Titanius Anglesmith

6 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to keep it as is for now as I feel it increases the "play value". Your opinion is certainly very appreciated though!

It’s not unlike Bakewell, albeit with the shed in a different spot

https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 900

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

and even more sophisticated if they were worked by the same lever and selected by the setting of the point ends in the slip

My local line made fair use of selectors where industrial expansion led to new sidings being added to existing layouts, though I haven’t come across it at a double slip yet. In some cases the selected signals were controlled from a push/pull lever, so three or more arms were controlled by one lever. 

Great, thanks 

Greetings All,

I know signal placement has been done to death so apologies in advance.  When a single shunt disc controls the exit from more than one siding, where is the signal placed?  For example, 6 signal at Harlesden:

https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 134

Is it placed in the 6 foot between the two sidings as close to the fouling point as possible?  Or on the outside where it can be closer to the tips of the trap, angled to give the best sighting from either siding?

Thanks

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Does the door really open that way? Normally the hinged side would be nearest the corner.

Depends where the light switch is  Doors should be hinged on the side furthest from the light switch, as not to obstruct it when opened. All three of the bedrooms in my house have the switch near the corner, so the doors all open away from the corner. 

14 hours ago, big jim said:

 

 

you can see the signal tripcock in action in the video linked to further back in the thread, ill see if i can get the time mark and edit this post accordingly

 

...

 

EDIT: tripcock arm in action at 38:55 on the linked video

Being pedantic, that's a trainstop not a tripcock.  The tripcock is the arm on the train that interacts with the trainstop. 

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

This does lead to a question that I've been wondering about for some time.

The kickback goods yard with its headshunt parallel to the platform roads is a venerable design feature of model railways perhaps because baseboards tend to be rectangular whereas terminus throats generally narrow at the "country" end. It was used by John Charman for Charford, Peter Denny as we see here and in Cyril Freezer's later developments of Minories. But is it prototypical?  Apart from Holywell Town* - a special case because the line was on a steep gradient even within the platform- I don't actually know of any examples of a terminus with a kickback goods yard. Were there any?  I'm wondering because I'm looking seriously at a Minories inspired terminus and it seems the best way of fitting in goods facilities on a shelf layout without making the baseboards too wide but I don't want to build something that I know is wrong.

Southend on the LT&SR, though not quite a terminus* as two of the six platform roads were on through lines.  The goods headshunt was parallel to the dead-end Platform 1.

* Originally it was a terminus.  When the line was extended to Shoeburyness the lines through platforms 2 and 3 were simply carried on with very little change to the rest of the station.  I think the kickback goods arrangement post-dates the extension to Shoeburyness.

edit: having checked the OS rather than relying on memory, now I’m not so sure. The sidings were mostly kickbacks, but what may be the headshunt is set away from the bay platform. 

12 minutes ago, tender said:

 

Flipping Phil's (Harlequin) layout would now mean the arrivals line seeing a leading crossover (rather than trailing) and spur off to the carriage sidings (as opposed to the Loading dock) and vice versa for the departure line.

Would this give rise to any operational difficulties?

Shunting between the loco yard, carriage sidings and platforms would have to be done via the arrival line instead of departure.  Not ideal, but not a show-stopper either.

44 minutes ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Upminster (have I mentioned that already) has the shuttle to Romford where Harlequin’s parcel bay is. It actually isn’t connected to the lines at Upminster, only at the Romford end of its single-track branch, but I can’t see a big problem in imagining it ran “wrong line” for a few hundred meters before branching off. This might also allow the platform to be used for other traffic provided turnaround was fast enough (a round trip to Romford takes 30 mins)

The original branch platform at Upminster had facing connections to the main lines in steam days (and a run-round loop), so in theory it could have been used to terminate trains from Fenchurch St, although I don't know if it ever was.  The connection at the Romford end was rarely used and was actually removed in the 1930s, but was reinstated during the Second World War as an alternate route in case of disruption elsewhere.

2 hours ago, RailWest said:

Yes. Even with a Starting signal immediately in rear of the gates, for any train to enter the platforms from R to L the gates would have to be bolted across the road before the Home could be cleared (as happens to this day at Blue Anchor :-) ).

At Grays there were frequent complaints about how long the crossing gates were closed for, so a calling-on arm was added to the home  to allow trains into the platform with the gates still open. I expect a similar solution was used in other locations too. That’s probably not necessary in the OP’s situation though, Grays being on a relatively busy line (and nowhere near the GW either). 

5 minutes ago, iands said:

I would suggest 9 points "normal" position would be towards Whitehall siding, thereby providing a "trap" from the Loop. You could also provide a "yellow on black" disc signal on the approach to 9 points, thus allowing movement to Whitehall siding, but requiring both 9 points reverse and this signal cleared to allow movement towards 17 signal. 

Agreed. 

Why so many spare levers, and all at one end? 

I don’t think 10 or 14 ground signals are needed. 

For a “sleepy backwater” I’d argue that 2 and 17 are an extravagance (though not impossible), same with the Calling-On arm (swap for a ground signal, perhaps) and splitting home. Normal practice at most stations like this would be for all trains to arrive on the platform road, run round, then shunt as required. 

52 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

As detailed before there was an aversion to facing points to prevent trains accidentally being sent into the goods yard.

 

The theory goes that if a trailing point is set incorrectly that the weight of the train would be able to move the point underneath the locomotive and avoid derailment.

