john dew

Hi Mike

Thank you for your continued interest in Granby and this detailed correction. In my defence, and to prove I wasnt shooting from the hip, I would refer you to Stephen Williams "Great Western Branch Line Modelling"  Part One: Figure 31 on Page 82  issued by the GWR Signal Engineers Office Reading entitled GWR Standard Signals"s 😀 ( I guess I cant reproduce it here because of copyright ?) **

Having said that I am sure you are correct and your reply reflects actual practice. I wouldnt want to mislead anyone so I will amend my original post.

** Sorry I couldnt resist having a dig at my Guru!😀 Hope you dont mind.

Best wishes

John

Lovely to hear from you Bill. What an eventful summer you have had - no wonder you have had little time for Newton Regis.

Best wishes

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

While testing some stock that hasn't been run much lately, I found that the Dapol GRCW SPC has now lost all power through the sole remaining drive shaft. This is a known problem, so I'll take it apart and see whether I can superglue the dog clutch mouldings to the shaft. In case I can't, I've ordered some replacement shafts from DCC Supplies, the Dapol spares agents.

 

I also found that 1419 was slipping badly, even running light on level track. As you'll recall, it no longer has any traction tyres, so runs in effect as a 0-2-2T, but I was still surprised by this. There isn't all that much room for extra weight but I've squeezed about another 10g into the space above the cast weight between the tanks. I don't know whether this will make enough difference but I'll try it tomorrow anyway. If not I'll have to think again - possibly either fitting new traction tyres (which don't seem to be available at the moment) or biting the bullet and building the Comet chassis that I've got in the spares box.

Another possible solution would be to replace the tireles but grooved wheels from a donor non working 14xx - assuming you can get one cheaply? I was able to do that and , combined with a stay alive, it transformed its performance.

From my experience the more weight you can add the better

John

Brilliant video John.

I have been following Mid-Cornwall for quite a while so it was particularly enjoyable to watch so many of the individual components come together in such an enjoyable manner. I was very impressed with both the ultra smooth running and precise coupling.

You and your crew must have had a very satisfying session

Best wishes from a very hot {82oF) Vancouver

On 09/07/2022 at 05:05, Edward said:

A fascinating discussion which never fails to inspire! (By the way have installed 8 Dapol signals over the last few years ; they really are a great feature. Mind you , a couple of them refuse to conform to instructions and insist in doing things backwards.)

Hi Edward

Glad you continue to enjoy the thread. Thank you for the information re your installed Dapol Signals. A couple of questions if I may.  Are the defective signals, Bracket or Single Post? Were you able to correct the problem by reversing the wiring?

Best wishes

If I apply that criteria I will just qualify in time to support Canada rather than England next year! Oh wait Canada didnt qualify!

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

OK, here we go.

 

First, bear in mind that I use bullhead rail so the dummy blade is easier to file than flat bottom - you might need to file the foot of the main rail as well as the dummy blade in that case.

 

I used the sketch of a Type B safety point (catch or trap) in David Smith's GWR pointwork book, which shows that the point extends over a distance of six sleepers, so the first job is to remove those from the plain track that's already laid and glue the same number of copperclad sleepers in their place. Don't forget to gap them, either now or later.

 

The fourth sleeper/timber from the toe end is slightly longer than the others, on the side where the dummy blade will diverge.

 

Next file your dummy blade to shape - a simple taper is enough, about 20mm long.

 

Solder the rail that WON'T have the dummy blade attached to it to the timbers, then clamp the dummy blade to the other rail, solder the toe in place then solder the other timbers, letting the dummy blade form a nice run-off.

 

That's it, except for painting/ballasting to match the rest of the track.

 

Here are a couple more variations on the theme.

 

 

 

Thanks John . It was very kind of you to get that out so quickly. I am not sure if I will be able to precisely follow your method - track already ballasted - and it certainly will not be as neatly executed. However with your photos as guide I think I might be able make something that bears a semblance to it -  Thank you

Change of topic - who are you supporting on Saturday? I seem to remember it was always England unless they were playing Australia - or was it the other way round? With 15 months from the World Cup I am getting rather depressed and pessimistic. Jones seems to turnover coaches faster than Boris with Cabinet Ministers and the squad spirit seems to reflect this.

