1930s GWR Layout Signalling help

[Harlequin]

On the track planning front: I notice that you are using Large radius Streamline geometry throughout (apart from the slips, of course). You can get 4+ inches more length to your sidings, ease into the curves and get rid of some wiggles by using the curve of the turnout to start the end curves like this:

 

Edit: Something similar might work in your fiddle yard and help make the inner loops longer.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[Keegs]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

On the track planning front: I notice that you are using Large radius Streamline geometry throughout (apart from the slips, of course). You can get 4+ inches more length to your sidings, ease into the curves and get rid of some wiggles by using the curve of the turnout to start the end curves like this:

 

Edit: Something similar might work in your fiddle yard and help make the inner loops longer.

 

I started using the large radius as they are all that is available in bullhead at present although I saw the update that we might get the medium radius and slips by Christmas, I thought it best to see how far I could go with large and shift down to medium in the yard if I had to!

 

You read my mind regarding the fiddle yard, I changed to curved points (after reading a few posts on here stating that they are ok as long as gently eased into!) and can now fit x7 57’ coaches + 4-6-0 on the outside loop! 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Keegs

[Philou]

14 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Facing connections into a lowly goods yard?

 

Trailing connections would be better.

 

 

@Keegs If you wanted to go with the plan that Miss Prism 'flipped' for you, then look no further than Ledbury that had a headshunt as shown, albeit that in this instance the goods shed was on a line parallel to it. The station itself (it still exists) is where the bridge is on the plan, with the signal box at the end of the platform, between the down line and the storage sidings.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[5BarVT]

8 hours ago, RailWest said:

>>>Double slip on a running line at a wayside station?  Most unlikely...

 

Generally I would agree, but such things were not unknown eg Marston Magna.

Or Pontrilas back in the day.

Paul.

[RJS1977]

One other thought - you mentioned in an earlier post that you may add extra boards in the middle at some stage. In order for this to be possible, all tracks must cross the board join at 90 degrees.

[The Stationmaster]

On 25/10/2021 at 08:50, RailWest said:

>>>Double slip on a running line at a wayside station?  Most unlikely...

 

Generally I would agree, but such things were not unknown eg Marston Magna.

I did say 'a rarity' and I can of course add Patney & Chirton to the list without bothering to look for anywhere else.  BUT the important thing is that double slips in fast running lines were a rarity and very atypical - notwithstanding the fact that we can all find those very occasional exceptions.

[The Stationmaster]

On 25/10/2021 at 00:32, Keegs said:

OK

 

I think I'm on the right track (Pun intended!) now, complete with (single) slips and catch points!

Wherever I put the trailing connection in I realise that it is facing for the other line... and there is now a loop created in the factory plan due to both the trailing connections...

 

Two versions, one with a halt on each side and one with a factory.

Hopefully nothing too seriously wrong with either!

 

Side note: the town is representative, detail to come later.

 

I'm thinking of "Wycombe Green" as a name, would that be pronounced "wickim"?

 

I may drop one of the sidings in the factory version (There will be fence + gate on the factory too.).

 

Mike, what is it that dictates placement of a signal box, I realise it should be close to the majority of point work for shortest rodding etc but I am curious! =)

 

If all looks ok can someone signal it for me? In paint or similar preferably....

 

EDIT: Added signalling as suggested by Miss Prism.

 

 

 

 

The first thing in both of these plans is to get rid of the running line double slips  - partly because they were so uncommon but more importantly beacuse the serve no point (sorry) at all - they are totally irrelevant to traffic working.  

 

Thus disposing quickly of the lower plan  the factory siding should trail into the Up linr e and not have the useless facing connection from the Down or the similarly useless double slip in the Up - just an ordinary turnout from the Up Line.  Equally the double slip in the Down line serves no purpose at all because it is impossible fora Down train to shunt the sidings as the engine would be at the wrong end.  So the double slip is replaced by a single slip which allows Up trains to get into the sidings and creates a crossover between the Up & Down Lines. 

