RailWest

Ah, looks nice - and like the backdrop too :-)

"Before the Great War Bentworth & Lasham had a passing loop with the points and home signals (NO starters) worked from a ground frame. There is no sign of this GF in contemporary photographs...." Surely you are talking about Herriard here ??, as there was no passing loop or signals at B&L. The GF at H appears to have been at the rear of the platform immediately past the Alton end of the station building. "...other jobs that need doing, these include ..... building the signals etc etc......" I assume that you're applying a dose of 'modeller's licence' then, given that AFAIK there were no signals at Cliddesden (the one in the film being a 'prop')?

Is that not something like a coal bunker or grit-salt store?

"Just to get this clear in my head, S&D trains would have been up from the station as far as Bath Junction, becoming down trains once they were on the Midford section........ Yes, from the perspective of the MR operation staff. "...with the opposite coming the other way...." Hopefully not at the same time in the section

By the way Jerry - having now read the early part of this thread - if you really intend to build ALL the "Bath" signal-boxes, then I'm afraid that you will have to do 5 not 4, 'cos there were three 'Bath Junction' boxes over time

Such faith in me As has been said, there were many places like this, really too numerous to mention (and don't get started on triangular junctions!). Put simply, the MR line was Down to Bath and Up to Mangotsfield. In signalling terms therefore, signals and trains between the Station and Junction boxes would be described accordingly. Conversely, once you 'turned left' at the Junction, then trains were Down to Wimborne and Up to Bath Junction and would be described accordingly on the S&D (indeed, the No 6 ETT instrument in the (later) signal-box was labelled such that trains towards Midford were 'Down'.). Just to illustrate the confusion which may occur for the unwary historian, it was a long time of head-scratching before I discovered that at Wimborne Jcn - where the S&D and L&SWR had separate SBs rather like as at Bath pre-1923 - the same signal would be described in one box as Up and the other as Down and whenever Signalling Instructions were issued for alterations etc the SR and S&D issued their own versions with the Up and Down identities swapped around!!!

I've uploaded a close-up view of a SR-type miniature-arm 'yellow' ground signal (as used at various West Country locations) at www.trainweb.org/railwest/temp/gs-y-ms.jpg Although a 'modern' construction (actually a new one now in use at Midsomer Norton South), it's a good representation for older layouts.

Do you need an excuse to go to the pub? If you have not seen it already, Plate 151 in George Pryer's "Signal Boxes of the London & South Western Railway" (Oakwood Press X68 pub 2000) is a close-up view of Moreton box being 'carefully' dismantled, so you might find it useful for some constructional information. Incidentally, on the subject of SB classification, my previous comments related to the original classifications given by the Signalling Study Group in their OPC book "The Signal Box". I'm afraid George rather 'muddied the waters' with his later book, by using 3C to mean something different. Moreton (and Wool) actually were more akin to a 3B (and listed as such in some sources) in that they had horizontal boarding above the windows rather than the glazed toplights of a true 3A (as in (say) Branksome and boxes to the east thereof). But hey, this was Dorset after all and it will save on some of that fiddly glazing !

I would agree that you should ignore Type 2 and go for a Type 3A. 3B really were mostly further west and recent reaserch suggests that 3C really was a bit of a misnomer and just a continued,but belated use of 3A on the NCR. For 3A examples, then really anything off the Sway line, Bournemouth area, Swanage, line thru' Wool etc.

Well, the latest 'spring' info is in effect "a bit of both" :-) Apparently - on the assumption that it was similar to LMS/LNER practice - then there would be a spring that was compressed once the arm got to fully 'off', but also a spring (or later rubber) buffer to cushion the shock when it returned to 'on'. How you might chose to represent all that in 4mm, assuming that it was not all shrouded anyway, is another matter!

I'm still awaiting confirmation from other sources, but it would appear that the spring was compressed when the arm was pulled 'off' and the purpose was more to cushion the shock when the down-rod reached its limit of movement than as any sort of 'return' mechanism.

