Signalling for Begbrooke - any comments please?

[The Great Bear]

The prototypical replication of the freights is thwarted by your lack of working model length, but I suspect the up freight was probably parked in the up siding, with the loco taking the dropoffs to the yard and returning with the pickups. For the down freight, there seems to be no reason why it shouldn't have run straight onto the branch via 20, although that begs the question as to whether 35 was actually used much if at all.

 

Thanks, you are right about 35: I've invented it! In reality the connection from the branch back the mainline was much further to the north and moved twice according to Adrian Vaughan's book, last time in WW2, far beyond the bridge. Point on the mainline 36 was a sprung point and the point on the branch to it electrically powered with hand generator in the box.

[Miss Prism]

Ah, a 'D-day' mod!

[Miss Prism]

There almost certainly would have been a change I think Miss P.  Partly things changed because of the availability of conditional locking and - as SE has noted above - there were instances where some tappet locking was added to older frames (e.g Twyford West) seemingly in order to provide conditional locking.  I've just checked The Henley branch book - it being a long time since I did the original drafts of the signalbox diagrams - and the double slip switches were on separate levers so we have one time marker pre 1914.  I know from past conversations with Western locking engineers that some changes in standards took place in the 1920s when there was a move away from driving lots of interlocking via Facing Point Lock levers.  Similarly contemporaneous schemes indicate there was a change in ground disc standards post 1945 when there was a move away from multiple discs back to using single discs in new work and of course there were the various 'de-Great Westernisation' changes made in 1950.  So GWR signalling standards and detail practice never really stood still although basic principles were fairly constant - the problem is exactly dating changes as even my attempts to get hold of latterday Reading Drawing Office standards and Office Instructions have proved unsuccessful apart from establishing (from very reliable sources) that some seem to have been purely verbal on the basis of 'that's the way we do it'.

 

That's very useful, Mike, and I'm sure you've only scratched the surface of the vast subject. If trackwork is the 'poor relation of the hobby', then signalling and interlocking are probably the relations long lost.

 

From a modelling perspective, and ignoring for a moment the constraint (as in Begbrooke) of using proprietary ready-to-plonk double slips like Peco, it does pose a dilemma, and not just for the GWR modeller. The inexactitude of records and practices for prototype locations and workings is one thing, but given 90% of models are essentially fictional locations, it raises planning and constructional issues for anyone needing to use double slips but still wanting to use them in a 'prototypical fashion', viz the choice of a 2-lever, 3-lever, or 4-lever arrangement. That choice affects early model planning and turnout construction. With most of the typical RMweb modelling enquires being of a rather vague often date-unspecific 'how do I?' nature, the difficulty of engaging with such an enquiry becomes significant.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Miss Prism

[The Stationmaster]

 

That's very useful, Mike, and I'm sure you've only scratched the surface of the vast subject. If trackwork is the 'poor relation of the hobby', then signalling and interlocking are probably the relations long lost.

 

From a modelling perspective, and ignoring for a moment the constraint (as in Begbrooke) of using proprietary ready-to-plonk double slips like Peco, it does pose a dilemma, and not just for the GWR modeller. The inexactitude of records and practices for prototype locations and workings is one thing, but given 90% of models are essentially fictional locations, it raises planning and constructional issues for anyone needing to use double slips but still wanting to use them in a 'prototypical fashion', viz the choice of a 2-lever, 3-lever, or 4-lever arrangement. That choice affects early model planning and turnout construction. With most of the typical RMweb modelling enquires being of a rather vague often date-unspecific 'how do I?' nature, the difficulty of engaging with such an enquiry becomes significant.

 

Exactly so.  Even just for the signalling and track layouts it is why those of us who usually try to answer on RMweb greet the initial question with such questions as Railway/Region. era, time modelled, time at which you think layout changes took place etc.  Someone who contacted me by PM regarding signalling a WR based track layout was very specific in that regard as well as making clear the area the layout would represent.  Thus it was relatively straightforward to signal his layout drawing but even then there were one or two caveats.

 

To the wary eye of those who have the necessary knowledge signalling and sometimes even track layout will enable them to rapidly date and place the area on which a layout is based.  Hence one reason why I see signalling as something a bit more than an operational adjunct (or even 'necessity') as it is as much a part of the scene setting whole as buildings and landscaping etc.  An area which - alas - many modellers miss out on because they put 'signalling' into some sort of too difficult box.