 

Coming to the upper plan of the two the thing which needs to go is the useless double slip - it serves no purpose at all (see above) so can be replaced by a single slip as previously explained.  I would make one or two alterations to the signals you have shown with the most important change t the running signals being to move the Down Line Starting Signal right up to the bridge.  The Up Line Home Signal  (in rear of the platform should also be moved further from the platform but its exact position would very much depend on the sighting of it and really it ought to be the other side of the bridge so not on the visible part of the layout at all.   The Inner Home Signal, by the signal box is in the right place  but the Down Home Signal needs to be moved back level with the toe of the trailing point in the Up Line.  

 

The ground discs are really in the 'start again' category.  You need one for the trailing point in the Up Line - by the point toe and most likely for the period you are modelling it would be a single disc although a double is feasible.   The one for the trailing slip crossover connection in the Down Line needs to be in the six foot space  between the two running  lines but level with where you have drawn it while you need another at the toe of the point from the yard onto the running line.  there light be one rreading from the spur but that is debatable and it could easily be omitted.

 

Hope this all helps. 

[Keegs]

On 24/10/2021 at 23:46, The Stationmaster said:

or, much better, turn the factory siding round the opposite way and shunt it via a trailing connection from the Down line across the Up line incorporating a single slip in the Up line to create the trailing crossover

 

This is what I was going off...

 

When you say single slip is this what you are referring to?

 

That's what I thought you meant and it's what I have put in the top two plans.

edit: I think that is not what you meant! I’ll fix and post it later. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Keegs

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Keegs said:

 

This is what I was going off...

 

When you say single slip is this what you are referring to?

 

That's what I thought you meant and it's what I have put in the top two plans.

edit: I think that is not what you meant! I’ll fix and post it later. 

All now look like single slips but the one leading to the factory is the wrong way round and is creating a facing crossover instead of the slip connection giving access from the Up Line to the factory siding.

[Keegs]

@The Stationmaster I have been looking in the last couple of days and I’m wondering about the likelihood of modelling dual eras on one layout -the one we’ve been working on. It would be based on the same place, would 1930-35 and 1955-60 work? Or would I need to go earlier? Or could I go later? I would of course be changing the locos, stock, vehicles and maybe some of the buildings etc to “modernise” it( the latter two being on removable “pegs” I guess what I’m asking is of course I could do invoking rule no. 1 but would there be any major track changes that would make it unbelievable? 
 

I’m aware of Dr Beeching but need to probably read up on it a bit more, all I know is he cut alot of branch lines (ignorance showing) not sure when exactly….
 

Thanks again for all your help! 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Keegs

[Keegs]

24 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

All now look like single slips but the one leading to the factory is the wrong way round and is creating a facing crossover instead of the slip connection giving access from the Up Line to the factory siding.

Thanks that makes sense, is there any additional signals required for the factory? (It just has the one trailing point off the UP line now.)

[The Stationmaster]

3 minutes ago, Keegs said:

Thanks that makes sense, is there any additional signals required for the factory? (It just has the one trailing point off the UP line now.)

All it needs is a ground disc to read out although it is left with a facing connection off the Down Line which might perhaps be better arranged as aconnection from the sidings?

[Keegs]

38 minutes ago, Keegs said:

@The Stationmaster I have been looking in the last couple of days and I’m wondering about the likelihood of modelling dual eras on one layout -the one we’ve been working on. It would be based on the same place, would 1930-35 and 1955-60 work? Or would I need to go earlier? Or could I go later? I would of course be changing the locos, stock, vehicles and maybe some of the buildings etc to “modernise” it( the latter two being on removable “pegs” I guess what I’m asking is of course I could do invoking rule no. 1 but would there be any major track changes that would make it unbelievable? 
 

I’m aware of Dr Beeching but need to probably read up on it a bit more, all I know is he cut alot of branch lines (ignorance showing) not sure when exactly….
 

Thanks again for all your help! 

Ahh!

 

I’ve been having a search and found your reply in this thread which pretty well answers my questions!

 

 

thanks!!

