Flying Pig

The signals on the Down line are a little confusing. Do you know what the S and J prefixes on lever numbers refer to? With a distant arm under the down home, why is there not also one under the starter?

General information on outer distant signals here: https://www.signalbox.org/signals/semaphore5.htm From the same site Bedford North in 1966 (ex-Midland Railway), appears to show all three categories mentioned in the above link. Bedford North's distant 44 on the Up Passenger would seem to be the 'extreme situation', being released by Bedford South. Bedford South then has an 'outer distant' slotted with Bedford North's 43 and an ordinary slotted distant under 42. Clearly things could get quite involved, but it seems like overkill for a small country station. Could the connection with the sidings be reduced to a ground frame to simplify the situation? I doubt it would be in very frequent use.

The new track is looking good. After we've emptied your wallet, I'm surprised at the lack of response to your last post, so I'll have a go. It should at least provoke the experts. I've never built the Ratio LMS signals, but I think you probably mean 'slotted' rather than 'fixed' distants. The latter actually are fixed and always show caution, whereas slotted distants are worked by the next signal box in the ordinary way, except that they are also interlocked with the stop arm on the same post by a mechanism known as 'slotting' . There was some discussion about them recently on this thread. As you say, they are used when the section is short. I don't think that would normally be the case at a country station, but you might argue it for the inner blue line as there is clearly a junction for the sorting sidings not far off scene. However I think slotted distants are unlikely in the other direction (green), though not impossible. Depends how many of the signals you've built . Your main running signals look mostly ok, apart from the first one on the blue line which should not have a junction arm for the sidings. However, I think you have included more than necessary and some of them will end up very close together. I would leave out all but the first and last on the green line (the one adjacent to your programming track looks like a good candidate for frequent breakage anyway!) and probably also the first one on the blue line. The facing connection at the double slip 2 should as you say be controlled by the bracketed miniature arm in the kit. (Actually, though, I would leave it unsignalled and pretend it wasn't there! I think you will struggle to find occasions when you need to use it). The possibilites for shunting signals are quite diverse, depending on what movements need to be controlled. There are for example four possible shunting moves across the points at 1. I would go with a simple solution (as linked in my previous post) and just provide shunt signals for moves onto running lines, which could be LMS discs or even the earlier Midland type. I think there would however be separate discs at 18 for moves over the crossover or onto the shed (although later practice would be to use a disc with a yellow arm that could be passed at danger for moves onto the shed). Note that the connections to the running lines at 17 and 22 should be protected by trap points - even if you don't actually model these, they will affect the placing of the signals. Actually, the position of the shunting signals on your diagram is a bit odd - they should be at the toe of the points they protect and not in the middle of the crossover as you have drawn at e.g. 19 and 22.

Physics is not your friend in this case for either steam or diesel exhaust. Augmented reality will probably be the solution.

Determining the signalling plan could get quite complicated, particularly in respect of shunting moves, due to the relatively early date you've chosen. Quite a lot of pre-grouping practice could remain, so you will probably need to pick a region, down to the pre-grouping company, for a full answer.

I think you're right to keep the platform short as it maintains a slightly more spacious feel at this end of the layout.

Well I have read 1066 and All That and it was most definitely palfreys wot did the old king in. Or praps not. There is, I will admit, a certain amount of confusion from time to time in that volume. It might even be deliberate.

I think you may be confusing a plethora with a surfeit, Tony. Perhaps you need to reread 1066 and All That and stay off the palfreys for a while. 'Consuckting' is of course the act of consulting an egregiously unreliable source.

I preferred the sidings on your earler plan, which were of a more practical length. Length is less of an issue in the loco shed, but I still think it's starting to look a little cramped.

Slotted distants look pretty and are the only distants most of us have space to model. I absolutely agree. If you aren't modelling an actual location, a well-imagined hinterland is vital to achieving a credible setting and operation.

The normal sequence, assuming both B and C can accept the train would be - A offers the train to B who accepts and gives "line clear" - A clears his starter; B's distant remains at caution - since the section is short and so as not to delay the train, B immediately offers the train to C who also accepts and gives "line clear" - B clears all his stop signals and then his distant So the distant clears a short time after A's starter and before the train has departed A. The train departs with both arms at clear. After the train has passed it, A puts his starter back to danger and the slotting ensures that B's distant returns to caution at the same time. Othetwise, if C cannot accept the train before it leaves A (for example, because there is still a preceding train in the section B-C, or C is at a junction and a train is signalled on the other line) then B cannot clear his starting signal or his distant. The train departs A with the starter at clear and B's distant at caution. Once the train has gone and A returns his starter to danger, the slotting will prevent the distant arm from clearing even if B subsequently pulls the lever for it, so you never see the starter at danger with the distant arm showing clear. Note that in this case, the driver must assume that the signals at B are at danger until they come into sight and drive the train at reduced speed so as to be able to stop if necessary. But as RailWest said, so you are assuming a short section between A and B

Good to see someone building NER railcars, Clive. It's hardly the kind of thing you'd expect to appear rtr...