 

Jon is taking what I regard as an essential step in developing Begbrooke in seeing the signalling as part of the whole and as part of the way in which the station will work - to the benefit of all us following us thread - also showing how developing and adapting things from the prototype raises questions and examines thoughts and ideas which help to add a sense of time and place.

[The Great Bear]

Jon is taking what I regard as an essential step in developing Begbrooke in seeing the signalling as part of the whole and as part of the way in which the station will work - to the benefit of all us following us thread - also showing how developing and adapting things from the prototype raises questions and examines thoughts and ideas which help to add a sense of time and place.

Thanks, Mike. I must admit my compromise change from the prototype with the double slip at the end of down siding and this discussion is making me think more about this area. This is combined with my thoughts on the layout operation erring much more toward timetabled operation with no doubt some compromises. In my layout on the down side I've mixed and matched eras; the double slip by end of platform being installed early 1900s I think, the layout of the branch connection being south of the bridge being the original 19th century layout. Yet I am proposing to run 1940s trains.

 

At one stage in planning I did consider making this area more prototypical and having the connection back to the main off scene, indeed it could run quite neatly into the outer two fiddle yard tracks. Something to just re-check what my priorities are. Quite likely conclusion doesn't change but worth a thought before scenic work commences.

 

All the best

 

Jon

[RailWest]

"Hence one reason why I see signalling as something a bit more than an operational adjunct (or even 'necessity') as it is as much a part of the scene setting whole as buildings and landscaping etc."

 

I concur with Mike's comments, and would add to it also the need to ensure that the signalling is used in an appropriate prototype fashion. Quite often what actually happened 'on the ground' is not what appears as 'obvious' from simply looking at the signal diagram.

 

It is suprising how often even those groups/individuals who do a great deal of research into their chosen prototype (and sometimes highlight it in their layout descriptions) still managed to make some very basic faux pas. (some interesting examples come to mind here....)   What I find particularly annoying/frustrating is when one tries to help them out by explaining the finer points, but simply get ignored     Of course, nobody like that on RMWeb :-)

[The Great Bear]

Following all the discussion I've had a rethink about the track layout at the end of the down siding. By removing the double slip and putting the connection from branch back to down main just after the bridge, this allows a much longer train to use the branch as a loop: tender loco and around 20 wagons which is the limit of my storage tracks anyway. See the right of the plan -

T

This fits just with the entry to the storage tracks so minimal changes to track already down. Just been out and tested this "on site" too and does appear to fit and allow train as shown to use the branch.

 

Here's the revised signal diagram, hopefully taking on board other comments made to date and no fresh mistakes? (Any comments welcome and appreciated!)

 

 

I'm not completely sure whether 41 is needed, there is one there 46 in the prototype but a bit further to the rear. It would be bit close to the bridge, but not completely daft.

 

I am inclined to make this change: this is a lot closer to the prototype (the layout pre-WW2 at least), that's got to be a good thing?

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Jon

 

[The Stationmaster]

Definitely an improvement I think Jon - more workable (assuming you want to work it as well as watching trains pass) and probably it won't look so crowded at the left hand end with the pointwork spaced out.  BUT your no 41 should be the other side of the bridge so Drivers can actually see it as they approach.

[Miss Prism]

The goods shed runround is naff.

[The Great Bear]

The goods shed runround is naff.

 

Thanks, Miss P. Yes it looks strange but it was there in reality, not a figment of my imagination! It was added to serve a timber yard beyond the goods shed, the tracks running across the station forecourt. Indeed it gets even worse, as a bacon factory was built requiring a siding branching off the run-around loop. Oldmaps.co.uk gives good history of the changes in the track layout both here and the branch/mainline connections. The bacon factory would be right where my lift up section is, so have shyed away from considering modelling that. (That could change!)

 

I thought it was an unusual feature of the prototype - something so daft you'd struggle to come up with it yourself, making for an interesting model. Each to their own!

 

(Edit: the above not at all obvious as the plan above has labels turned off)

Edited August 28, 2013 by The Great Bear

[The Stationmaster]

The goods shed runround is naff.

Not so much a run-round as a get-around  (Shunting would be from the 'open' end of the sidings.)

[The Great Bear]

BUT your no 41 should be the other side of the bridge so Drivers can actually see it as they approach.

