Junctionmad

Your reference to Mr Cuneo, shows exactly was in the rear and in advance is used in signalling terms. The terms apply to the direction of the train as it normally travels. Hence the immediate confusion if you use common terms , like " in front of ". ( if you think about it , a signal in front of a point cant actually protect it !!, because what is the definition of the " front" of a point ) just like using left or right on a ship is ambiguous , because it refers to the orientation of the speaker , whereas the understanding of port and starboard is always in respect of the bow of the ship and hence to those that understand the point, its removes any ambiguity in exactly the same way to those that understand , the use of" in the rear " and "in advance " removes any ambiguity because in essence it references signalling to train direction , again because signalling is highly relevant to train direction I see no confusion , try putting a member of the public on a ship , theres no loo, no kitchen, only one rope, no front or back, left or right, no stairs, beds or floor!!!

given the small subscription fee and the wealth of information on building hand made track , I suggest you join the society, rather then use another members access regards ( a S4 member )

while this is often a view elucidated by those " outside " , its not why jargon gets invented. jargon is invented to name concepts or things that are specific to the industry in the name of brevity and understanding amongst the cognoscenti. Once a common understanding is reached within the industry on a term , it is then rapidly accepted, as its conveys a specific meaning to those that know. in that respect, the jargon or tech speak or a sector is not, by design, aimed at, the " general public ". Where such communications are needed , geniuses! in the marketing department get together and produce " plain english " versions for the public. Thats has it should be. A railway signal engineer is not engaging with the public, he's or she is engaging with fellow professionals. Try a lunch time chat with a group of software engineers, you'll be lucky to recognise it as english never mind jargon !!!!!

In reality , with a single booster, all DCC layouts are common return ( and of course common feed )

Do you mean where a shunt occurs between an inner and outer home , a 3-3 bell would be exchanged ( except if following a departing train

Thank you very much I model Irish railways in the 70s as well as WR based club layouts. Your last comment is interesting as it formed the basis for a collision in the 70s at Rosslare strand where AS and OH were added and a train was also accepted under warning . The inspectors report makes interesting reading CIE at that stage were changing from the 1950s RCH rule book to the 1972 BR one ( which added a provision to require 3-3 if shunting between OH and inner homes as well

Agreed and the majority of my club are such " exhibition " layouts that are essentially concentric circles , allows for easy exhibition running but very boring and unprotypicsl The ones in build now are more complex and in all likehood will be dcc.

I'm not at all a fan of common return

Tks , that's all clear

Could I summarise my understanding This is based on the situation where the outer home is beyond the starter , i.e. the home is futher back on the single line 1. you can shunt past the starter, without it being pulled off and no token is needed 2. this can be done if a train has departed travelling away from you 3. if your shunt takes you to the rear of the OH , 3-3 is exchanged 4. if 2-1 is sent by the remote box, the box answers directly with 3-3 rathe then acknowledging the 2-1 , assuming the shunt is to the rear of the OH so on a model , it would be acceptable to shunt past the AS ,but not past the OH ( then a 3-3 is needed ) with the AS at danger ( where the AS is the signal the shunting train hits first !)

again , I think a book about signalling for railway modellers, would be heavy on using fictitious layouts to illustrate " typical " placement and usage of signals. helped by some useful prototype pictures to illustrate the diagrams. whats not useful to beginners is pictures of prototypes illustrating signalling in itself , because typically such modellers cant relate the prototype correctly to their model. ( if they could , they wouldn't be on here , with cries of " signal my layout for me please " ) Hence the nice idea to signal CJF's Minories and perhaps some others from the same book etc

as is often stated , if you dont like the thread , then dont read it. Nothing annoys me more then people criticising the nature of a thread rather then criticising the subject of the thread

by any definition of the term " dead realistic " I would take it to mean that the track is as close a facsimile to the real thing as practical. to me P4 and more correctly S4 are " dead realistic " PECO bullhead is a realistic interpetration , but " dead realistic " , no

thanks, Ill include it as I thinks its an interesting step forward for those in the club that remain DC

Thanks, I think in recent years ( post 72 ?) the trend has been to require a token release to pass an advance starter for shunting , I wasn't aware of this regulation " with the exception of it being done after a departing train", thats an interesting one ​I admit its an edge case because in the prototype in my case distances were such that shunting would not have exceeded the AS in either direction ( AS's were added for precisely that reason) ​Howver in my model , space is constrained, so trains will need to pass the AS to shunt certain sidings , and I was wonder whether its a " howler " to release the AS or not ? Final comment ​Its been my experience that many token releases are locked to the advanced starter. SO in the case of shunting past the AS following a departed train , The AS would not be pulled off for that move, in that case does the signalman hand signal the move past the AS ?