As regards loco sidings Bradford Exchange had a middle siding and Liverpool Central a middle road (per flyingsignalman's diagram) which doesn't have main running signals, so appears to be set up for shunting and loco movements.

Is that with original P2 wheels and cylinders? It looks a lot better like that than the semi-streamlined locos actually built.

That looks right to me. This diagram shows how they would probably be worked as two crossovers (see 4 and 5). BTW, note that as late as 1950, this station has ground signals only for movements onto the main line from the sidings. Everything else would have been done with handsignals.

Not a few published track plans are just plain unprototypical, which is a pretty heinous crime IMO. Beginners should at least be presented with something railwaylike, unless it's quite clear that the layout is of the just-for-fun type. Even then, some of them make no sense when you start to look at how trains might be run on them.

Ironically, if 19/21 were laid out as a trailing crossover, not only would the resulting arrangement be more prototypical, it would allow you to run round a significantly longer train on the Down line and probably still leave a long enough programming track. The diamond could then be converted to a trailing single slip on the up line for locos to run round without needing to enter the shed siding (again prototypical).

Had the 31 been designed after the decision was made to fit speakers as standard, it too would probably have a crisply moulded fan grille - my preference, but some people do like a visible fan. I agree that the factory etch looks rather coarse and the mounting tabs particularly so, but it is at least easily removable should a replacement become available. Another issue with the unrefurbed release is that the black windscreen seals are printed wonky which makes especially the second man's side look quite wrong. As these photos show, the moulding is actually correct and captures the homely visage of a 31 very well. That unprototypical groove still grates though.

Sorry if you feel put upon because of my comment. Apart from the couple of facing connections already mentioned in the thread, your railway is a good representation of a small Midland station, so neither completely incorrect nor anywhere near being an S&T pig's ear. Had you posted the plan before building, you might have found out in time to make the very small changes required. (Though it's equally likely you would have been encouraged to ditch your plans and build a multilevel epic allegedly based on Minories.)

Thanks for posting the photos, Phil - it's good to see the mouldings in works grey as it does reveal the quality very clearly. I have the late unrefurbished version and to be honest I'm in two minds about it. Overall it looks right, but the detail is an odd mixture of the commendably fine and the inexplicably coarse. In the latter category the unprototypical trench around the nose door plating carries over onto the new model and will unfortunately remain quite noticeable when painted yellow, even in this small scale. As far as I can judge from prototype photos, the edge of the plating should be hardly more pronounced than the lower bodyside seam and looking at the other details moulded on the cab ends I find it hard to believe that this one could not have been represented with more subtlety. I'm afraid it suggests "everyone knows it's there so let's mark it with a big fat line regardless of how prominent it really was so they don't complain" to me. Apologies for the on-topic digression. Now back to your regular moaning about a tangential issue of no interest to me.

As it so often is! Why is signalling so frequently an afterthought? Threads in this part of RMweb can be a very frustrating read, though the quality of scenic modelling in this case makes it worse than usual. Mostly the OP has just epoxied the track in position, wired it and ballasted it with cement before asking the question and the rest is still bare boards.

I wonder whether Caprotti gear could be arranged for the divided drive of the Coronations? I've several times read claims that the valve events on these engines were not quite right, presumably due to reliance on rocker arms to drive the inside valves. Dream loco - Caprotti super-Coronation with GPCS and mechanical stoker, an LMR Red Devil. Could have run right through to electrification on the WCML. Meanwhile on the subject of 4-8-0s, here's one I did ages ago, probably on this thread:

Late LMS is Caprotti Black Fives and 4MTs with full American-influenced 'austerity' styling, but it's also more conventionally styled Black Fives and Rebuilt Patriots, so you could go either way according to taste and make a good case. The drivers aren't really an issue - the lower cab side sheet overlapped the rear driver on many LMS designs. What I think should be included are the distinctive post-war cab side windows that appeared on Rebuilt Patriots and some late Black Fives.

Prevention has always been at the heart of railway safety. Genuinely crash-proof rolling stock is a relatively recent thing.

Love it - it somehow looks much more credible with the modified rear bogie. If I squint at the image, I can see it in a post war black and silver livery to match the diesels.