Best wishes

On 05/07/2022 at 03:38, 5BarVT said:

Well that was easy!

 

My version of Cynwyd.

 

Created a schedule to run through the platform and added a condition to the platform section settings that the route between the Loop and Cynwyd West was not operated.  (That would need to be replicated in every schedule so I did it in the Block settings for a second schedule.)

 

Then just to make it look right I added operations in the Loop to West route that when it releases it normalises the crossover.

 

Works just as I wanted with either implementation.

 

Paul.

 

They always say that, with Train Controller, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

Your cat is skinned far better than mine. I rarely if ever use inactive routes as a condition and I have never used route release as a trigger to return turnouts to normal- very elegant

Even before I started playing with signals I made it a habit to return turnouts to normal but I do it as a Schedule Block command when the block is released. I think your method is better and maybe quicker

I am still working on the signal triggers and conditions so I will try and replace some of mine with routes. I think your use of routes may provide me with a simpler way of maintain the primary signal on when the turnout is returned to normal.

Again many thanks

On 05/07/2022 at 01:32, 5BarVT said:

Good morning (here at least) John,

 

I prefer option 1 to option 2 and in my view is entirely prototypical.  There is also an option 3: rather than move along to option 1, move it back (away from the track) so that it does not obstruct the view of the LH arm (from the bay as well as the through platform).  Signalman just needs to be on the ball to see the tail lamp of a departing train.

 

Your second problem about positioning the platform signals is a little more difficult.  Firstly, there is no real problem with having signals close together when it’s needed so the bay signal can be where it needs to be to maximise the length.  The problem is that’s not where you want the through platform signal which should be clear of the loop crossover (i.e. well back along the platform).  Ideally you need two straight post signals so that each can go where it needs to.  Even if you were able to use a bracket signal, the arms should be at the same level rather than stepped.

 

So that’s how one would want to do it if there were no other constraints but this is a layout with constraints, albeit ‘self inflicted’!

 

If you’re stuck with using a Dapol bracket signal then prioritise the needs of the bay.  It’s a lot messier if it looks like the main arm could also apply to moves out of the loop so I wouldn’t want to push it any closer to the bridge than the middle of the Kadee magnet in the bay line.  Would that work for you?
 

The locking would then need to take account of where the signal is and also be backed up with local instructions about where trains need to stop if other trains are to run past to or from the loop.  This is where Traincontroller comes to your aid as yo can control where it stops trains.  What you would need to do is prevent the crossover being used when a train is running into the through platform.  Thinking about how that can be done has actually given me an idea about a solution to a similar but different problem that I have, so I’m off to try some things out and will come back if I’m successful!

 

Paul.

 

 

Good Morning Paul

 Its actually Afternoon teatime here but I suspect you are sound asleep now. The eight hour time difference plays havoc with swift communication.

Thank you so much for that concise, constructive summary and particular thanks for simulating the plan on RR&Co (more on that shortly)

As you will have read, I now feel comfortable with the signal box relocated as per Option 1. I am quite relieved really - I am pretty sure I built that box around 1994 so I am quite attached to it. I didnt fancy chopping it up. Now its time for some TLC

In my reply to Mike I omitted to mention it was your post that caused me to re-examine my self inflicted constraint of only using Dapol Brackets. I probably should have done this earlier but after the nudge from you I started to research a bit more deeply and I now think its worth taking a punt with two Dapol Single poles hooked up to the Train Tech SC3 decoder. Assuming this works I can now put " two straight post signals where they need to be. "  To control the Up Loop Xover/ E Shed entry I propose using cosmetic signals like this:

I will write a second post shortly about RR&Co solution

Once again many thanks for your help.

On 05/07/2022 at 05:14, The Stationmaster said:

Simple bit first - definitely Option 1 for the signal box, the platform is too narrow to put the 'box on.  But as an aside havea look through this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXfuvAlLcY0

 

Most of it doesn't directly concern this particular discussion but it is excellent stuff anyway.  However there is one thing f direct relevance and that is East Depot Hump Ground Frame which was installed when the hump was provided in 1923).