[Keegs]

17 hours ago, Keegs said:

@The Stationmaster I have been looking in the last couple of days and I’m wondering about the likelihood of modelling dual eras on one layout -the one we’ve been working on. It would be based on the same place, would 1930-35 and 1955-60 work? Or would I need to go earlier? Or could I go later? I would of course be changing the locos, stock, vehicles and maybe some of the buildings etc to “modernise” it( the latter two being on removable “pegs” I guess what I’m asking is of course I could do invoking rule no. 1 but would there be any major track changes that would make it unbelievable? 
 

I’m aware of Dr Beeching but need to probably read up on it a bit more, all I know is he cut alot of branch lines (ignorance showing) not sure when exactly….
 

Thanks again for all your help! 

Looks like that line pretty much stopped passenger services in 1972, easy time period to cutoff, I wonder if they ever had concrete sleepers by then….

[bécasse]

The Southern was certainly laying plain track with concrete sleepers and chaired bullhead track by the mid-1950s, often on single track branch lines, and with concrete sleepers and flat bottom rail by later in the same decade. (However, concrete sleepers were at that time incompatible with third-rail electrification so their use on the Southern was confined to areas where electrification neither existed nor was planned.) Doubtless the other Regions followed much the same timescale, relaying using bullhead rail would have become unusual by about 1960 at the latest.

[KingEdwardII]

23 hours ago, Keegs said:

the likelihood of modelling dual eras on one layout

Model a preserved line...then you can model multiple eras on one layout.

 

Some preserved lines have different stations on the line fitted out in different eras. Others have an eclectic mix of buildings both old and brand spanking new. The old ones might be examples carefully brought and rebuilt from elsewhere. The new ones, often those used for serious preservation work like maintenance and restoration, are often modern steel framed industrial buildings (go see the SVR carriage shed at Kidderminster - very modern and astoundingly large for a preserved line!).

 

Equally, locos and rolling stock can be modelled from a wide range of eras - steam, diesels, pre-WWI, grouping, BR steam, BR green, BR blue... the world is your oyster. e.g. The GWS at Didcot now have an authentic pre-WWI train they can run using Edwardian coaches and the newly recreated 2999 'Lady of Legend' Saint class.

 

The one thing that suffers in modelling a preserved line is freight. Preserved lines often have wonderful fleets of lovingly restored wagons of many kinds, and they create exhibition freight trains from them. However, they don't have real freight to carry in most cases*, so that (e.g.) a fully loaded coal train is not likely to be on the agenda. However, you are free to assemble a mix of a broad range of wagon styles.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

*There have been some instances of modern freight trains working over preserved line metals, but they are rare. I suppose another instance of modern meeting preserved is the contract that the Mid Norfolk Railway had with Greater Anglia for storing some of their new Stadler trains.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

The Southern was certainly laying plain track with concrete sleepers and chaired bullhead track by the mid-1950s, often on single track branch lines, and with concrete sleepers and flat bottom rail by later in the same decade. (However, concrete sleepers were at that time incompatible with third-rail electrification so their use on the Southern was confined to areas where electrification neither existed nor was planned.) Doubtless the other Regions followed much the same timescale, relaying using bullhead rail would have become unusual by about 1960 at the latest.

About a mile of our (WR) branch was relaid in the 1950s using concrete sleepers (with bullhead rail of course).  In the last few years spot replacements of those sleepers have been taking place so they have a good lifespan  

[RJS1977]

8 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

 

*There have been some instances of modern freight trains working over preserved line metals, but they are rare. I suppose another instance of modern meeting preserved is the contract that the Mid Norfolk Railway had with Greater Anglia for storing some of their new Stadler trains.

 

The only modern examples of revenue freight running on standard gauge preserved lines that I can think of are the stone trains that ran on the WSR in the 1990s and the gypsum trains on GCR(N). I believe there may have been some talk of stone trains using the Cholsey & Wallingford at one point until the cost of restoring the connection was mentioned. Didcot of course still gets its coal (and everything else) by rail, but that's a unique example. However, Rule #1 applies!

