Keith Addenbrooke

59 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The big problem is the presence of facing points.  now while they were not completely unknown there had to be a very good reason for them and they were usually avoided like the plague (because that was the required situation).  So  -

1,  If you want ro create the impression of something 'typical' the only facing points will be those at the entrance to the loops.  All other running line points should be trailing.  

 

2. The layout you have drawn would be a right s*d to signal properly and if a layout is a s*d to signal that usually means something, or a number of somethings, about it is not right

 

3.  Island platforms at GWR single crossing stations weren't incredibly common but equally they were far from unknown.  I found four in Cornwall, on two different branches,  in a couple of minutes of wandering round the 'net and there was one, not far from where I sit typing this,  on another GWR branch (which opened in the late 1850s) and a long way from Cornwall. BUT -

 

Generally crossing stations with island platforms seen to take up more space especially if there is more than a very simple arrangement of sidings with only one lead off the single line.  For the number of connections you have in mind a two platform arrangement would probably make more sense but it would be a lot longer  whereas an island platform would be wider while still not saving much on length for what you have in mind.

 

4.  While engine sheds at intermediate stations on secondary lines were not unknown they would definitely fall into the 'much less common' category and yours, as already noted, comes at the expense of siding space for freight traffic.

 

What I recommend anyone to do when planning a layout is to have a good look at what things were like in the real world, especially their chosen part of it - be that by Railway Company or geographically.   Look at drawings. layout plans, photos and sketches and then as your familiarity and ideas develop start sketching a few track layouts to compare with the real world to see if you're getting things in the right sort of 'flavour'.  As is often said by Tony Wright - a well known and extremely good, modeller it is easier to copy the real thing than design it yourself.  I don't entirely follow that line because provided you can get 'the feel' of typical track layouts and the facilities they offer my view is that you can develop the skill to produce pretty good facsimiles of style but serving things you can legitimately claim to need to be served in the area your layout purports to serve.  But it does depend on building up that understanding and appreciation of the way your favoured company did things and it is undoubtedly easier to copy rather than originate.

Excellent and full response, thank you.  I need to log off now, but would like to respond tomorrow.  Thanks, Keith.

51 minutes ago, RailWest said:

There were island platforms at St Agnes and Perranporth, but both arose as a result of re-building in later years.

 

Bi-directional signalling on both loops IMHO would be very rare unless it was one of those (quite common) locations where only the main line was passenger-rated and the other line was non-passenger only. In the latter case then traps would be needed at C and D. If the former, then traps at E and F. No need for traps at G and H in either scenario.

 

Put the signal-box in the middle of the layout, either on the platform or on the ground adjacent to one of the platform lines.

Thank you - I’d not considered locating the signal box centrally (it would have to be at the top of the plan or on the platform, as the edge of the world is too close to the bottom).  I’d assumed it would need to be adjacent to the running line either entering or leaving the station for issuing / receipt of block tokens.

With regards to bi-directional signalling, I agree it adds to the complexity - it may be that I’m simply thinking in terms of overly complicated possible operating patterns, and it would be easier to look at either single direction running through the loop (Down trains take platform 2, Up trains platform 1), or keep the loop as a good only loop, especially if the engine shed becomes a good shed as suggested by iands.  The latter option makes fitting in trap points easier as there is enough space at C and D.

1 hour ago, iands said:

Picking up on a point made by Joseph_Pestell, the engine shed could be "converted" to become a Goods Shed instead - might create more shunting options? 

Good point - I left the Engine Shed in as I’ll be having some trains terminate and originate at this station (also the carriage siding).

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Not impossible. But it will look a bit strange.

 

It may help if you can give us a bit more detail about the overall size of the layout, particularly the distance from the station to the halt/level crossing.

Hi Joseph, thank you for the reply.  The distance to the level crossing in my mind would ideally be around 2 to 3 miles, but in layout terms it’s only one train length (but around a curve and out of sight).

For this exercise, I’d wondered about ‘fixed at caution’ distant signal arms below the stop signals at platform end?

————————-

In terms of the layout idea, I rather shied away from revealing it for the health and well-being of my fellow RMwebbers: for a myriad of reasons (which I am personally quite happy with) it’s a 4’ x 8’ board with just the one station and a continuous run (hence ‘some’ trains will terminate and originate there).  
 

It would be a separate story as to how and why this is the case - but that would be for another Forum and another time perhaps...

Having confessed, I can’t actually post a picture at the moment - I don’t have access to the right files today, sorry.

