AndiMax

Thank You all Well I'm not shure whether I should watch a cricket game next time in GB, but I think I've got an idea how to position my (cosmetic) levers now :-) Andreas

Chris Taking the picture I did not think too much about the position of the levers but this issue is interesting. By flipping the cranks while installing the rodding it is possible to relate any lever position to any direction setting of a point or any position of a signal arm. The “normal” direction of a point is the direction it is set when the lever frame is not released. In a track diagram like the one of Callington (http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sr/cal-boxes.html#CALL) this “unreleased point setting” (what’s the correct wording here?) is clearly shown as running through line. My question now is what would be the “normal position” of the levers? Is all rodding designed in a way that when not released all levers are in the same position, i. e. to the front? And if so: which position (front or pulled) would be the normal one? Andreas

Some 7mm parts arrived and I’ve finished the ground frame close to the station platform. I decided to use two separate levers for the point and it’s FPL with the two cranks sitting on one axle - a solution I've seen on a prototype picture. The starter signal will be located close to the ground frame (see mock up in the picture). While waiting for the rodding parts I sheeted the station building and added an urinal / ladies WC in Tanat Valley style. More to come… Andreas

Martin, there even is a third possibility: the Bishop's Castle had a so called station signal that was at the very end of the line just in front of the loco shed and was quite tall. A train had to stop clear of the station limits, only entering when the signal was lowered. The only thing I don't know is, wether the signal was also lowered in a start situation. But maybe somebody else know's? @all: By the way I'm waiting for my signal kits and rodding parts. As soon as I've installed them I'll let you know. Andreas

Don Rodding etc. will be cosmetic. I operate each turnout manually by a separate underground pushrod that also drives an electic switch. The MSE lever frames are looking good judging from photos. Andreas

Chris, I rechecked some books and could spot lockingbars on branchlines i. e. at Highworth, Brynamman West and Nantymoel (GWR), Greenwich Park (LC&DRy) and Smallbrook Junction (SR). Well, I thought they are easier to spot than they actually are and I assume most of the locking bars simply are out of sight from the typical standpoint of a photographer. But anyhow the situation at Smallbrook Junction is very similar to the situation at Blodwell Junction on the Tanat Vally Light Railway and I'm almost certain that there (TV) were no locking bars. So may be Light Railways were not instructed to use this security item or came around them? What do you think? Most of the FPLs I've spoted are of or similar to the "Sri Lanka type". The only 'economic FPL' I've found is a construction that drives the locking device directly and the switch rod via an "Escapement Crank" giving the locking device way to unlock before the switch blades are actually moved: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=721&forum_id=1 25th message I've also seen some boxes sitting at the axle of the ultimate crank driving the switch rod which could be locking devices but I'm not sure about that. Do you know other economic FPLs? I'm especially interested in pictures or drawings. Andreas

Thank you for your comments. RailWest and Donw are right, the wires of the signal are lead directly to the lever in the groundframe not by means of cranks. I checked the internet for a photo and you can see this clearly i.e. on: http://www.foscl.org.uk/content/scrca-image-2345802012-07-20aksettle-jn-sb-point-rodding-etc The kind of FPLs rodding I’ve designed is derived from the photo I took in Sri Lanka this summer. The railways there are in almost original British condition and the design is more or less identical to the one I’ve found in my book on the K&ESR (see post #30) but with a lock device that’s a little bit more sophisticated. I checked all my books on light railways and branchlines and couldn’t find any lockbars installed. So it seemed – like Chris wrote - to be more common to use 2 levers: 1 for point + trap and 1 for FPL. However a link with interesting Saxby drawings of lockbar and FPL is: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=721&forum_id=1) The link in post #60 is extremely helpful because the layout of Callington comes close to Wanford’s. I noticed that the 2 FPLs at the yard entrance are driven with one lever only. The ground frames A & B are on opposite sides of the mainline so my argument in post #55 is obsolete and consequently I move groundframe B. Updated plans see below and hopefully there are some modelers out there that can give some information on 7mm cranks, levers etc. Andreas

In the meantime I figured out a plan of the point rodding at Wanford (see attachments) or to say how I believe it could have looked like. The plan comes from two ground frames and both signals at the yard entrance: An open ground frame with two levers for point S4 + FPL at the platform end of the loop. A ground frame in a shelter like the one at Jackfield Sidings (Severn Valley Railway) or at Tenterden Town (K&ESR). This ground frame has to serve 2 points with FPL and two signals. Because it sits exactly at the switch blade position of point S3 I felt it’s economic to add an extra lever for this point but no FPL. As this ground frame sets the starter signal I think it must be connected to telephone. There is an alternative position for the open ground frame on the platform side of the main. This I’d certainly favour if the starter would be operated from this ground frame. The reason why I don’t like this solution is simple: my switch rod shows into the other direction. But beside this the solution shown has the advantage that both frames are on the same side of the mainline. So a shunter walking or riding on the footboard of a vehicle must not cross the mainline when moving from one ground frame to the other. I would be pleased get some valuable comments on these “rodding plans” and maybe some of you have tipps which material to use (C&L, MSE, ...) Andreas

Fully agree with Grovenor & RaiWest. Home signals seem more important than starters. Letting trains off into a section can be provided by flags etc. (manned stations) or via telephone by a central operator communicating with the train guard. In fact many German Nebenbahnen (branchlines) had neither but "Trapeztafeln" a sign signalling the point were to stop prior to the station "Home") and a H-Tafel (stop sign) at the platform or in the loop to indicate the exact stopping position within yard limits.

