Boco_D1

In regards to the lining on the twins Donald should also have 57646 and 57647 for Douglas painted on their sides.  But the engine’s ‘lost’ their numbers so somewhere along the line a pot of black paint has come out. Maybe the lining was part of the plan to cover up which engine should have arrived, so it didn’t look like a deliberate attempt to cover the numbers up with a splat of black paint.

Nice work Richard it’s a got a feel of the Colnbrook branch as it weaves under the mainline. I can imagine an oil or aggregate train working it’s way along the branch towards a freight terminal.

Thanks for the input Michael, the layout is just meant to be an exercise to get back into scenic modelling in OO gauge before starting my larger layout as I used to model in N. However as a former signaller i’d wanted to get my Signalling right on my layout. It’s a rather large reply you’ve written and as you’ve taken the time to write it I thought it be easier to respond to your comments like so...

On 03/02/2020 at 20:00, Michael Hodgson said:

Most of the comments so far seem correct in the context of  GWR signalling which is of course what you first asked about.  However I suspect your original post was addressing the wrong issue. I hope not as I wanted someone with knowledge of absolute block signalling to point out my errors as I suspected my years of working track circuit had crept in and some of the signalling was in the later practise rather than the former.   It might be helpful to you if you can put your model into a historical context to justify the various anomalies that people see in your layout.

 

Your period modelled is relatively recent when most traditional traffics had ceased, but any single line branch terminus important enough to have an engine shed would originally have had a coaling stage, general purposes coal unloading facilities (a coal merchants), a goods shed a couple of general sidings and probably a cattle dock or end loading platform or similar as seen on most GWR single line branch layouts so often seen  in model railway magazines.  These structures although redundant by your period were typically robustly constructed and would likely survive albeit under private ownership or would at least leave traces.  OK, so you may deem your heritage group to have acquired some of these and for some of it to be demolished or off scene, but they would have governed the physical layout of whatever signalling survives even after any rationalisation(s).  The track plan is based on Wallingford albeit in a rationalised state most of the goods yard has been sold off and built on over the years. The shed surviving as it was a stabling point for an 08 when the yard was bigger and had more traffic or the building had been sold off previously and had survived as a small business or similar and the heritage group took over when it came up for sale (some rational reason like that).

 

If you want to justify having signalling on the strength of retention of what once used to be there, remember that the signal placement would have reflected the hypothetical historical position of these now-obsolete former traffics.  So you should work out where they theoretically were....

 

Two full length platforms is improbable - the second would usually have been more of a short bay used for milk/parcels/horses/cattle/end-loading.  On the other hand a seaside terminus might well have justified more than one long platform - but would have needed sidings (off-scene?) to store excursion trains between workings. The second platform was a spur of the moment idea just trying to keep the layout more interesting but thinking along the lines of a similar set up as Bourne End, keeping the layout a little more interesting to operate, but as pointed out I would need a catch point on the goods and as I have laid the track and the board is only 4ft long (only half of my diagram will be a layout at the moment) i’ve Opted to shorten the track and make it a headshunt again. I think compared to the Wallingford track plan what is my head shunt was the old cattle dock.

 

Yes the GWR would probably have worked by Key Token, but that would probably have been discontinued by your dates. Again i’m thinking along the lines of Bourne End and the reason it’s required is due to the freight traffic on the branch.  In most cases at a rural terminus the signalman would have been able to stroll down  to the platform end and hand the token to the driver before departure was due.  He might have had a "cow's horn" to collect it from incoming trains.  If the box has been closed the structure might have survived (especially if brick rather than timber) either by now derelict or perhaps used for some other railway purpose.

 

Even in steam days a railcar or push-pull service was likely on a branch.  Modern passenger traffic pattern would be DMUs of some sort using only the single platform and as others have already said no signalling at all would now be needed - it would now be worked by a One Train Staff issued and returned to the box controlling junction at the main line (effectively making the branch a long siding) and the box abolished.  Agreed more realistic but a little boring to watch a 121 shuttle in and out once an hour.

Call on signals into the platform(s) would originally have been justified if a loco-hauled train needed to run round  in an adjacent loop (unlikely after the abolition of steam) or perhaps two trains requiring to occupy the platform (perhaps units to couple). When the run round loop was lifted, the call-ons would normally go too. I was going to use the excuse of a need to pick up a parcels van or attaching a unit (in the peak the local arrives shortly followed by the service from Paddington, they couple up and head back to the Junction). The reason i’ve added it so I can shunt a coach for the heritage line and get the loco the right end.