30 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

There were not a lot of island platform stations on GW branchlines. I can only think of two (although there must have been more???).

 

But that does not, in itself, have any bearing on the signalling. What will have an impact is the totally unlikely track plan with those facing connections off the platform roads. I would suggest modifying that before trying to do the signalling.

 

An engine shed and a carriage siding are also unlikely other than at a junction or a terminus.

Hi Joseph, thanks for the quick reply - I agree on all points (no pun intended) with regards to my deviations from the prototype: I should perhaps have been clearer in this regard - “is it possible to signal this design?” might be a better way to ask the question! 

The only GWR island platforms I could think of off the top of my head were for Commuters rather than branch lines (eg: places like Solihull).  I don’t know enough about independent lines absorbed into the GWR to know of any examples there, but I would accept it’s not common - in the end I decided it was something I could live with. 

I also looked at fitting in a Goods Loop separate to a platform road, and played around with crossings to reach some sidings, but this generated other compromises, particularly with regards to train length or number of lines crossing baseboard joints (on a portable layout).

It could be that the compromises I’ve settled on - particularly running sidings off platform roads (because of my space constraints) mean that any question of signalling in a meaningful manner just isn’t possible of course: that would be a perfectly fair response.

Thanks, Keith.

I wonder if I might ask for advice on signalling for a layout design I’m exploring.

I’m thinking of a small layout centred on a GWR single track passing station.  Space and other practical constraints (eg: baseboard joints) mean the track layout I’m looking at includes a number of severe compromises - as has been noted elsewhere, this is much more a ‘model railway’ than a ‘model of a railway,’ and I‘d expect to run a much heavier service than the facilities might suggest.  As such, signalling could prove to be a complex nightmare entirely out of keeping with the atmosphere I’m after, but I thought there’d be no harm in asking.

A schematic of the station looks something like this:

Things I’m thinking about include:

1.  My time period is very flexible - I believe signalling practice changed in a number of respects in the 1930s, so this could be a problem.  If I had to narrow it down I’d probably go for 1923 - 1930 if that’s tight enough for consistency.

2.  In terms of traffic patterns, this is not to be run on a one-engine in steam basis.  Both platforms could be used in either direction by passenger traffic (I realise it would be easier if ‘Platform 2’ was really a goods only loop).  Some trains - goods, mixed and passenger - will terminate (or originate) at this station.  

3.  There is no room to insert a headshunt in either direction, nor to rearrange all the upper sidings to run off the loop from a single point with a kickback, although this would be preferable (ie: from a trailing point for trains heading Down).  This is simply down to space, as the schematic looks a lot more generous than the actual space I have.  The same reason explains why two sidings also run off Platform 1 - not ideal.

4.  In terms of trap points, I think those at A and B are given.  Only empty passenger stock will use the carriage siding.  If the secondary loop was for goods / light engines only, I think I’d need to add just two more, at C and D, but I don’t know if the Engine Shed makes a difference.  As it is, I’d expect one to be needed at E, and either one at F or one at each of G and H (again, I don’t know if the Engine Shed requires different rules).  There are no planned gradients on the layout, so no catch points are needed.

5.  I’m not sure if the Signal Box should be at AA or AB.  At a guess, either might be possible, although AB seems more likely to me.

6.  Will it make a difference to the signalling if the secondary stopping point down the line is a Manned Station or an Unmanned Halt, or is the Level Crossing more relevant?

7.  Finally, operationally, it is possible that there will be 3 different locomotives in the station at the same time, eg: 1 on shed, 1 shunting the goods sidings, and a passenger train on the main through line at Platform 1.  Shunting the goods sidings could foul the main line in either direction.

I’m conscious there are already other, similar threads on the Forum - if this is just one too many, I’m in no rush for answers.  Thanks, Keith.

Some helpful replies, thank you.  In summary: track can take the rap for a number of things - baseboards, tracklaying, and locomotive or rolling stock constraints or issues including wheels.  Generous track layouts can help compensate for these factors - while a tighter track formation may need more attention to the other areas as well.  This is nothing new of course, but worth reminding myself of at this stage.