 

Here are a couple of sectional enlargements from the above link -

 

 

 

Now to the signals -

 

A.  You could quite justifiably provide a single painted white sighting patch on the bridge for both arms.  heck of size of white patch (they did weather) but there were places where it was done like that and I have a photo of the fairly distinct remains of one which has so far outlasted the signal it was provided for by 61 years.

 

B.  You face a right conundrum with the signals at that end of the platform.  The bay fortunately is simple - single post signal provided to the left of the line and ideally tall enough to be seen by platform etc staff over the train.

 

The other line is more difficult but the signal should protect teh fouling point of teh crossover anfd you haven't really got any solid argument in real world signalling terms for it to be sited ina way that doesn't meet that criteria.  It could be bracketed off the wall on the right - no problem and we could probably find an example in a minute two if we a search the 'net.

 

But as far as the signal provision and siting is concerned you're really in no different a situation from that at Ebbw Vale where the signals perforce had to be arranged in that manner in order to protect fouling points. (and there are. a number of photos of it currently online for sale)  -

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwj/S1343.htm

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262885948003?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D240307%26meid%3D182f20811f6f4e21b123cf64094e2319%26pid%3D101224%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D5%26sd%3D262719273215%26itm%3D262885948003%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DDefaultOrganicWeb&_trksid=p2047675.c101224.m-1

 

Standing-out Instructions - to use the vernacular -  (i.e. for trains allowed to start in advance of a signal which be at danger until departure was due) were sometimes permitted at bay platforms although the GWR was fairly keen on providing trap points for short bays - presumably because vehicles were at times stood there without an engine.   But standing-out on through lines was really a no-no and of course when you think about it there was no reason for it - the signal would be pulled off before the train reached it and, in many instances but particularly where facing points were involved, would be kept off until the train had departed and had passed the signal (which would definitely apply in this case because there are facing points immediately in advance of the next signal and they should be locked by the signal in the platform (on GW locking rules).

Hi Mike

Thank you so much for your detailed and helpful comments. You really have been very patient with me as I blunder along - I guess it must be well over a decade now that you have been helping me out. 

A: I think you are correct,  one oversize sighting patch is preferable to the two odd shapes I have created. Weathering it is something I can do with confidence!😀

B: As Paul has pointed out I am suffering from the self-imposed constraint of restricting my choice of signals to Dapol Brackets. I did this because of the reported problems of the initial release of single pole signals. I now understand that subsequent releases have corrected those issues. I think I will try Dapol single poles for the starters - the under-baseboard footprint is much less restrictive and I can use the bracket I have already bought elsewhere. I can then place the Bay Pole to the left of the track, as you suggest. Although I will still need to occasionally  invoke "Standing-Out Instructions". I dont have any trap points on Granby 🙄  but there is no reason why I shouldnt try and mock one up- I think @St Enodoc has done a "how to".

I thought I could use a Pole at the end of the platform for the running line starter- there are no standing out concerns there - and protect/control the Up loop crossover with a cosmetic arm on a wall bracket with a second ringed arm controlling the entrance to the Engine Shed. As it happens that is what I already have for the Down Loop Xover/ Goods Yard Entrance:

Or should I control the E Shed and Yard entrancess with ground signals on the bracket? - I did this some years ago, at your suggestion, when I was signalling the main Engine Shed.

 Its unfortunate that I wont be able to make these signals work but who knows Dapol or others  may eventually come up with a solution.

Best Wishes

On 05/07/2022 at 03:27, M.I.B said:

Thank you for the continued inspiration John.

 

Tomatoes are still seedlings here, but the raspberries and tayberries have come and gone - a great crop this year.

 

Even made a couple of litres of raspberry and tayberry gin.

Hi Tinker

Not sure about this project being inspiring other than as an exercise in compromise😀

The contrast in our gardening progress is fascinating. Despite the weather I have been whining about we have good trusses developing on the tomatoes (the greenhouse ones are only a couple of weeks off) but the raspberries have a while to go - I  havent even started to picked  the black currants.