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t think that was the reason. In most cases it simply isn’t practical to run a goods or ECS train head-first into a yard because it traps the loco at the stops. It’s far easier to reverse the train in, then the loco doesn’t get trapped and no running round is required.

Then of course there’s the FPL issue. Any facing point on the passenger line needs an FPL, which in turn means more cost. In most cases the cost isn’t justified just to allow a goods train into a yard when a trailing point will do. 

As as always there are exceptions, eg Southend Goods mentioned earlier. On the same line there was also Dagenham Dock, Purfleet and Grays, all of which had facing points into the sidings. This was because of the large amount of traffic going to and from the industries connected to the sidings. The facing access meant that the main line wasn’t blocked by constant reversing moves. At all three stations the sidings were arranged as Arrival and Departure, and the loco was able to run round in the sidings (before someone questions it, these were not marshalling yards). 

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

I stand corrected , but surprised 

On the other hand, for a model I prefer your suggestion (access via headshunt), or a trailing access from the departure road via a crossing or single slip. 

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

At the top station, the first two crossovers should be deleted.  I realise you've put them in so you can get directly in to and out of the fan of sidings behind the station, but that wouldn't be allowed in practice (a safety issue).

Why not? Southend Goods had a similar arrangement (facing access direct off the Main) from circa 1906 if not earlier. The yard was used for general goods at first, with carriage sidings added later. 

Edit: having said that, Southend Goods also had its own release crossover so locos could run round inside the yard. 

Beautiful scenic work 

13 hours ago, St. Simon said:

ARS was originally a BR research invention during the 1980s, it was first installed and interfaced with the NX Panel and RRI at Three Bridges Area Signalling Centre (although only used occasionally before being disconnected).

However, the system has been extremely successfully when used with SSI and CBI interlockings and is probably the most advanced system of its kind in the world.

LU was using a form of ARS (the “Programme Machine”) as far back as the late 1950s on the Northern Line, interfacing with power lever frames. The timetable information was held on rolls of plastic film with holes punched in it (or not) to represent ones and zeros. The Programme Machines have now all been superseded by more modern technology 

Interesting, thanks for the info

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

4. As the GWR always 'locked two back'

Mike, would you mind explaining what this means please? I’ve never come across the term before. Thanks

Ah yes, I see now that it’s a slotted post. I also see that you said it was NER above  Thanks

10 hours ago, micknich2003 said:

Here's another signal from my stash that as not made it to Gilbert Lane.

 I made this c1995, the etches are from D&S but, as is my usual practice the main post and dolls are filed from brass bar. The "Down Rods" are bent wire and Hornby Dublo style, but from normal viewing distance they make a good representation of the Rocking Shafts often used on NERly bracket signals. I have of course moved on, and if I was now to make the signal I would have correct and working "Rockers".

That’s a beautifully built signal. Interesting arrangement too with the arm behind the doll but the spectacle plate in front (or are my eyes deceiving me?) Was that a common arrangement on the H&B?

1 minute ago, Nick C said:

I understand that signalling engineers prefer it if FPLs aren't used for trailing moves (even if the locking allows it), as a run-through with an FPL engaged would be very expensive...

That’s an interesting observation to my modern eyes... on my patch the old point machines are steadily being replaced by modern variants with integral FPLs, regardless of where or how they’re used. At some locations we think the drivers have made it a sport to smash the points up...

26 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If we assume, as is most likely in past times in the situation, that the FPL only bolts the points when they are standing normal....

 

then Lever No.3 reversed could not only lock Lever No.2 normal but release Lever No. 4 from normal and Lock Lever No.1normal.  This offers the immediate attraction of no need for Levers 1 & 4 to lock each other

The bits in bold answer my questions perfectly, thanks Mike. We’ve still got plenty of lever frames left on LU but no FPL levers, so I’ve always wondered how they interacted with the rest of the frame. 

Afternoon All,

I'm sure this has been covered before but "FPL" comes up so often in the search it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.  The Hayling Island thread has aroused my curiosity regarding the locking of FPL levers, but Hayling Island looks a bit unusual to me.

In the example below lets assume the FPL lever 3 stands out when locked (this is just an example, it's not meant to represent a full track plan or proper numbering): 

1.  Naturally lever 4 (the home) would be released by 3 reversed.  Would there typically be any locking between levers 1 and 3?  I.e. would the FPL be used as it's there anyway, even though the move is trailing?  

2.  How likely would it be that the FPL would bolt 2 both ways (in which case 5 would also be released by 3)?  It seems like an unnecessary complication for a shunt move.

Thanks in advance

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Or not!

 

While relay interlocking are helpful in fault finding, the downside is they are susceptible to relay contacts becoming high resistance over time and thus causing failures (sometimes quite obscure ones) over time. Electronic interlocking don't suffer from this limitation.

 

That said, fault finding a relay interlocking is a definite skill and one which requires far more understanding of the interlocking than a 'replace a module' answer to everything that tends to occur with electronic solutions.

 

Just as the move from signalmen setting points then clearing signals individually in favour of 'Entrance Exit' panels (and subsequently IECCs and control centres equipped with ARS) actually saw a removal of a certain skill set, the same is true in the S&T world with the move to electronic modules.

Yes we do have our fair share of relay failures but it’s rare for them do be really elusive (assuming the failure hasn’t self-cleared by the time the technician gets there, which our relay failures have a knack of doing). Our electronic failures on the other hand can keep us guessing, and that situation is steadily getting worse as the system ages. 

20 hours ago, Nile said:

Have you seen this?

 

I have now. Very interesting, thank you for the link