In my case and with a design train length of 40” the idea that prompted the question looked like this in Anyrail:

The 2nd radius for the curved point is quite apparent in this view, especially when the original design is put up next to it:

This keeps a more generous 3rd radius curve at the left and a track that can also curve further in from the baseboard edge, but at the expense of the operational benefit from a loop.  The other alternative, of a Refuge or / Layover Lay-by siding, looks like this:

I quite liked this, visually and operationally.  It keeps a 3rd radius curve at the left. However, I asked the question on the UK Prototype Questions Forum as to whether pure Refuge Sidings might have been seen on single lines, and while it was possible with appropriate block instruments, the examples given were for sidings with some other purpose to justify the arrangement.  I could add an industry or other reason for the siding, but this would change this section of the layout in three ways:

1.  Visually, with the siding on the inside of the running line, I ought to include some representation of whatever I chose, eating into the open scenic space I began with.

2.  Operationally, it would no longer be a passing place - I would gain for shunting instead, but that’s not a priority here....

3.  ...one reason being that corner of the layout space is the least accessible.

For me therefore, I’m proposing to stick to the original idea of an open running track: hopefully for the ‘less is more’ benefit often discussed in layout design.  As for the rest of the layout, that may be a story for another day...

Keith

Thank you for the contributions above - as always, the chance to learn something of interest.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

I think the received wisdom, and absence of examples, suggests pure refuge sidings were not a feature found (or desired) on single track GWR lines, so I’d be stretching things to include one.  I’m grateful to The Stationmaster for a full response. The salient points for me are as picked out here:

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think we need to separate two different things here.

 

First it was quite feasible to lock in a train at an intermediate siding on a single line provided there was suitable instrument to put the token into and thus clear the section and enable a token to be released for another train.
 

With all that time taken simply to cross two trains it would probably have been quicker for a train to run through the section instead of messing about shunting into and out of a refuge siding.   So the answer would be either an intermediate signalbox and depending on traffic pattern etc the likely provision of an intermediate crossing loop - which really would increase line capacity.  So the OP's idea isn't really on because it does nothing to really create extra line capacity, too much faffing about!

I might just have to add another industry (or equivalent) to the plan.

No further questions, m’lud.

15 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

To pick up o ITG's post.

The dead frog Hornby points benefit from being live frogged with an arrow head shaped insert  soldered in in place of the plastic lump.  I make the arrow head and melt it into place with a hot soldering iron before running a bit of solder into the joins. The curved points benefit most as it has the longest frog.  Even the super 4 points benefit from this.   The Hornby have better blade contacts than the Peco but neither are up to heavy use or DCC so I use cheap Chinese micro switches in parallel with the point blade switching outside. That said reversing a train with standard OO tension lock couplers over the curved road is a bit like Russian Roulette, and some RTR just can't get round, our Hattons 14XX, and Bachmann 64XX for instance. 

Thankyou - propelling an autocoach at running speed - which either a 14xx or 64xx could be expected to do of course (although I don’t personally have the specific models you list) - could become more than a bit dicey.

Great tip about the soldered frog replacement - not sure my soldering will ever be up to it, but is something I’d never even considered - for anyone converting DC to DCC it could perhaps be a really useful idea?  Thanks, Keith.

1 hour ago, 4069 said:

I'll stick my neck out and say no, such a thing would not be prototypical. Intermediate sidings on single lines existed, but they were there to serve sources of traffic: factories, wharves, military camps and depots. Refuge facilities would always be, or be associated with, a passing loop, for the signalling and operating reasons that others have mentioned. There were, on the GWR, some crossing loops not at stations (Leigh Bridge and Kentford on the Minehead branch, for instance), but those facilities were provided to enable extra passenger traffic, rather than freight. But hey, rule 1 applies.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m no GWR expert, but I think if you look at several branches they had the facility to ‘lock in’ goods trains at intermediate locations where there was no facility to pass passenger trains, no signal box, and no signals, using ‘intermediate instruments’.

 

I’ve got a feeling that the station goods yards at some places on the Watlington Branch fell into this bracket, looking like passing loops, but actually double-ended sidings with ‘lock in’ facility.

 

And, below is something found by two minutes googling.

 

Try to get ‘Stationmaster’ involved; he knows chapter and verse of all this stuff for the GWR.

 

I honestly don’t think ‘Rule 1’ comes into it: it is perfectly prototypical to provide a facility to ‘lock in’ a goods train at an intermediate point between block posts. Whether there were any purely for refuge, Stationmaster will, I bet, know. If I was to go looking, I’d hunt on the ex-Cambrian and other ‘thin’ lines in rural Wales first.

 

 

Thank you both - if I’m reading correctly, the poster found by Nearholmer Looks to me like the kind of example 4069 points towards, in this case a factory.  The lock-in arrangement neatly fits with the description given on the link Nearholmer posted yesterday to railsigns.uk which made for interesting reading.

