Titanius Anglesmith

Bookmarked, looking forward to seeing this develop

Looks like an interesting plan, but are you sure the crossing on the running line is a double slip? It seems more likely (in my very uneducated opinion) that it should be a single slip, thus allowing trailing access to the yard but avoiding facing points on the main.

You got me there

3D printing a locking frame, that’s very clever!

Signals are usually placed on the left of the track, unless there is some kind of sighting issue that would make it easier to see if it was on the right. I think the GWR were particularly fond of putting signals on the rights because their locos were right-hand drive(?). The red side of the signal arm (blade) faces oncoming trains (or yellow arm if it’s a Distant, etc). The arm always points to the left of the signal. Of course, if you walked round to the back of the signal it would be pointing the opposite way! The back of the signal arm is usually painted white with a black stripe.

Yes, that’s how I’d do it. Or drill out as much waste as possible and pare out the rest with a sharp chisel. Love the birds!

I should have been clearer (no pun intended?)... I had the power connected, but I had one yellow control wire in each hand. The wires were not closed together, but the static on my skin (or my electric personality? ) was enough to trigger the input. I am also working entirely in DC. The relay I referred to is a an output from my interlocking.

One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post was the sensitivity of the input. I found it a little disconcerting when I was able to operate the signal merely by touching the yellow wires, one in each hand! Fortunately the signals worked perfectly when plumbed into their respective control relays. Hopefully the input is stable enough to be unaffected by the electrically-noisy environment populated by peco solenoids and AC motors.

Interesting. Is that just in the context of traps, or in general use? I love how it’s almost mandatory that industrial sidings must have a diamond crossing somewhere

I took the plunge and ordered a pair, they arrived yesterday. I tested them at 6v and I still think they’re too bright. I’ll probably leave them though as SWMBO likes things that light up

Ah yes, very good point about the headshunt / running line.

I wonder if Phil is suggesting hiding the inglenook “in plain sight”? For example, the three sidings could be much longer, but their useful lengths limited by “fixed” wagons that are not to be moved (maybe unloading is in progress?). Many yards used the running line as the headshunt. If there was a level crossing across the running line, that could limit the length of headshunt.

If I had the space that’s exactly what I would do It’s as though you read my mind.....

They look very interesting (having just installed 10 peco motors..... ) edit - just realised I’m in the DCC forum. How did I end up here??

Thank you kindly for the info, all very useful

My take on it, for what it’s worth. Take it with a pinch of salt I’m assuming semaphore signalling? 1. Home signal somewhere to the right of the bridge. (There would also be a Distant, probably fixed, off-scene to the right) 2. Starter at the end of the platform 3. Ground signal where loop and sidings join the running line (there should also be a trap point here) 4. Ground signal exiting the mill sidings before the trap/spur 5. Ground signal entering the mill sidings at the diverging points on the loop. (only required as your mill siding access crosses the running line) 6. (Optional) Ground signal where the loco runaround points diverge from the platform line onto the loop. ..... or make it “one engine in steam”, have all the points on groundframes unlocked from a key on the train staff, and have no signals at all. But where’s the fun in that? Edit- nice track plan, by the way

+1. We bought a house that already had a loft conversion. The walls are vertical for about the first 4ft, sloped thereafter. It doesn’t help that it’s a hipped roof so it’s a bit like being inside a pyramid. It does seriously limit the amount of usable space, though I hasten to add that (in my case, at least) beggars can’t be choosers and I’m grateful for the space.

I think I could live with it not being as bright as Dapol intended

I’m glad I found this thread as I am considering buying some of these. I’ve had a scan through the whole thread and something struck me that I’m surprised no-one else has said. It was mentioned somewhere earlier that the motor gubbins are supplied via a 3v voltage regulator. If you put 12v into the regulator (or 16vac.... which has a peak of 22.6v!!) and get 3v out, that’s a lot of excess energy that gets turned to heat. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the electrical faults are due to popped regulators. I’m amazed that Dapol’s revised instructions still advocate 9v or 12v, when anything more than about 4v just gets turned into heat. I am not surprised that there’s a few claims here of people running their signals quite happily on 5 or 6v.