Having looked further into the matter of the absent weight lever, it is clear now that the wire from the lever-frame was not attached directly to the arm. There was still a short length of down-rod (probably about 2'-3' long) attached to the crank on the spectacle plate assembly. The lower end of this passed through some sort of support/guide attched to a small rectangular plate fixed to the signal post just below the bottom of the bracket supporting the signal-lamp - you can get a good view of it in the pic at the bottom of p173 in the NCR book. The wire was then attached by some form of shackle to the bottom of this down-rod. There is some suggestion from other contacts of mine that there may have been some form of 'return spring' with the bottom support, but impossible to tell from the pictures. There is quite a good close-up view of the rear of such an assembly on p199 of same book, showing the back of the Down Starting at Camelford (albeit a rail-built post).

"I've made a start on the signal post for the Home Starter signal..." Err....sorry, but there is no such thing as a Home Starter :-). It is either a Home or a Starter, both being 'stop' signals. On the assumption that you are talking about the Up Starting signal at the end of the platform near to the signal-box, then - having looked at quite a good variety of close-up pix of that signal in the Irwell Press book on the NCR (enlarged 2nd edition) - I think that the simple answer is that in fact there was not one fitted to that signal at all. Do not forget that, unlike a LQ arm, the weight lever played no part in operating the arm, its purpose being to pull in the slack of the signal wire when the lever in the SB was restored to normal. Given the very short wire run from that signal to the SB lever (and apparently with a weight-assisted detector on the facing point immediately in advance of it), then perhaps a weight-lever was considered unnecessary?

I may well be at the real Dunster on Sunday - I hope that'll still be in one piece!! Is this 'demolition' just temporary????

"Hence one reason why I see signalling as something a bit more than an operational adjunct (or even 'necessity') as it is as much a part of the scene setting whole as buildings and landscaping etc." I concur with Mike's comments, and would add to it also the need to ensure that the signalling is used in an appropriate prototype fashion. Quite often what actually happened 'on the ground' is not what appears as 'obvious' from simply looking at the signal diagram. It is suprising how often even those groups/individuals who do a great deal of research into their chosen prototype (and sometimes highlight it in their layout descriptions) still managed to make some very basic faux pas. (some interesting examples come to mind here....) What I find particularly annoying/frustrating is when one tries to help them out by explaining the finer points, but simply get ignored Of course, nobody like that on RMWeb :-)

"The 'frame design which it seems most likely was at Kidlington was of a design which couldn't provide conditional locking ...." The SRS Register has no 'type' info for the original frame, but records that it was replaced by a 5.1/4" HT 3-bar in 1918. Replacement frame was the same size (51 levers) as its predecssor, so maybe they just did a like-for-like swop?

With the Advanced Starting signals abolished, and the GF in rear of the Home, should it not now be released by the token for the section rather than from the SB?

Mike no doubt will correct me if I'm wrong <g>, but normally 3-3 is for blocking back outside the *outermost* Home signal, ie the first 'Home' that an approaching train reaches. Interesting thought though - if you occupy the space between the Outer and Inner Homes with a shunt move, then on a double-track line you have to send 2-4 (Blocking Back Inside Home signal). But on single lines this does not seem to apply. Also, the preamble to Regulation 7 for EKT working says that, for the purpose of the Reg, "where an additional home signal is provided, the second home signal is to be regarded as the home signal". Now, in LMS parlance, is not the "second home" the second one that you come to, ie the INNER one????

"if the [Outer Homes] were 440 yards beyond the Advanced Starter would that allow the acceptance of a train even if a shunt move were in progress?" Yes, but...they must be 440 yards beyond the AS, not just from the Outer Home. However, I would suggest IMHO this type of arrangement has more in common with today's heritage railways than pre-BR. "On another forum there was lengthy discussion about the simultaneous acceptance of trains on single lines where traps were not provided at the ends of loops." A different issue - simultaneous acceptance is OK, the traps are needed to allow simultaneous entry into the loops.

