lock…

Many people do - or choose to ignore them :-)

Looking ahead a bit and in an attempt to simplify the discussion on signalling, I've drafted a very rough sketch - clearly not one of my best :-)

Some comments for clarification and/or discussion:-

1.  Although the numbering is purely for identification, IMHO it is roughly along the usual 'typical' lines for an L&SWR-influenced installation - others may disagree?
2. I have assumed a worked distant originally, hence lever 1, but almost certainly by the OP's period it would have been 'fixed' and then 1 would have become a spare (or perhaps re-used for something else?)
3. 4 is the FPL
4. I have included 9 for completeness, even tho' it might be off-scene.
5. HP - Hand Point (local lever)
6. To be honest, for a mid-1880s installation I doubt that there would have been any shunt signals, but I've included them any for 'interest'. If we assumed none originally, but then added later, the numbering might well have been different.
7. It's a matter for speculation whether 3 + 6 might have been just on one push-pull lever (meaning one spare lever) and that perhaps 8 was also one half of a push-pull pair with another shunt at the loop end of that crossover.
8.  The L&SWR certainly had some 10-lever frames, but if you assumed a frame of 2 x 6-lever bays then you could have 12 levers with a couple of them being spares, so the numbering would have to be adjusted accordingly. But the provision of spare levers in early S&DJR frames, although not unknown, was uncommon - after all, spares cost money!

Make of that what you will :-)

21 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

 

 

>>>Having read http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/yellow.html, I think that I the ground signals would be red as I'm assuming that there have been no layout alterations.....

Whether a ground signal remained red or was changed to yellow was not necessarily related to layout alterations, more just a change in "custom & practice".

>>>I'm not sure if the ground signals would be  Stevens 'flap' type or small semaphores...

My working assumption for the type of signal would be that the original provision was the Stevens 'flap' type and that any change to the mini-arm type would have occurred only if (a) an existing needed replacement for some reason (eg damaged in an accident) or (b) a layout alteration required the signal to be moved, so the opportunity was taken to provide a new one at that time.

>>>I'm trying to understand what the ground signal to the right of the slip controls...

That would control ONLY movements from the loop or the sidings across onto the main line. In the original installation any train proceeding into the private siding would simply pass it 'on' as it did not apply for that route. So any shunting move which went out onto the main line, rather than use the start of the private siding as a head-shunt, would need that signal to be cleared. As to exactly where best to place it, see my previous comments and decide as you see fit :-)

I've just noticed that in earlier post about making 3D mock-ups you wrote "The dimensions are from the Bachmann Shillingstone goods shed..."

It's always baffled me how Bachmann managed to 'measure up' for that model, given that the original goods shed at Shillingstone was demolished at an unknown early date and replaced later by some concrete 'provender stores'. AFAIK only one photo of the original structure has come to light so far and that was only a distant background view of one gable end visible above intervening structures.

11 hours ago, Nick C said:

Hand points (except some modern designs) are generally trailable, I.e. you can go through them in a trailing direction when set incorrectly and the wheels will just push them across. Do that on controlled points however and you'll do a lot of damage! 

As @Nick C has said, hand points are trailable. Generally speaking [#] any shunt signals for moves which pass over hand-points are not interlocked with those points (which after all have no lever in the SB anyway) so it is down to the driver/shunter to watch where they are going :-) Equally, there would usually be no ground signal to control any movement from L to R out of the private siding - in a place such as this the traffic would be so light that what went in to the siding could come back out again without fear that there would be another conflicting shunt move by another train across their path.

[# There were instances where, for various reasons, signals were 'detected' through hand points and/or operation of the signal also bolted the hand-point in the required position, but that was not common in a situation such as suggested for this layout.]

It would be quite common for a shunt signal in rear of a trailing point to apply to both the converging routes. So here the signal for exit from the run-round loop over the slip to the main line would also apply to the exit from the adjacent sidings. Whether the signal would be placed to the left of the loop (in the 6-foot between the loop and the platform line) or between the loop and the sidings or even over the RH of the sidings is something which appears to be vary according to the taste of the signal engineer :-)

 As mentioned earlier, in some instances the 'slip' connection would be worked separate from the crossover and then it could have its own ground signal for exit from the sidings (cf Shepton Mallet up sidings for example), but I don't think you would need that here.

44 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

There's barely any SDJR termini! 😆 
Bath, Bournemouth, Bridgwater were all built by a separate railway. Wells was its own particular scenario, leaving only Burnham-on-Sea.

 

 

Looking at the signalling diagrams for Burnham-on-Sea and Bridgwater in Harman & Parkhouse's Pictorial Atlas, the home signal seemed to be a little way out from the station. Burnham-on-Sea diagram has "237 yards" noted next to the signal, and Bridgwater has "25 yards", but I don't know where they are measuring from. Maybe from the signal box?

As such, somewhere on the curve seems plausible, but I wonder if it would be more visible inside the curve or on the outside?
 