The Midland used economical FPLs in large numbers, but then they had their own signal works so they may have been manufactured in-house. As you say, they must have been a heavier pull as part of the lever throw is lost to unlocking and relocking

That’s a very grimy looking shed behind Percy!

As promised, here’s a link to the hugely impressive, fully interlocked Scalefour frame built for Leeds City:

I regret to announce that events have rather overtaken this thread! The track has mostly been laid, and the majority of the wiring is complete... In the event, I did incorporate the traction feeds into the signalling. Retiredoperator - I am also new to model railways so take anything I say with a pinch of salt. Can you expand on what your expectations refer to please? EG the operation of the signal arm itself or the system as a whole? My intention was to create a system whereby the signals (modelled or imaginary) were correctly interlocked, more or less. The original intention was to build a Scalefour lever frame, with electric lever locks that would apply the interlocking, mimicking a mechanical frame (similar in principle to a Westinghouse “L” type frame). There is already a precedent on the forum for locking a Scalefour frame both mechanically and electrically, I will find the thread and post a link. In the interim I am using common toggle switches in lieu of the levers. However I suspect my plan for a Scalefour frame will be a “round tuit” that never comes to fruition. I considered various methods of building the logical side of the interlocking, including relays, IC logic gates, diode logic gates, and solid state via an Arduino (in the real world I cut my teeth on relay interlocking and Westrace solid state interlocking). In the end I settled on the Arduino option; it’s complete overkill but is cheap enough and easily adaptable. The toggle switches (levers) all input into the Arduino. I have allocated outputs to drive electric lever locks, but presently there’s nothing for them to drive. In the current absence of any physical locking, the lever outputs have also been interlocked within the programming, so moving a lever will only have an effect if it was free to move in the first place. Eg if a point lever is moved while a signal is set over them, nothing will happen. Using the Arduino has offered another advantage in that I don’t need momentary-action switches to drive the Peco point motors. When a point lever is thrown, the Arduino energises an interface relay for only a short period of time (I’ve currently set it at 300ms, which is plenty of time for a CDU to discharge). The CDU will then of course recharge when the relay de-energises. The signal arms arms themselves I haven’t tackled yet. I want to investigate ready-to-plant options as I don’t fancy building my own at this stage. I understand that servos can be used to mimic the slow action and “Bob” of a signal arm, but I haven’t looked into it. As alluded to earlier, I have also incorporated traction control into the signalling. The track has been divided into several sections, namely the Up line, Down line, P&C, Platform 1, Platform 2, Sidings, and a berth at the end of each platform. The P&C section is permanently connected as it is used for every route (bar one) and no loco should ever be stopped over it. The other sections are all fed over a Normally-Closed (NC) relay contact. By default, the Arduino is programmed to energise all the traction control relays, cutting the track feed. When a signal lever is pulled (with the associated points pulled first, of course), the appropriate traction relays are de-energised, livening up the track. For example, setting the shunt out of the sidings will liven up the sidings track and the Up line (the P&C section inbetween will be live anyway). The platform berth sections normally just repeat their respective platform sections, and are only used to “trap” a loco at the far end when a second “turnover” loco is taking the train back out. By using the NC relay contacts, all sections will be made live if the Arduino is turned off. That way the railway can still be operated as one-engine-in-steam (and finger-operated points) with the control system turned off. Hope this makes sense and is of some interest? edit: also sorry for the overly long post Thanks for the info

In general I’d agree, but Grays springs to mind as an exception in the modern era. There is a bay platform at Grays that was built to serve the Ockendon branch, and as you might expect it is on the same side as the branch. However over the years the Ockendon branch has taken on more importance than the erstwhile mainline route through Rainham. The modern service now runs the “through” services via the Ockendon branch and uses the bay to terminate trains from Rainham. The result is that the paths cross.

Thank you all for the useful suggestions