>>>for points and signals a switch relates to a lever and that makes sense to me...... Quite right too! I wonder how long before one goes to an exhibition and sees a layout controlled by a chap sat at home and working it over the internet from his PC ?????

To be honest, I do not think that 'block working' is really relevant to a layout of this design (shock, horror ). Where there is a visible and reasonable distance between the modelled station and the fiddle yard, or next part of the layout, perhaps, but in your case it will probably become more of a 'unnecessary frill' than anything. As regards the idea of having the signals control the traction current, one problem there can be the need therefore to provide more extensive signalling than might otherwise have existed. Also, you then have to provide a means of circumventing the controls for those situations where moves past signals at danger would be legitimately authorised. In the case of the proving a 'slot' on the Starting signal for use by the FY operator, then same would also have to apply for those shunt signals which lead out onto the single line, unless the shunt moves will be so short as not to enter the 'tunnel'. Are you actually going to have a separate FY operator anyway - if not then IMHO you will simply make the thing far too complicated and in effect your LH and RH will have to be doing different things!

If you look closely at the signalling diagram for Padstow in the NCR book (page 171 in the enlarged edition), then you will see that there were in fact four main running signals on posts:- 1 Up Starting, 2 Up Advanced Starting, 17 Down Home and the fixed Down Distant. Only the first of those is likely to appear on your layout and photo evidence suggests that it was always a lattice post. Certainly Westinghouse 'half dics' appeared as far west of Padstow. I would agree with Mike re the possible absence of a 'from loop to platform road' shunt at points 2, but if provided then in later years it might well have been one of the 'yellow' variety and therefore of the 'miniature semaphore' type used by the SR for such purposes (as was Padstow No 6 IIRC). If we ignore for a moment the Quay and Q Loop lines, then I would suggest just one disc at points 3 to cover exit from both the Siding and P loop. Had the Q lines been just a headshunt then it could be a 'yellow' one too, but given the usage of those lines then maybe it is best as a 'red' one and keep the disc reading the other way over 4. Points 4 would be hand-points. For block-working, then the 'obvious' choice would be Tyer's Electric Train Tablet (maybe No 3, better to have No 6), unless you want to assume that BR lashed out money on Key Token (either SR or WR pattren depending upon your timescale.). Incidentally - can you remind me please of the period modelled? No doubt it's in the thread somewhere, but if I try to look back a few pages I shall lose all this reply :-(

Well, Chris was having a BAD day, what with a road diversion 'cos of bridge works, a puncture leading to a damaged tyre that needed replacing, followed by a 50 minute crawl only 1 mile from home thro' two sets of roadwork on a diversion to avoid an accident, all in the sweltering heat - you get the idea - AARRGGHHH ! Anyway, I'll leave The Statiomaster to draw the fancy plan and come back later :-) As regards signals posts - providing that your layout date is after the early 1930s when the SR started using rail-built posts, then no problem. L&SWR posts were wooden originally,but then lattice, or rail-built from SR onwards, but it all depended upon when they were installed/renewed and what they had to hand. There are instances of different types being installed at the same location on the date! Variety too in the types of ground-signal to be used.

If your 'bay platform' is intended for passenger traffic use then a trap (not catch - catch=trailing, trap=facing)point would probably not be fitted. However, judging from your photos, I suspect that it is primarily a goods line? In which case, probably also likely that it would be a single-blade trap rather than double - not to say that you can't have a double if you fancy it :-)

>>>As all the other buildings are based on Lyme Regis, as an idea lets use Lyme Regis but that was ground based so lets put it on say a wooden base as opposed to brick. The timber SB at Lyme Regis, along with its companion at Combpyne, was a L&SWR Type 6 box. Apart from the only known elevated exception at Amesbury Junction, the Type 6 boxes (and the earlier Type 5) were designed specifically as ground-level wooden structures mounted on a (very) dwarf brick plinth. As such, they contained ground-level 'knee' frames rather than the more conventional type installed in elevated boxes. If your intention is to model a more elevated design, then I would suggest that you might wish to consider a different prototype.