 

In terms of passenger trains, the obvious example is the NYMR between Grosmont and Whitby, but there are numerous examples of heritage railways sharing stations, or having adjacent stations to, the national network. Cholsey, Alton, Princes Risborough, East Grinstead, Eridge, Robertsbridge, Smallbrook, Paignton, Bodmin, Barry, Kidderminster and Sheringham all spring to mind as standard gauge examples. Some of these lines, along with the Swanage and the WSR, receive railtours from the main line on occasion. 

 

Then there are non-service trains which may be run using brought-in modern stock for revenue reasons, including film/TV work, training of TOC/NR staff, and testing of equipment.

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

including film/TV work

Ah! Now you're inspiring me to recreate the Orient Express on my layout, for a Poirot film shoot. 

[Keegs]

**Sorry Mods if this is counted as reviving a dead thread.**

 

@The Stationmaster How does this look as far as signalling and overall aesthetics/flow goes (it's been through some changes since I last posted it)

 

Notes:

• Headshunt removed as suspect Main could be used instead (not sure if this is correct)
• The Halt has enough space for x3 57' coaches
• There is space in front of the Goods shed to have turning vehicles/carts,
• I'm not sure if the bridge would be that long or where it should taper off.
• Era is still 1930-35 just edging into GWR Roundel but majority of stock still "Great (COA) Western"
• Location is now somewhere between Bristol & Weston SM where it was two-track.
• Layout is now a U-shape as opposed to oval to provide more space in the room.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Keegs
Grammar

[RJS1977]

One thought I have looking at the plan - the footbridge is likely to obscure sighting of the Down Starter.

 

There are a number of possible options:

 

1)  Move the footbridge to the other end of the platforms (or have a subway instead). Alternatively, you could do away with the footbridge altogether, with the platforms being accessed by ramps down from the road; or

 

2) Mount the starter signal on the footbridge; or

 

3) Have a repeater signal somewhere on the down platform.

Edited February 8, 2022 by RJS1977

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Keegs said:

**Sorry Mods if this is counted as reviving a dead thread.**

 

@The Stationmaster How does this look as far as signalling and overall aesthetics/flow goes (it's been through some changes since I last posted it)

 

Notes:

• Headshunt removed as suspect Main could be used instead (not sure if this is correct)
• The Halt has enough space for x3 57' coaches
• There is space in front of the Goods shed to have turning vehicles/carts,
• I'm not sure if the bridge would be that long or where it should taper off.
• Era is still 1930-35 just edging into GWR Roundel but majority of stock still "Great (COA) Western"
• Location is now somewhere between Bristol & Weston SM where it was two-track.
• Layout is now a U-shape as opposed to oval to provide more space in the room.

 

 

Only thing that doesn't look entirely right is how vehicles get to the other two sidings - in fact even if they could there is no way wagons could be loaded or unloaded on the middle siding.  The yard sidings will need trap points but single tongue dummy traps would be perfectly in order.  

 

I would be inclined to move the Up Line (inner?( Home signal a bit further towards the signal box and away from the platform end and in view of the curve the Down line starting signal needs to be on the opposite side of the double line.  You culd do the same with the Down Home Signal as well in order to greatly improve sighting on the curve

[Keegs]

Thanks both of you, I've removed the footbridge(I think a subway between the platforms will do nicely.), adjusted the siding length and moved the bridge to hopefully improve access to the sidings, I've also changed the signal placement (Please forgive me if I've done it wrong!)

 

(There is a tunnel on the Right scene -block)

 

How's this:

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Keegs

[RJS1977]

7 hours ago, Keegs said:

Thanks both of you, I've removed the footbridge(I think a subway between the platforms will do nicely.)

 

Thinking about it some more, for a halt, a subway may be overkill - the point of a halt is something that can be constructed cheaply. A ramp/steps down from the road (Denham Golf Club halt is accessed by ramps up from the road), or even a foot crossing (with gates locked by the signalbox if on a main line), would be more likely,

 

[RailWest]

Unless your prototype is assumed to be an ex-broad gauge line with an over-wide 'six-foot', then you are unlikely to have had signals in the six-foot, they would be on the far side of the adjacent line as the Stationmaster has suggested.