Keith Addenbrooke

If I understand it correctly, it was also where the GW and Cambrian lines met, so could make a fascinating pre-absorption station to operate as a model, although I wouldn’t know how the track plan evolved.

Shall we just say, this doesn’t apply in my case...

Indeed, I think we were probably just typing the same things at the same time. I need to head off now* and am rather busy for the rest of the week, but I’ll look at putting something up in Layout Planning next week.** (* to the other side of the room) (** ‘next week’ as in a modelling timescsale, not a standardised time).

It is easier using 4 boards each 4’ x 2’ - I wondered if I should have mentioned this, but am conscious this is the Signalling Forum rather than Layout Design; although it is perhaps relevant that one of the compromises I made to the Iain Rice plan I began with was because I had a persistent point across a baseboard joint - it added a facing point (in my UK version) when I moved it. Agreed. I wasn’t on RMweb yesterday, but in my own summary on Monday evening I suggested I may write up something for the Layout Planning Forum: when I have time I may just do that - I think there may be enough for a conversation of interest? I may not be on RMweb much over the next few days though. Having read through the posts added to the thread yesterday, I am better informed as to how to think about signalling / block working as part of layout design, which is useful. Thank you to all, Keith. PS: interesting that the Fairford Branch has been mentioned twice by contributors to this thread...

In model railway layout design, such arrangements can be seen very differently - shunting puzzles come to mind. A term I’ve come across there: “the deliberate snarl” - not an angry grimace but an intentional complication. The ‘Hornby Peckett inspired’ growth in industrial layouts perhaps gives some opportunities but that would take us to a very different place and outside the scope of this thread. There is a prominent American modeller, Lance Mindheim, who has included actual padlocks on the control panels for his industrial themed layout - apparently the padlocks have to be unlocked before the control panels can be used to open some of his industrial spurs, which is perhaps a variation for model layout operation that introduces aspects of signalling / control practice. Within the confines of GWR branch termini, there are examples of awkward sidings: the mill siding at Ashburton and the Gas Works at Wallingford are two obvious ones even I know of, but they involve kickback sidings not facing points on running lines.

Perhaps the second quote, from becasse, sometimes answered the first from melmerby: the Inspector officer was sometimes convinced?

The US track plan and layout ideas books I read often make this point - the prevalence of the 8’ x 4’ plywood train table in many plans comes across as a real mixed blessing: it has great opportunities to help make the transition from the train set to model railroad (in particular because the continuous run helps give the impression of distance travelled, which is a key aspect of US railroading), but can then become a constraint if not careful. There are a number of quite sophisticated and well detailed examples that are well advanced from a train set, with scenic divides to break up the visual impact and hide the curves. In my own case, it’s actually a conscious choice for a portable layout, but all the points Joseph and Chris make are good ones. Excellent story - definitely one way to move on from the train set. If you had a track plan it’d be interesting to see. I’d imagine, from what Mr Freezer said, if you didn’t have time in ten days for the signalling, it would nevertheless have been straightforward.

Indeed - as it appears I’ve demonstrated with this thread. One of the biggest problems in looking at US track plans for UK trains comes down to platforms and the very different understanding in many places: the design I began with didn’t have one at all. As it happens, the ‘two loops’ concept is another design I’ve always liked. There is however a GWR example at Fairford, albeit at a terminus originally intended to be a through station.

My timetable changed so the opportunity to reply this evening instead of tomorrow. As I'd expect, a helpful response, thank you. With regards to my specific question on Signalling in the opening post, I think your point 2 sums it up - in my layman's language (making up my own metaphor): good icing completes a nice cake, but can't disguise the taste of a dumpling. It makes sense to pause the question on signalling - you have confirmed the suspicion in my opening post that I have indeed put forward "a complex nightmare" In terms of Layout design, and without straying too for off topic here, I'm happy to agree with your summary paragraph. There is a method in my madness, but it gets rather complex rather quickly (I began with some American prototype ideas, which had already been filtered in US outline layout planning books, and which I then tried to translate into UK practice and as I also like GWR branch lines). The result indicates that the number of compromises involved, particularly when I also condensed it all quite considerably, extends the boundaries of plausibility a bit too far. The actual design I began with in this case is an Iain Rice suggestion as it happens, but one published by Kalmbach and not for UK practice. As in my reply to other points above, I think I'll pause here and maybe put together something on Layout Planning (or a blog?) to explore further, before returning to signalling later on. Thanks again for the response - all good stuff. Keith.

A bit of spare time this evening (though I expect to be off line tomorrow instead) for some replies. I realise we've moved quite quickly away from Signalling and into Layout Planning, but for good reasons. To pick up on the points raised: If memory serves me correctly, there was a version of the "Deane pattern" branch in at least some editions of C.J.Freezer's Peco Book of Small Layout Plans. The definition of small used was 8' x 6' maximum, with a good number of the ideas also including a central operating well: it wasn't just trains that were shorter, track curves tighter and platforms thinner - I think people were expected to be as well (I speak only for myself here of course). There is an example of a Deane pattern branch on page 101 of Freezer's PSL Book "Model Railway Operation" 1993. For those unfamiliar with the concept it is essentially like this - a terminus to fiddle yard arrangement with a hidden continuous run emerging through a town gas works (shown as a cross-hatched line here). The suggestion Joseph Pestell makes of treating the subsidiary station / halt as a separate diorama on the layout is used here. For the single operator envisaged, a great advantage is that both the terminus station and fiddle yard are in front of them, so the layout can be operated from one central control panel without turning round. The fiddle yard is hidden behind a scenic divide, not hidden beneath the terminus or under scenery. In my view, the concept still has merits: the gas works could be operated on a "loads-in / empties out" basis too, allowing coal / coke wagons to enter with loads, then return empty in a future train.

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

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.

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).

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.

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. 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: I might just have to add another industry (or equivalent) to the plan. No further questions, m’lud.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Thank you - would you have a link?

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.

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