Titanius Anglesmith

Greetings All, 

My OO gauge layout in progress is set on the LMS in the late 20s / early 30s.  My terminal station has an island platform and I want to build a balanced two-doll signal to act as the platform starters.  Space is a little constricted for separate posts and there are numerous precedents for using a balanced bracket instead.  In addition to the "main" route from each platform to the Up line, there is also a shunt move into a siding that trails into the down line.  As this shunt move is contrary to the normal running direction, I understand that it should be signalled via a separate ground signal next to the main post, rather than an elevated miniature arm?

Can anyone offer some pointers on where to start please?  I am aware that Wizard / MSE sell etches, but not being overly familiar with signal post anatomy I'm not sure what I need.  Besides which it appears that some of the etches I might need are out of stock.  Also I've never worked with etched brass before, although I'm willing to have a go.  Alternatively there's the Ratio LMS upper-quadrant bracket plastic kit, but I'd much prefer to have Midland lower-quadrants.

Can anyone give me any tips please?  Thanks in advance.

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Where's the coal siding in this idea? There has to be one in this area.

The refuge could double as a coal siding, as it did at Tilbury Dock (which admittedly is nowhere near Yorkshire, but it was on the Midland at least)

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 (you can't have an LoS board in a situation where trains running in the normal direction approach them as a facing move).

I was thinking about this recently.... there’s at least two LOS boards I can think of on LU that are approached in the facing direction on the main running line. Admittedly we sometimes do things a little differently on LU.... 

35 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You are lacking a ground signal in front of the signalbox. You only have one at the moment for moves over the crossover. You need another for reversing into the Up Refuge.

The existing ground signal is fine, provided that the one signal can read over the three routes (route 1 into the goods, 2 over the crossover and 3 into the refuge). Or it should be three stacked signals in the one location (I’m not sure what Midland practice was regarding stacked signals). It would probably be better placed in the cess rather than the six foot though. 

Or omit the ground signal entirely! The Midland often never had fixed signals at crossovers or entering sidings. 

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

My guess is that the first stop signal in each direction is not needed and that right-direction moves out of the sidingshttps://www.s-r-s.org.uk/index.php would be controlled by discs.  This is based on the links I posted in the planning thread and on Settle and Carlisle stations on the Signalling Record Society site rather than any particular expertise 

Agreed. I’d also say the middle stop signal on the down line just before the bridge could also go. 

8 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

 

As I'm already using peco streamline centres which scales out at about 7/8 foot the challenge is going to be making a noticeable difference in the centres

I wouldn’t worry about it too much 

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Yes but you shouldn't have more than one 6ft across the tracks.

Depends on the layout, unless I’ve misunderstood you? A track layout with two fast lines and two local lines would have two “six foots” and one “ten foot”, but as already mentioned the ten foot doesn’t have to be any wider than the six foot. There are lots of locations where three or more lines are equally spaced. 

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Your diagrams appear to show four equally spaced tracks - you shouldn't have this, there should be a 6ft space between the running lines and a 10ft space to the other tracks. If you use a scale 6ft space you can't put a signal post in it either, you can in a 10ft space. The overall idea looks good now though.

Not necessarily, there are lots of places where the ten foot is less than 10ft, or the six foot is greater than 6ft. It’s more a label than a rule (but if it can be accommodated I agree it would look good)

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Do you mean platform 2 to up line via crossover 12? The position of crossover 16 should not affect the polarity of the single slip as you should have an insulated joint between them.

You are absolutely right, I did mean  platform 2 and crossover 12.  

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I can see that with crossover 12 reversed and switches 11 normal the polarity of the L/H common crossing of the slip will be wrong, if you change it based solely on the position of 11, feeding from the toe end of each switch.

 

I think you would need to implement a slightly more sophisticated power switching scheme to get the correct polarity with both sets of switches in the straight through position, so your compromise seems sensible, though now of course you need to ensure that 11 and 12 aren't reversed at the same time.

When you say 11, do you mean the other end of the slip? The numbers on the drawing aren’t very clear (at least not to me), but it looks to me like 11 is the trap points on the up siding (loco release). I can’t make out the number on the slip. In any case, yes I’ve interlocked both ends of the slip. 

^^^^ all very good points! 

2 minutes ago, meil said:

The polarity is set by how you wired it up not its "Normal Lay".

The polarity of the L/H crossing is set by the R/H switch rail position, and vice versa (obviously). In a true model of Bromley North, the r/h slip would have to be in the reverse position in order to give the correct polarity on the l/h crossing when the l/h slip is also reversed. In the real world conventional interlocking will not allow both ends to be reversed at the same time (or rather there’s no logical reason for doing so). The easiest way for me to satisfy the interlocking was to “flip” the normal and reverse positions of the r/h slip. 

(I’ve just realised I’ve been using the word “polarity” rather erroneously, but I’m sure you all know what I meant)

Position C would be a convenient location for exchanging the single-line staff/token/tablet. 