Heres the diagram , personally Id say the bracket platform starter is unusual to say the least SM 10 , 30,34 being more usual in indicating routes , but I can see the point of 65,52,54. because all those lines lead more or less directly onto the UP line. They are in effect simply a space saving way of not having three separate signal posts, but in reality they are read exactly as if there were three separate posts ( i.e. unlike bracket signals that typically read from one line to multiple routes ) Again, getting back to the OP, where this example is " interesting ", its not at all terribly relevant to the average modeller, typically siting platform starters ?

without a diagram and just seeing it , thats exactly as how I would see it too. I was always of the view that semaphores brackets were predominantly " route indicators " and not " protecting crossing ahead " as a primary function ( since that could be done with a single arm )

The reason I ask , is Im doing a " electrics and model railway " series of practical talks at my club. I was wondering whether to include cab control for DC as to date none of the club layouts have used it , they have always been the isolating sections and controller fixed to a particular track section , usually up and down lines for example , with all the issues of controlling locos making crossovers, i.e. synchronising each controller etc

so what you are saying is that ETB regulations allowed a shunt into the next section to ignore the starter/section signal and pass it at danger ? would therefore, in the case where the advanced starter is inside the outer home, also be that case, i.e. the shunt outside the starter would be authorised by hand , and the starter ignored, i.e. to a platform observer , a train went through a signal at danger !. i.e. if the train needed to shunt into section A, then infact no bell signals would be sent and all that would happen is the driver would be authorised to shunt past the AS at danger ?, its only if the shunt was to pass the OH, then 3-3 would be sent ?. I find it hard to believe a driver would pass an AS without a token ? OK, so where he just blocked back, he couldnt pull off the platform starter ?, and also why would you release a token to clear the platform starter since its not the section signal ? , isnt it the case that the token release is electrically locked to the AS ?

I have some issues here , yes I agree normally with outer homes and advanced starters no shunts go beyond the starter or set back in the rear of the home. ( mind you again , I have an issue where the advanced starter in both directions is inside the outer home, when does 3-3 apply rather then a token release to clear the advanced starter ) But , I can't agree with My understanding , as per station master is a shunt going beyond the home is a 3-3 , and the starter is effectively ignored At no point would a token be released on backing through a home , that makes no sense , home signals don't release tokens ( so to speak ) , starters do ( if you get the meaning ) Again the issue is where the advanced starter is inside the outer home , and the shunt remains inside the home but outside the advanced starter, my view is in that case a token would be needed and 3-3 would not apply

Thanks stationmaster, so typically the shunt could , pass intermediate starters that are " on" and even the outermost starter , the advance starter could be passed at danger ? Without a token release. So why was token request and token returned bell codes introduced ? And what' happens if the shunt fouled the clearing point , yet I understand there is no blocking back inside the home bell for ETB. So is it the intermediate starters , say like a platform starter would be pulled off , but the 3-3 is still given , and the train would pass the home ( in reverse direction ) but not the outer starter ? What would happen if the home was outside the outermost starter ? ( which is the case in my case ) and the shunt needed to pass that starter but not the outer home Would drivers pass starters at danger in a shunt move , I find that problematic My understanding was that advanced starters were added to diagrams to specifically remove the need to release a token to shunt ahead , i.e. Shunting could now go as far as the advanced starter without token release. Wasn't this the reason they existed

Here's a question , I should know the answer to, but don't With electric token block and obviously on a single line , how are station limits applied , are these still home to starter ? , hence the limits will be different in each direction ? Since each access in each direction requires a token , I presume there is no concept of " blocking back " Rather a token request needs to be issued and the relevant starter pulled off ? Or is it that once the clearance point of the home is fouled even if that , is situated in the rear of the starter , then a block back inside the home would be issued ? Where an advanced starter wasn't present , or shunting took place "in advance " of the starter ( i.e. A yard in advance of the starter ) , would that have always required a token , where shunt ahead was used would this type of signal have applied ? Am I correct , in a generic sense here ? ( leaving aside special regulations or regional oddities etc )

I agree , and this is a failing of the " experts" to relate to " real life " model railways! . Worrying about " sighting distances " or " shunt ahead" when no block exists in a model railway is ridiculous. So to take the previous posters issue , it doesn't matter on a model railway if one is required to " shunt ahead" because the section signal is close , you just do it ! , either by pulling of the signal , or " assuming " the driver has received specific verbal instructions to proceed etc. It's just your imagination. ! Hence the futility of " nitpicking " by continuously mentioning situations where the " generality " doesn't apply , as if such specific cases then invalidate the " generality ". For the average modeller such specifics and nitpicking simply don't have relevance and merely serve to confuse rather then enlighten The average modeller with an average fictitious layout , simply doesn't have to understand the specifics you mention , everything is concatenated on a model railway and in reality sighting distances are entirely irrelevant and it's likely signals will be placed well short of the longest trains. In that case modellers will simply ignore blocking back or shunting ahead as these are only really relevant in the context of a functional block system The same approach can be applied to interlocking, what the modellers needs is an understanding of how not to set up conflicting moves , i.e. To avoid obvious howlers. Then the interlocking can be imagined ! A classic example is my own layout , which is signalled prototypically as it's a model of a real location and hence the semaphores are a facsimile. BUT , distances are severely concaternated , especially between outer and inner homes and starters to advanced starters. Hence I will regularly breech the station limits and in shunting ( especially with the starters ) many trains are too long to shunt without effectively entering the section ahead or in the rear. Hence in reality, while the prototype rarely breached the station limits , I will habitually , hence I have to simply ignore any prototype practices since they don't basically work.

Just bring back " the constructor " I miss MRC

No one, ever expected " dead realistic track " , it's 00 after all , it can't be " dead realistic " by definition