Except in some rare circumstances, 'yardage' of signals and points was measured from the centre-line of the signal-box/lever-frame.

Somebody on RMWeb - I forget who - was working on a model S&DJR BLT based on Wells (Priory Road) without the GWR connecting lines. Actually the plan works quite well for BLT purposes IMHO if you look at it like that, albeit a bit more complex than it might have been as a 'pure' terminus.

Most of the signalling information in Harman's splendid book came from this book (2018 revised edition) :-)  Sadly some transcription errors crept into the final work, but such things happen in a 2-volume work of that sheer size.....

10 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

Ah! I guess that's why Burnham-on-Sea's was on the platform. Similarly, I see that Bridgwater's was up the line a bit right next to a level crossing, matching Phill Sutters's comments on an earlier plan  that the signal box would operate a crossing if it was close enough to the station.

Logical, when you know the thinking.
 

Two comments here:-

1. Very little (ie nowt) is known about the earliest signalling at Burnham, but let's just say that the place became the S&DJR equivalent of Ashburton (GWR) in terms of minimalist signalling. Even the crossover almost in front of the box was worked by hand-levers! The box was worked by a porter-signalman who had very little to do other than to pull off the Up Home for an arrival and the Down Starting for a departure - inbetween that he simply pulled over the lever to unlock all the points and left the guard or shunter to work them all by hand.

2. The original SB at Bridgwater was on the Up side about 1/2 way between the level-crossing and the end of the platform (as shown in that excellent 7mm scale model of the station which appeared in the Rly Modeller some while ago). The precise original signalling again is unknown, but probably the gates were worked by a crossing-keeper from the adjacent house and maybe bolted from the SB. At some unknown early date (1905-10 ??) the first SB was closed and replaced by the one at LC with a new ground-level 'knee' frame. More here... www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/bw-branch.html 

38 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

The "pair of points" you have labelled on the left have got a hand operated point in between them, so maybe I'm missing how they can be operate as a pair for the crossover? I don't see how you can operate the double slip in conjunction with a 3rd point for the purpose described. Say set the left most point to go straight on to the goods yard, you can't then have the right side of the slip being tied in to it to set the route for the run around loop.

It is only necessary to work from the SB as a pair the facing point off the running line and the two RH ends of the slip which act as the trap-points from the run-round loop and the sidings. The two LH ends of the slip, which merely control whether trains coming off the main line or out of the private siding go into either run-round loop or the sidings can be controlled by a hand-point.

There were examples where the latter 'slip' part was also controlled from the SB as well, perhaps even with its own ground signal for coming out of the siding, but the traffic needs probably would not have justified the extra cost of the signalling. Keep it simple and cheap !

52 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I'd assumed mid-30s going by Rob's photos of his stock earlier?

• Up advanced would probably be off-stage, assuming the change in colour marked the scenic break - same with the Down Distant.
• The reason for pushing the down home back is to allow a loco to run-round without going outside it (and thus needing to occupy the section), but both variants are found at similar LSWR termini (There aren't any similar SDJR termini to compare with!).
• Shunt from loop over the release crossover doesn't seem to be a commonly signalled move (again using LSWR examples - Swanage is the only one I can see)
• I'm not sure when yellow shunts became common, a red one would do just as well, but would then need to be cleared for access to the industry (though I'm assuming Rob isn't planning on working shunts anyway...). The closest example is Lyme Regis, but that has a separate trap and the shunt positioned for that rather than for the slip, so access to the kickback doesn't pass the signal.
• Rob's already drawn a gate on the siding. I'd imagine it'd just be padlocked in real life.

I couldn't see any gate :-( I would agree about padlocking.

For yellow shunts please see my notes at www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/yellow.html   Based on examples elsewhere on the S&DJR, I doubt they would have made the dummy work for the route into the private siding anyway, the driver would just ignore it or get a hand-signal.

I take your point about the location of the Down Home, but I'm not sure that they would be too bothered by having to Block Back? In any case, clearing the dummy would allow the engine to proceed out "as far as the line was clear" towards the DAS, so it might well have passed the DH and they would need to BB anyway. Also, moving the DH in then gives scope to have the Up Advanced within the scenic bit without it looking too cramped - it all depends really on what the distance would be between the two in terms of the length of train. 

12 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Something like this

Maybe, for a start :-)

What period are we talking about please for the model?

Some random thoughts:

• provide an Up Advanced Starting
• move the Down Home closer to the facing point
• provide a shunt signal FROM loop over release crossover onto plaftorm road?
• would they have upgraded to a 'yellow' shunt anyway , for that and/or the one by double-slip?
• Down Distant signal - admittedly off-scene - probably worked originally, but 'fixed' later.
• if the 'industry' is a private siding, the some sort of boundary gate would be provided, tho' probably not bolted from the SB as the siding does not feed directly onto the main line.

10 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

 

This is the current plan.
 