My layout is loosely based on Bromley North which has this unusual slip arrangement:

(diagram from the S-R-S website - https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/sra/R1633.htm )

The normal lay of the right-hand end of the slip is for the straight route into Platform 1. Unfortunately this sets the wrong polarity for the left-hand crossing when the crossover is reversed (plat 1 to up line). On my layout I’ve got around this by making the normal lay of the R/H slip the other way, towards platform 2 (the home signals are equal height suggesting that both routes have equal status anyway). There were other ways of fixing the problem but this was the easiest for me to implement. 

2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Um… I had a single slip on a layout where I changed the points by a diode matrix so set the route rather than the point and I do not remember any issues with the throw of the single slip when a route that required both motors to be activated was set . Frog polarity can be take care of by a switch on the motor itself or Gaugemaster DCC80s etc.

It depends how you’re using the slip, but a polarity issue can exist, as I recently learnt the hard way. 

Let’s say the switch toes at end A control the crossing polarity at end B. Therefore end A has to be in the appropriate position to give the correct polarity at crossing B, even for a train traversing the straight route through B (which therefore doesn’t touch the switch rails at A and otherwise wouldn’t care what position they’re in). This would probably be easier to explain with the aid of a diagram. 

When the slip is used in its most typical layout as part of a crossover this issue doesn’t arise, but it does when used in other more unusual formations. 

On 31/01/2020 at 18:20, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

I got my micro switches from an eBay seller named Bright Components, on recommendation from someone else. 

 

I’ve just had one of these microswitches fail after not much use. Two steps forward, one step back...

edit: turns out it was operator error, the switch was fine

I am pleased to announce that the flyback diodes across the peco solenoids has done the trick. Thank you all for your help

59 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

One builder wired the signal and transposed the red and green wires, meaning the signal showed red for clear and green for danger. Instead of fixing it, he put a figure on the ladder and called the module 'Malfunction Junction'. He was colourblind!

That’s more than a malfunction, that’s an irregularity! 

1 minute ago, IMS said:

Talking of testing reminds me of the mains-tester screwdriver that may have saved my life. I'd connected up a fluorescent light fitting (the vendors of the house had taken all the fittings leaving bare wires!). Being cautious, I turned it on and checked the steel chassis before completing the job. The light in the tester illuminated! The #@*! who'd put in the previous one had used green sheathing for the live and red for the earth...

When I moved into my current house I found something similar in my bathroom..... 

34 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I think we're in a minority on here who actually understand that a multimeter is more than just a voltmeter & has other uses. I use mine for resistance more often than for measuring voltage.

In another thread, I dared to suggest measuring resistance instead of voltage to detect a fault & I got slammed for it. 

+1. I don’t think my meter’s touched my layout yet, but my continuity tester  (built when I was an apprentice!) has been on overtime. SWMBO is getting a bit fed up of hearing the beep beeeep beeeeeeeep though...

I’ve just found some IN4004s in my stash so I’m going to trial those on one of the problematic sets. I suspect AndyID is right about it being coupling via the loom, but it’s easier to solder in a pair of diodes than untangle the wire tree. 

6 hours ago, AndyID said:

I suspect the problem is caused by your nice neat wiring looms. Try running the wires (rat's nest fashion) direct to one of the offending point motors and see if it makes a difference. You could also twist or braid the three wires.

My OCD will not be pleased 

5 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

1N4001 or any 1N400x series 

Thanks

33 minutes ago, Stuart Birks said:

Have you tried this type pf relay board

https://www.umtmedia.com/collections/relays

They have opt isolators so the Arduino is totally isolated from anything the relay or solenoid do.

 

Stu

Those are the very ones that I am using

18 minutes ago, melmerby said:

An Arduino board for 16 servos is pretty cheap, either a shield or an I2C add on.

You can drive servos straight from the pins of Arduino as well.

Plenty of sketches out there to get you going.

 

Once the layout starts taking shape I'd like to build some working semaphores, I'll definitely consider using servos for those.

Thanks all for the replies so far

19 minutes ago, Nigelcliffe said:

Assuming these "relay boards" are the typical Ebay/Amazon units, how have you connected the various jumpers around powering them?  The relay coils can take power either from the Arduino (typically via the header connection where there is +, Gnd and a row of data pins for each relay on the board), or from external power.   

Yes they are are the typical boards seen on Amazon etc, though not an “arduino shield” (is that the right term?) that plugs straight into the arduino header pins. The boards are powered from an external regulated PSU, although the PSU is shared with the arduino. 

19 minutes ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

You might have been better controlling the high current CDU from a Mosfet, or similar high current transistor switch (also available as a cheap Ebay/Amazon pre-made board),  rather than a relay board.    The Mosfet can stay active as long as your Arduino output code wishes it to be. 

 Could you explain the benefit in this application please? 

Thanks

Veering off topic, but a thought occurs (dangerous, I know)....

As I am using an Arduino already, would I have saved myself a lot of trouble had I just learnt how to use servos??

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

Have you flyback diodes on the point motors. It sounds like the inductive spike is coupling into the power line 

I don’t, I’ll give that a try. What rating should I use?