I have to ask - what are Tayberries - an Essex speciality?

Best

On 05/07/2022 at 01:51, Harlequin said:

Hi John,

 

Could you adjust the retaining wall behind the station slightly? You'd only need about 6-8ft clearance from the tracks (24-32mm) and then you'd have enough room to place cast iron supports for a partially cantilevered high level signal box!

 

That was very much the sort of solution that the railways used in cramped locations like this, no signals would be obscured and the signaller would have a better view of everything. And, of course, it would look wonderful!

 

Cat, meet Pigeons 😁

 

Thanks Phil

That would solve the problem and look rather good. Sadly I cant move the wall back without radically modifying the storage yard which is concealed by the shops. Mike (The Stationmaster) has come up with a solution based on the Hump Yard at Bristol which would work might look a bit over the top ( 😀 sorry!) for a small branch.

I think Option 1 will be the compromise but thank you for the suggestion,

On 04/07/2022 at 22:17, Neal Ball said:

Is the weather typical for July? 
 

We are already in the 30’s with very high humidity, which at times becomes very uncomfortable. But it’s wall to wall sunshine until probably October now.

 

Adding the box onto the platform, whilst there are loads of examples, I think with your set up it seems to block the view of the signals.

 

Understand why the bridge can’t go, in which case I would suggest option 1

 

Good luck.

Hi Neal

"Wall to wall sunshine until October" is not a description I would associate with Vancouver! We are on the edge of the rain forest and there are many jokes (and T Shirts) linking Vancouver and Rust! Having said that we normally have an ok June followed by a July that is 75% sunny and a similar August. June this year was abysmal hence my irritation with the current weather......but I am told it will be sunny next week!

I am persuaded that the box should not go on the platform - option 1 it will be.

Many thanks for the feedback

2 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Evening John, trust your weather is better….

 

Definitely don’t put the box on the platform…. However, option 4….. remove the road bridge and put the box behind the signal, where the bridge is. Operationally it would be better, but sadly I guess I have removed your view blocker. 

Hi Neal

We had about a week of weather in the high 20's even touched 30o a few time - cue bad panic re-install Heath Robinson irrigation system - current temperature 15o C  59o F and its rained for the last 24 hours!🥴

The Road bridge leads to a Warehouse and a few shops. I did contemplate re aligning it but it conceals a turnout motor and switch so I am afraid I am stuck with it.

I am interested why you dont like the box on the platform. I was poring through my limited library last night and there seemed to be a number of branches with boxes on the platform that is where I got the idea from. I would prefer to keep the existing box further down the bay but the sight lines from the box are then pretty bad.......decisions decisions!

Best wishes

The Junction bracket signal is now installed - not without incident. Under the baseboard in addition to avoiding a lot of complex wiring  (Granby definitely dispels the DCC=2 wire myth), the signal power box lies very close to the front L Beam. Despite multiple measurement it was pretty scary when I tried to fit the power box to the signal base. There is little more than 1/8" clearance!

Its now working beautifully in sync with the associated turnout. Train Controller activates it automatically. I can change it using the turnout procedure on the DCC Throttle or just click the icon on the screen - I even have a lower quadrant semaphore thanks to @Gdaysydney 

Here is a rather fuzzy shot showing the base duly painted to match the cess - thank you Mike @The Stationmaster for putting me straight on that - and the sighting panel at work

I am sorry about these shots. I had to use the iphone in an attempt to capture the driver's line of sight.

I have two related issues to resolve. Firstly the signal box which when put back in in it original position obscures the subsidiary arm:.

Option 1 is to move it further down the Bay:

Option 2 is to remove the steps and lower portion and put it on the platform. Here is a card mock up:

Option 1 is preferable from a construction point of view but I suspect Option 2 is more prototypical for a smallish branch?