So you need two trains there at once to justify employing a signalman, which is where the goods service potentially comes in - on the basis that there isn't enough of a gap between the passenger trains to accommodate the goods in that gap.  Again reason for the goods line.Or perhaps a "difficult" level crossing still worked manually because it can't safely be automated  -although in this case the job would probably have been downgraded to crossing keeper status reducing the wages bill and the only signalling retained would probably that needed to protect the crossing.

 

Your goods won't be a 1950s style general mixed freight!! Not sure where you got that suggestion from, I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that , i’ve yet to decide what industry will be served on the branch but most likely the traffic will be carried in VGA vans.   If it terminates there, nowadays it will be one single specific traffic - perhaps an oil terminal or a quarry or nuclear flasks or some such.  This probably means modelling special unloading facilities and only justifies one type of goods wagon.  Engineers' depot might allow more variety?  However you did say you wanted goods trains to come in and run round.  You could justify a wider range of freight types if that's all they do - come in, run round and go straight back out.  This would be necessary to allow trains to reverse in order to reach another branch off your branch because that off-scene junction is trailing rather than facing, and if it happens to serve a few different industries that would allow you to run different types of freights. As it stands the length of layout means you’d only see one wagon on the freight anyway so I did consider a similar idea but at the moment it’s rather pointless.

 

It is of course your railway and you can build what you like without having to justify it to anybody, but sorry your idea of a heritage group having running powers sharing track with the national network just seems to me very far-fetched.  Yes, I know the NYMR now run a timetabled service to Whitby but they have very special arrangements in that NYMR trains are segregated from the big railway at both ends.  It's "No Signal Key Token" worked under control of Nunthorpe (ie train crews operate the token instruments after asking permission from a box miles away), and there's no signal boxes or signals left on the section from Grosmont to Whitby.  The North Norfolk can run  through onto the network at Sheringham, but that involves removing fixed locked obstructions either side of the level crossing and they are only allowed to do that a dozen times a year for steam specials.  Some other preserved lines like the Nene Valley also have similar facilities but can't run regular services.  The Mid Norfolk has a connection at Wymondham which is used to allow trains to run FROM the national network for storage at specially built sidings in the middle of nowhere on the MNR pending driver training and commissioning of this fleet of new trains.  I would suggest with your layout such a rail connection only allowing infrequent special excursions or the odd loco delivery etc is perhaps more plausible than running powers.  It’s a Sunday only service when BR are not using the branch, I appreciate an unlikely scenario but I have 3 kettles and  just wanted an excuse/somewhere to run them. I was thinking along the lines of what the Dartmoor railway do.

 

In case you decide to construct a historical justification of a signalling plan I would make a couple of generalised observations about the location of signal boxes.  If there were a level crossing over an important road it would have been right next to that.  The Board of Trade (and mechanical practicalities with rodding) specified limits  on how far a box could be from the points it worked.  Ideally it should be mid way between the furthest most points it controlled to avoid having very heavy levers.  Although power operation gets you round that limitation, that was uncommon when boxes were first built.  So the position on your original plan is probably better than BigP's, and by the way his signal arms all point the wrong way- even for the GWR who always liked to be different!

Resurrecting an old thread but if anyone is interested I have uploaded a video of the final build on youtube

Thanks for clarifying that Mike. I will change the signalling to and from the upper platform as it’s just going to be a head shunt now there’s no requirement for the semaphores, i’ll Just put a disc to come out of the head shunt to run round. 

Thank you for all the knowledgeable answers. I had originally planned for one platform but thought two might make working the layout a little more operationally interesting. But I completely forgot about trap points! I’ve already laid the track on a board and it’s a very tight space so I will go back to having one platform rather than trying to squeeze a set of traps in. I think this might make the signalling layout easier. I will take the great advice given go back to the drawing board and correct my plan.  

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

3.  The connection to the preservation site could be done in several different ways but it is probably best to assume that either -

a. The WR signalling has survived,

or

b. The former shed was redeveloped as a preservation site some time after closure and reconnected and signalled accordingly with a ground frame to control the connection instead of it being worked from the signal box.

If we go with option a the left hand yellow disc would be there, the right hand yellow disc won't be there (because it's technical impossibility in any case) and there would be a red arm disc at the foot of the Inner Home (splitting) Signal reading to the shed.

If we go with option b the ground frame, with 3 levers would be there, the yellow disc would not be there, but the red disc - now worked by the ground frame - would be there.

The choice is yours - it's one or the other.