In terms of translating the idea of a Refuge Siding into a model railway feature, I’m thinking it would be quite interesting to have one.

54 minutes ago, ITG said:

Whilst I’m aware I’m not really answering the specifics of your dilemma, it may be helpful to share my experiences of using settrack curved points. 
I returned to the hobby after a 50 (!) year gap, and commenced with a layout initially using settrack but gravitating to a mix with Streamline. I planned to use a number of settrack curved points. My experience showed this:

1. when laid well, on flat baseboard, I have had no trouble with them. They are in a curve, splitting into 2nd and 3rd radius to form a double-ended loop.

2. Elsewhere on the layout, I had some trouble with baseboard warping (sundeala - never again) and a curved point laid there from a 3rd radius curve into a 2nd radius reverse loop, proved impossible to get trouble free running. No matter how much I tried to pad the undulations to achieve a smooth surface, it never worked satisfactorily. When it seemed ok for loco one, then loco two wouldn’t handle it. And vice versa.

3. I also have a curved point crossover which is fine.

Note these are current model points. I have read they have evolved over the years and may be better now than before. In a rebuild of this layout (mainly to overcome baseboard and other shortcomings) I will be using a small number of settrack curved points again.

Hope that may be some help.

 

Thank you - that is really helpful: the baseboards I use are now 20 years old, but have spent most of that time stored vertically, unused, in various garages.  I noticed when repairing them for use that they’re not quite as flat as they were (fair enough), so your tale of mixed results is very relevant and worth taking note of.  Also good to note that they can be fine of course - we’re here to encourage layout building, not put anyone off.  Much appreciated, Keith.

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Blowed if I can find the thread (I read it, but didn't contribute), bur the basic principles are described here (scroll down to "intermediate instrument") http://www.railsigns.uk/info/etoken1/etoken1.html

Thank you - I’ll check it out.  I’ve also realised, from a little bit of looking around, that I should have called this topic “Refuge Siding” as I’m thinking in terms of GWR practice: I knew there was another term I was looking for!

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s a near photocopy of this discussion in another thread, with a GWR bias, and it gets into the use of mid-section token machines at some places such as this.

 

 

Thank you - would you have a link?

5 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Surely if it's single track, the first train would have the token so no other train could enter the section whether or not the first train was in the siding, unless there was a signal box there with two token machines, one for each side of the siding or, I'm pretty certain, passing loop?

Good point, thank you.  I’d thought about needing a signal box by the entry point, but not about what that means for a train wanting to come the other way.

4 minutes ago, flapland said:

If you're where I think lets chuck Moston into the mix. 

Hi flapland.  Moston isn’t one I know, sorry - but having watched the video, perhaps a candidate in its own right, as you say.

This is a development of a question I’m asking in the Layout and Track Planning forum. I’m working on a small layout plan for a portion of a single track steam era secondary line / branch line.  Back story will probably be an independent line absorbed into the GWR in rural England (I’m not trying to be too specific).  I have space for a possible layover / lay-by siding (as an alternative to a passing loop), but know little about them.  Two questions about if I may about prototypes for such lines:

1.  Are there many examples of lay-by sidings on single lines / longer branch lines not run on a one engine in steam basis (perhaps lines originally planned as through lines)?  If I know they existed, that’ll be good enough for me.

2.  The edge of baseboard constraint means the possible siding feels like it is kind of “the wrong side” of the running line, the siding is the lower line here:

Is this a problem?  With a conventional layover / lay-by siding on the outside of a double track line, the entry point (trailing) would diverge to the right of the running line when backing in.  Mine would be to the left. Would that be ruled out as confusing for approaching / passing trains?

Note, I have included a catch-point in the plan - it’s just not very clear on this diagram.

Hope it’s OK to ask here.  Thanks, Keith.

A fascinating thread.  Afraid I don’t have a photo to add - but I did notice I have personal connections to 5 of the stations mentioned, having had two of them as my local station, and three more on my local line!  Maybe it’s me...

To add a bit more explanation to alternative option b) layover refuge siding, the entrance would look like this:

The catch point on the lower line (lay-by siding) doesn’t show very clearly but it is there.  My only concern is that I’d expect a siding like this to be on the other side of the running line, the upper line here - or is that just because it’s where we see them on double track lines? Unfortunately the edge of the world precludes this option. 40” is my design train length (small tender loco plus 3 x 57’ coaches or equivalent goods train).

once again, credit to Anyrail for the diagram.