The second issue is providing starting signals for the bay and main line.  Here is a mock up using an old Ratio bracket:

I worry that it is too close to the Junction signal? It could be located  further back and embedded into the platform but this will restrict the Bay even more.  Ideally I will add a siding signal at a later date to control exit from the loop.  I suppose the alternative is cosmetic ground signals but I would really like to use a working signal linked to the turnout and junction signal.

Here is a shot with the signal box on the platform, the lamp will be moved, the box can be placed further back and signal set into the platform.

And the option that involves less work but is, I suspect, less protot-typical                

I am afraid none of these solutions is perfect. I am looking for the least worst option that combines working signals (which are in themselves a compromise) with a loose sense of realism.

Comments/suggestion will be much appreciated

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

One tip John - the Western did not normally set its signals in concrete, they just buried teh butt end of the post deep enough to stop teh signal falling over.  So visually what surrounds the foot of a signal is exactly the same as the cess area around it.

 

As far as signal lights are concerned in the real world you could basically only see the brightest light of a signal oil lamp if you were within a few degrees of a direct line with it.   The amount of light you got at wider angles of view was very variable - from dim to nothing depending on how good the Lampie was at adjusting thh flame height and cleaning any soot off the glass of the actual lamp (which went inside the big lamp case - the part we see.

Thanks Mike that was really interesting. I will get the paint brush out and make the appropriate adjustments.

The signal light is undoubtedly brighter and visible at a wider angle than the real thing - particularly as Tom Parry the Cynwyd porter, who doubled as the lampie, was not the most dedicated Company Servant 😀 - but its not too obtrusive and doesnt display the background glare that some users complained of.

The signal is now installed, not without a scary moment, and I now have a problem replacing the signal box. Its Canada Day here, so not much time for photos and posts. If you are able to pop by when I next post that would be brilliant.

Best wishes 

9 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

This is the Dapol unit, yes? Are they expensive do you think, or worth the money. I have a lot of working signals to install and am considering these or motorizing Ratio kits but replacing their chunky ladders and safety hoops with brass etches.

One bracket signal with two arms is about 57 GBP which is not exactly cheap. However it would be interesting to add up the costs of motorising and lighting a similar Ratio unit. I couldnt attempt that - I know my limitations - but @St Enodoc has fitted out his layout with Ratio Signals + Sensors and they look brilliant - mind you he is an Engineer!

I am quite impressed with the Dapol model - it is admittedly a bit clunky - but it is a delight to watch it working in sync with the turnout movement - so in my terms it is worth the money

This has not been a very productive summer for modelling - happily it does look as though we will have a bumper crop of tomatoes.

However I finally found the time to start installing the Junction bracket signal.

First job was to check the lighting actually worked: 



The wiring is very simple. Red and Black provide the power - in my case direct from the DCC track.

The two signals are each already connection to a SPDT switch so it really is a case of plug and play test.

I want to connect the signals to the RR&Co software so I removed the supplied switches and connected them to a SC4 decoder from Train-Tech :



It works just like a point decoder. I can operate the signal either from the DCC throttle or the computor screen. With RR&Co it is linked to the turn out it protects and is automatically activated whenever a route is set.

There have been comments from some users that the light is too bright.  The intensity is dependent on the voltage input so it looks as though I have been lucky.

When testing the signal movement the main (RH) arm worked perfectly straight out of the box with a realistic and rather satisfying "bounce" effect when the arm returned to "On".

The subsidiary (LH) arm initially failed to return to the horizontal when switched "On". I was able to solve this issue using the controls in the base of the power unit:



Before actually installing the unit I wanted to tone down the pristine finish (definitely not Granby's style).

The platform was painted brown/grey, the rails/ladder dry brushed with touches of rust, the base of the ladder painted white and the black base concrete. Finally a light wash of very diluted dirty black.

Finally the moment of truth, time to drill using the supplied template (Dapol's instructions were excellent):



Why the concern?

The baseboards are mounted on L Joists. The front joist is set back about 6" from the edge of the baseboard. The power base unit has a substantial footprint. To add to this sense of jeopardy the joist carries 15 years of wiring and assorted decoders. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Well the deed is done. I got so excited I forgot to to take a photo.