 

I see what you mean about the right hand yellow disc, it’s not actually protecting anything, a bit of an oversight there. Option B would be my preferred choice (just so I can model a ground frame) the red disc your referring to is this the one I need to add to the inner home? If so would the road for the engine shed have a signal to bring a loco out on to the main line? 

I’d appreciate if someone whose signalling knowledge on absolute block could look over my Signalling “diagram”, I think my knowledge of track circuit block has crept in and i’m certain i’ve got something wrong.

Period wise it’s late 80s early 90s western region. The engine shed is privately owned by a preservation group who have running rights on the branch. The platforms can both be permissively worked. Goods trains come in from the single line and run round via the station. 

So the parts i’m not certain about, does the top platform (2) require the shunt signal or could the signalman clear the starter to the section (held at danger) for that part of the shunt and therefore the shunt signal is not required.

i’ve put a shunt on the goods starter but i’ve now realised I don’t need that signal so please ignore.

Is the shunt signal to return the loco to the goods line in the right place or should that be on the home signal, in which case the signaller would need to shunt into section? (and if so would the driver still be given the token to shunt on the signal line or would there be a loco sized space left between the section signal and the home signal, i would say wait for token release but I could be wrong)

The signal box has a release for the ground frame, once the points are set to return the loco to its shed could the calling on be used (with route indicator) or does that signal require a shunt for the loco to return to shed.

Of course if there is anything else that doesn’t look right please let me know, your help is most appreciated.

Other large engines to visit the brach (although they where during emergency working) Gordon came to pull Thomas from the mine although this was at the other end of the brach. Donald and Douglas also paid a visit to the branch when Thomas decided to renovate the station master’s house. I can imagine either of the Scottish twins where used for freight workings on the branch.

Progress is looking good Rich, it’s a shame you didn’t get to see Sydney gardens it was a beautiful layout to look at, I did manage to video a few shots.

I believe Barry was meant to be a standard 2mt tender engine.

And the large diesel’s do indeed have faces at both ends, I can’t remember the source but I think it was in one of Christopher Awdry’s Books about Sodor.

The j70 looks like a real fantastic model, can’t wait to see it in NWR Livery.

That looks splendid.

That’s completely unrealistic, i’m rather disappointed, there was never that many passengers on the Bedford to Bletchley 

Another superb job, I’ve been trying to resist purchasing this unit as it’s slightly out of my time zone but I do fondly remember watching it trundle along the branch in that livery and you showing what can be achieved with a lovely bit of weathering is making the task far more difficult.

Exciting times, looks like a very promising layout.

In regards to signalling I do believe I read somewhere that after the incident with NWR No.3 and the flying kipper lower quadrant where gradually replaced with upper quadrant. And this is why NWR No.6 mistakes a upper quadrant for a backing signal as he was unaware of the ongoing changes to the signalling.

I spend hours packing models in what can probably be described as over-engineering however I find not all sellers are so cautious. One chap sent some wagons to me through my Hermes, the unboxed wagon in the parcel was poorly wrapped in the large bubble style bubble wrap usually used for packing out boxes to stop items moving around rather than to wrap with. Unsurprisingly it received some damage on it’s transit to me, but the seller refused any responsibility or to even give me a partial refund because ‘the item wasn’t damaged when you won it and I posted it’, well duh. 

I always liked D199 despite his grumpy ways, one of my first models was a Bachmann 46 so always had a soft spot and was desperate to see him in the TV series especially after ERTL made a model of him. Looking at your chosen time period it’s great time for visiting locos and rail tours Edward’s Excursion, double tender Scotsman and Stepney (it’s a shame Hornby’s model is the original build of Stepney, although still a lovely model I would have preferred a Stepney in his Rebuilt guise, I’m planning a rail tour for my own 90s layout with a rake of MK1s being hauled by a terrier and Pannier tank that might look a little familiar to those with the knowledge)

Sounds excellent I did always wonder how the fat controller managed to run his railway with only handful of locos (bearing in mind how often one would be out of action due to a mishap and the size of the railway). As your going for the engines we see in the books will this include the engines seen in the shed in the three railway engines? I can’t remember where I read it but the red one (also seen trying to push Henry) was Called Eagle and worked the branch line from Vicarstown but the other two blue ones where sent away for being naughty.

That wagon behind Oliver should be careful looks like rotten wood and rusty frames he might find himself pulled apart if he tries any tricks. A superb photo I really could imagine that being a part of the little western line running along the coast. On the subject of the little western, have you any plans for the Scottish twins? I assume the upcoming rails models will be ideal candidates to represent them.

Jimmy