While not germane to the question of the signal locations, a few notes:

• The double slip exists as I couldn't work out how to fit a point and a trap point into that space such that the next point wasn't over the baseboard joint. I would have gone with Phil's idea of taking the private siding off the main line otherwise.
• Another compromise is that , it uses large radius points at the cost of a tighter curve at 62cm radius. Not sure if that's the best idea, so maybe I should use medium radius and loosen the curve a little.
• Signal box position is a complete guess. I assumed that the signalman needs to collect/give a token the box should be close to where he'd do that. Mind you, Burnham-On-Sea's signal box was on the platform itself.

 

IMHO position of the SB  is OK, but more likely to be close to/at/on the end of the platform ramp - for a quiet place like a BLT it might be manned by a porter-signalman, so why make him walk too far from the station office if not necessary?  Most tablet exchanges would take place while the train was in the platform anyway. The less distance to the engine release crossover, the more likely to bring that within the limit for working  from the SB rather than a local GF. 

Main criterion really is good visibility and location to control the working of the station.

4 minutes ago, Nick C said:

It will be - two running signals and three ground signals (I think the SDJR generally followed LSWR practice for signalling, and the latter tended not to use more than they needed!)

 

Home signal somewhere on the curve on the way in, starter at the end of the platform (which needs to shift about a coach-length towards the bufferstops so that the starter is clear of the crossover), ground signal at the toe of the crossover, yellow ground signal RH end of the slip, and a ground signal at the toe of the loco release crossover.

 

If you've got an up-to-date version of the trackplan I'll draw it on...

Well, yes, no or maybe, could be more or less.....it depends upon on the date of original installation and any imagined changes thereafter :-)

But an up-to-date track-plan would be a good start, I've lost track (no pun intended!) along the way....

2 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

Holcombe would be off the northern section. There are several quarries right on its doorstep. At Coleford, just over the hill. we could hear the warning sirens and the blasts. When travelling in the area, you could sometimes find the road blocked by a guy with a red flag, a precautionery measure in case any fragments flew out of the quarry when the blasting took place.

It's the Somerset Central that would have had to access supplies from the quarries around Cheddar and Wells and those further east.

Access to quarries is one thing. Suitability of the stone extracted there is another matter, about which I have no knowledge.

7 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

I had noted that there were a number of stations with the same basic design, so Midsomer Norton will work just as well for me as Wellow. No matter how much research I think I’m doing, there’s always more that can be done.

As an aside....

A few years ago now I saw a nice S&DJR-themed layout at an exhibition and my discussion with its builder got around to the subject of the model of the goods shed that he had just built, based on the one at MSN. Very nice it was too, but....it had been built from buff-coloured Plasticard (or similar), so I asked when he was going to paint it. He looked puzzled....

It transpired that he had done all his research from B&W photos and had never been to the Radstock/MSN area. Consequently he had assumed that all the buildings had been made from nice golden-buff Bath stone, rather than the actual dirty-grey Mendip limestone....oh dear :-(

4 minutes ago, RobAllen said:

 

Which reminds me that I need to work out signalling for Holcombe. Hoping that it’ll be simple!

Don't bet on it..... :-)

Do I spy stacked SR ground discs in the background? Really ? Tscch...:-)

27 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

Chris Handley, in Volume 2 of Radstock Coal & Steam, says that the reason that the canopy at Radstock sloped up, rather than down, towards the tracks, could have been to allow loco crews a better view along the curved platform. These two volumes are packed with information, photos and scale drawings of Radstock and the surrounding collieries.

I wondered about (signal) sighting as well, but then that could have applied at other places as well. 

1 hour ago, RobAllen said:

Very nice to have work, but I'm knackered!

Anyway, I had a go at mocking up a station building. Guess who forgot that the side walls to go up to the apex of the roof?
 

Not sure about the proportions, so will try again. I'm thinking that Wellow's station building is a good basis for Holcombe's station building as I want a design that suggests "Bath extension". Wellow, Midsomer Norton, Chilcompton, Binegar, Shepton Mallet & Evercreech New were all the same basic design, with the canopy sloping down to the edge of the platform which feels more compared to a flat canopy or one that's higher at the rail end and rakes back towards the station building. I wonder why Midford, Radstock & Masbury were different?

 

To be honest, I have no idea, but Midford was probably something of a temporary arrangement  and the other two may well have been rebuilt at some date. Indeed it may well be at Masbury that the original station building close to the north end when it was just one platform did not have a canopy anyway - who knows?

I believe that the late Maurice Shaw used Wellow as the basis for the station building on his Gauge 1 'Chillow' layout and IIRC it now survives on a G1 model of Midsomer Norton - but I may be wrong, a long time since I saw that. 

Would not 7A just become a hand-point as well?

'Section' signal is the one which actually controls entry into the block section ahead.  Any other signal in rear of it is not a 'section' signal. What it might actually be called would depend upon the local railway practice...