So here we see the signal resting in its hole while I wait for the paint on the main sighting panel to dry!



The sharp eyed will notice that Wynn's lorry driver (top right) became so alarmed - he fainted.

To be continued:

On 04/06/2022 at 23:45, Neal Ball said:

As promised - the starter on Platform 3 being bedded in.

 

 

The hole needed for the centre mechanism is quite big! 

 

Since taking this photo in 2020, one of the platform signals base became loose - easy fix, but don't know why it came loose. Then about the same time, I had to separate the signals power supply from the station lights. They are now 2 x 12v dc transformers for the ancillary items (3 if you include the Turntable).

 

Good luck with getting the signals how you want them John.

Hi Neal

You must think me incredibly rude - I am so sorry - I have no idea how I failed to follow up my acknowledgement, do forgive me.

Thank you for taking the time to send me this photo.  It gives me a good idea of what is entailed. I am still trying to decide whether to install the starter bracket and whether to insert it into the platform. Outside is preferable but then I fear it will be too close to the junction bracket by the road bridge.

As you will shortly see I have almost finished the bridge signal so then I should be able to make up my mind

Best wishes

Kings Liverpool (8th Foot) - PBI

Apologies for veering off topic Robin

4 hours ago, M.I.B said:

Ranges are still open Clive.  Most locals aren't bothered by range noise or by all the Apaches and Chinooks doing low flying - as we say 

 

the Army at Play keeps Barratt/Taylor-Wimpy and Persimmon away....,,,,

I used to shoot there in 1956. No helicopters - we had to make do with a 3 ton truck!

I am not in the the least surprised!😀

That is, indeed, good news - and richly deserved.

Well done, I do hope we will see photos of the photo shoot.

Best wishes

I have always been somewhat embarrassed about the signalling on Granby. Technically, it is less than perfect but my principal objection is the fact that there is only one working signal on the entire layout - a fixed distant

I doubt if I could construct Ratio's manual working mechanism but even if I could it would be pretty meaningless on a layout operated by RR&Co.

This bracketed junction signal from Dapol has had good reviews:



Its a close enough representation of a GWR lower quadrant and it can be hooked up to a DCC accessory decoder and thence linked to RR&Co's Train Controller.

The major downside - apart from the cost, which is not insignificant, - is the amount of below baseboard clearance that is required. Furthermore, as I know all too well, retrofits that require drilling a 15 mm (5/8') through the baseboard can have adverse, un-planned side-effects!

"Nec aspera terrent" as we used to say in the Kings Liverpool Regiment - Difficulties be damned!

Two sets have been purchased for a trial installation on the branch :





Initial thoughts are to have the first unit as a starter for exiting either the bay or the main platform. (Exit from the loop will continue to be with a cosmetic ground signal.

The second unit will control the junction where the line goes past the brewery to the hidden storage (Mold) or climbs Cynwyd Bank to Granby

This shot shows the existing cosmetic starters:



It also exposes one of my many faux pas. Not the bus - there are special circumstances for that!

The error is the positioning of the Junction signals beyond the bridge - where they can barely be seen,if at all, from the station side.

To make it even worse, both signals are placed well beyond the turnout they are controlling






The bridge is almost immediately above the turn out! It actually conceals the turnout motor. I did think of re siting the bridge but it is too complicated.

The plan is to move the Signal Box and place the Junction Signal as close as practicable to the bridge. I will probably need to add a sighting board behind.

I originally planned to re locate the Water Crane and place the Starters signal immediately in front of the platform but I think that will be too close to the new junction signal. So Plan B is to actually embed it in the platform. John @checkrail has a similar arrangement on Stole Courtney and, as one would expect, it looks great. I think Neal @Neal Ball has also successfully embedded one of these signals at Henley - another GWR layout that I admire and follow.

Ground is yet to be broken or more accurately ply wood has not yet been drilled- so any ideas, suggestions or comments would be more than welcome. Nec aspera terrent is all very well but I think this particular project calls for a rather cautious approach.

Regards from Vancouver where we are enjoying a combination of showers and temperature approaching 20o -great growing weather