Thanks to all of you. The procedures described are very interesting and fortify me in my decision to model at least 2 stations + fiddle yard to ensure varied operations. I'd like to come back to the issue of ground frames at Jackfield which seem to be preferable acc. to some of you. In post 16 Nearholmer said: 5) at Jackfield, two ground-frames, one at each end of the loop, each with two levers, one point, one FPL; 6) signs outside the loops, requiring incoming trains to stop, whistle, and wait until called forward from the platform; 7) guard of train then to go to station, set the required route (loop-siding or platform) if necessary, and call the train forward; This raises some questions to me: Seemingly the stop signs outside the loops would substitute the Home signals. Can anyone provide a photo of such a sign? Calling the train forward could have been done by the guard with flags, arm or lamp waving as mentioned elsewhere (#4, Nearholmer). Starting of trains: I think starting signals should have been obligatory in the 1940s as the train enters a new block. And in 1940 it’s very likely that the station was manned so a lever frame at the platform is an economic solution. This combination – 2 ground frames + 1 lever frame at the platform could be found i. e. at the Culm Valley at Uffculme. But maybe someone knows of a station where two sections ended that came along without starters? Andreas

Mike 1) understood, in my case (no trains in groups) giving the staff is sufficient. 2) The key locked at Jackfield would only be necessary if - for economic reasons - Jackfield would not be staffed with a stationmaster. In this case the guard (at least he was in charge in Germany) of the train arriving first at the station takes the role of the stationmaster and manages the passing of trains. 3) You mentioned this before: 2nd ground frame and signal close to the platform end. But why is this necessary? It might make sense if there is no station master and the guard (see 2.) releases the train and then hops on … 4) This would make passing much easier but at the expense of some fun … Andreas

Apologies to all interested in this topic. I had to file my tax return and thus had no time to expedite this issue. The layout esp. signalling, trapping and facing point locks evolved to what is shown in the picture below (with two ground frames instead of a signal box at Jackfield also possible). An open issue still is passing trains at Jackfield. Kevin “Nearholmer” wrote: "officially" you can only pass a passenger and a goods train at Jackfield, since there is only one platform, but if you put FPLs on all the point-ends, you could pass two passenger trains. Having in my mind that the WLRy is a line always short of budget and that train passing at Jackfield weren’t planed when the railway was built I’d like to describe passing operations as they have been in use on German Nebenbahnen and like to discuss with you whether these could have taken place on a British light railway in a similar manner. Let’s assume “down” trains have priority because they must arrive at the junction in time. The “up” train – passenger or mixed – arrives at Jackfield platform first and lets local passengers debark. The train then sets back clear of point S3 (the F indicating an FPL) and pulls forward to track 2, the “loop”. S3 is set to the mainline again. Now the staff and ticket for block 1 is given to the station master. In the meantime the “down” passenger train arrived and is waiting in front of the home signal. The train is allowed to pull forward and stops at the platform as soon as the station master has received staff 1. “Down” now exchanges his staffs and after receiving a ticket for block 1 can continue towards the junction. “Up” now receives staff & ticket for block 2, sets back clear of S3, and pulls forward to the platform. While all switches are set correct “up” passengers still have a chance to embark and roughly 10 minutes after arriving at Jackfield (without switching of goods) the “up” train may continue towards Wanford. In the scenario described the staffs must not carry keys required at Jackfield. In Germany all keys required at Jackfield would have been locked at Jackfield or been in the hand of the station master equivalent. Andreas

Based on all this information I checked my books again with sharpened eyes and like to share this here for the interested: “Scotch Block”: The Wantage Tramway definitely ignored the rule that there always has to be a locomotive on the vehicles in the loop. I’ve found a picture of No 7 switching cars on the loop by means of a chain. These vehicles had to be “loose” at least between leaving them on the loop and fixing the chain. As scotch block they used a beam which you can spot in Wilkinson, Reg: The Wantage Tramway, p. 85. Position of the Home signal: At Blodwell Junction the Home signals were exactly at the toe of the first switch despite some odd switching manoeuvres as described in Lloyd, Mike: The Tanat Valley Light Railway, p. 23 (pictures). Facing Point Locks can be spotted i. e. on the K&ESR. You can see them on p. 197 (Tenterden) and with groundframe on p. 218 in the book of Brian Hart, details on pages 171 – 175. The Selsey Tramway had weighted point levers instead of FPLs as you can see on the Barry Slip at Chichester i. e. Cooksey, Laurie A.: The Selsey Tramway, Vol. 2, page 193. Platform height: Wantage was high but still a little bit lower than the usual railway platform (see page 76 – 77 in the book mentioned above, compare to coal waggon). The standard height of the platforms on the Selsey that Kevin mentioned can be spotted on (p. 189). The FPLs on the K&ESR are of a very simple design so I might go for this. As I’m throwing all switches locally with a manual mechanism and not with electronic devices I should be able to go along without the aid of a Volkswagen software engineer.

Leaving a locomotive on the vehicles in the runaround loop is a good option and will certainly be followed whenever inspectors show up If the "scotch-block st s3, and that could be an old sleeper, chained and padlocked to the rails" that Kevin proposes is an option, isn't the grade there also one. The picture shows that the 3 plank waggon on the old flat bottom track sits significantly deeper than the two vehicles in the runaround loop on the new bullhead track. Even on my model it tends to roll downwards if left at the grade at the entry to the coal yard siding (the siding itself is level). Hindering the conversion to Tramway standards might be the height of my platforms as can be spoted in the 2nd attachment (again unfinished: mortar in the platform curb (individual stones) is missing, as well the sheet metal planking of the station building). I know Gleissperren (fixed and mobile ones) but never have seen a 1930s/40s scotch-block. Is there a photo around?

Richard and Kevin are right. What I've drawn are traps like the one in the attached quick shot (roding is missing, coal piles are mock ups only). Sorry for miswording. Nevertheless where I've drawn traps named FPLs there are traps required, are they?