Forgive me for returning to a topic that’s been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn’t find an answer to a particular, specific question in the earlier threads.  My question concerns use of Setrack curved points in OO Gauge in the following situation:

I’m designing a small OO Gauge Steam era branchline layout using Code 100 Peco / Hornby track (Setrack and Streamline).  It is expected to use R-T-R rolling stock, including coach-first Auto trains and locomotives with leading pony wheels.  I can fit the desired track layout to the available space using minimum 3rd radius (505mm) curves and Medium or Large Streamline points.  All good so far.

Operationally however, the layout could be greatly improved through the addition of an extra passing loop at one point, but train length means this can only be achieved by creating an entry point on the inside of a curve, changing this 3rd radius curve:

To this:

Although Setrack point geometry is designed for this - so a crossover from 3rd to 2nd radius curves can be achieved - the points use a mixture of very short straight sections and 2nd radius curves to make it fit.  The sudden change in actual radius, from 3rd to 2nd, is one of the reasons often given for problems with derailments at these points.*. My specific question is therefore this:

If I remodel the curve so the curved sections either side of the point are also 2nd radius, will I lessen the risk of problems?  There will be no sudden change in radius.  Or am I still asking for trouble?  (There is still the very short straight piece at the toe end of the point, not a continuous curve).  Note: The revised drawing does show this remodelling.

Operationally, trains approaching the point in the facing direction (from the bottom right) will be expected to take the outer curve to remain on the left, with the inner curve of the point being approached from the top of the drawing as a trailing point.  Will that help?

Just wondered before I commit myself.

My other alternatives are:

a) Dispense with the loop altogether - keeps all track at 3rd radius, no risk of derailments (and more room for scenery in a small layout).

b) Have a single ended layover siding instead of a loop - entry from the other end of the proposed loop.  This can be from a large radius point.  It’s not quite as flexible operationally, and would be to the right of the running line (in the usual direction of travel, approaching the point as a trailing running line point), rather than the left, so I don’t know if it would be correct prototypically, but there would be enough room for a catch point to be fitted if it was classed as a siding instead of a second running line.

Any advice?  Thanks, Keith.

__________________________________________

* Uneven track laying and variable back-to-backs on some R-T-R Rolling Stock can be other reasons, which aren’t the fault of the track.  The long frogs inherent in the design can also be problematic.

(Credit to Anyrail for the diagrams).

On 26/04/2020 at 15:56, *Desperado said:

Very interesting. Hope you don't mind if I keep these plans for a new project.

Please do - these were ideas I thought might be worth sharing.

Well done everyone - it’s been a very enjoyable weekend, lots to see and learn (I’ve spent more time at the demo stands than I’d expected - really well presented: do check them out).  Every layout has been worth spending time at too, and it’s been interesting seeing more of the set up routines than we usually do.  All in a good cause too, so a particular well done to the organisers, who’ve put together something special for all the right reasons.  Thank you.

On 25/04/2020 at 22:03, Phil Parker said:

 

Readers of my blog will know that it's from an MTK Craven's Parcels railcar kit. It works surprisingly well.

One of my near misses I’m kicking myself for (still) - I had DMU power bogie but changed my mind at the last minute because the yellow traction tyres suggested it might be an older model so took a punt on the Kitmaster / Rosebud (?) powered box van I believe they produced to push their unpowered kit locos around.

Should probably lose a point for not knowing the layout of a Park Royal Railbus interior: I put the driver in mine (the only interior detail) standing up on the wrong side (the right). D’oh!

1 hour ago, Taz said:

Next I solder the door hinges. On Collett coaches the top and middle hinge are shallow and the bottom hinge deeper. I think the deeper hinge on the detailing etch is too long so once added to the side I file it down a bit.

A question if I may: is the bottom hinge deeper to reflect the profile of the tumble home, so the three hinges would still be in a vertical line?  Just thinking through the geometry as the door opens over a platform but I don’t know if this is relevant.  Just wondered,  Keith.

Sorry, should have asked at the desk on my way in, but I forgot to pick up a programme - does anyone know what time does the show close? There’s a lot to get through, and the show keeps growing every time I look? How long have we got - I have to nip out for half an hour.  Apologies if this has been asked and answered already - I was standing too far away (2m) to hear the answer.

4 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

I reckon you can have Dominion of Canada, if you admit that a Jubilee is a better looking loco. Your call. 

Yay, up to 11