I'll take that under advisement, Mike. Perhaps if the signal was put in the 10ft not the cess that would aid it's sighting through the arch of the bridge being on the outside of the bend and the arm at lower than normal height? It will be around 300mm from the bridge, by the first coal wagon in the picture.

 

 

Maybe a bit of "modeller's license" here? (I regret so say.) If it's the other side of the bridge then it's so close to the preceding one to be of no use, I think. Also I'm not completely clear what it was doing anyway in the prototype. Signalling at the siding in the down direction looks incomplete to me in the protype as there's no signal in rear of the junction with the siding, guess with pattern of operations that wasn't necessary?

 

Thanks

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

I'll take that under advisement, Mike. Perhaps if the signal was put in the 10ft not the cess that would aid it's sighting through the arch of the bridge being on the outside of the bend and the arm at lower than normal height? It will be around 300mm from the bridge, by the first coal wagon in the picture.

 

 

Maybe a bit of "modeller's license" here? (I regret so say.) If it's the other side of the bridge then it's so close to the preceding one to be of no use, I think. Also I'm not completely clear what it was doing anyway in the prototype. Signalling at the siding in the down direction looks incomplete to me in the protype as there's no signal in rear of the junction with the siding, guess with pattern of operations that wasn't necessary?

 

Thanks

 

Jon

I would think that in the real world it was about 100 yards from the one in rear - so quite enough distance between them for GWR tastes (the NER wasn't the only railway of signal profligacy) and I suspect that it main purpose was to protect and prove the Branch end toe of the (real) No.37 crossover complete with a facing point lock bar immediately in advance of it.

 

You could possibly get away with a 'through the bridge hole' view of the signal and in normal circumstances most trains would in any case have found it 'off' when they got to it I would think.

[The Great Bear]

Following a message exchange with the Stationmaster, one small change to the diagram. One facing point lock on the other end of the double slip added, I'd previously missed. (I didn't clock that the line on the SRS plan was a FPL, needed when there's a move from the branch to the up main this is a facing point, lever 29 on SRS original plan refers) Thanks, Mike, for spotting something was missing.

 

[beast66606]

I know it's off scene but you need an inner distant on the level crossing.

 

PS - if you are the Bear asking for photos of the Nottingham searchlights, perhaps asking here might be beneficial.

[Miss Prism]

One facing point lock on the other end of the double slip added.

 

 

Fair enough, but was there ever a movement at Kidlington (from the branch to the up main) which involved carrying passengers?

[The Great Bear]

Fair enough, but was there ever a movement at Kidlington (from the branch to the up main) which involved carrying passengers?

 

There was one lunchtime through return service to Oxford from Woodstock - IIRC

[The Stationmaster]

Fair enough, but was there ever a movement at Kidlington (from the branch to the up main) which involved carrying passengers?

Jon has answered that already (12.58p.m. Blenheim & Woodstock - Oxford Auto in the 1947 TT) but there was a signalled route - alas I didn't pick it up earlier so Jon has had a bit more diagram altering to do. 

[Miss Prism]

Ok, sorry I missed that Blenheim to Oxford service.

[The Great Bear]

alas I didn't pick it up earlier so Jon has had a bit more diagram altering to do. 

 

No worries, that was straightforward: just need to remember to change the relevant numbers in your message on interlocking for it to make sense...

[The Great Bear]

Would I be right in thinking that all the signals, including the bracket ones should have 4ft arms, the only 3ft arms being on no.38 as that's the only signal for a siding/not a passenger line and the calling on arm, 36?

 

 

Photos of Kidlington show a bit of variation from this over time/location:

• 3 & 9 both with 3ft arms to fit in the narrow width at the end ofthe platform, my platform is a bit wider - I think
• photos of wooden nos. 7 & 4 both have 4ft arms but a later one of metal post has 7 being 3ft, also
• 6 being a tiny arm and bracket, not sure why unless a practicality of constructing signal, maybe arm tacked on later?

 

Thanks

Jon

Edited January 4, 2014 by The Great Bear

[The Stationmaster]

Would I be right in thinking that all the signals, including the bracket ones should have 4ft arms, the only 3ft arms being on no.38 as that's the only signal for a siding/not a passenger line and the calling on arm, 36?

 

 

Photos of Kidlington show a bit of variation from this over time/location:

• 3 & 9 both with 3ft arms to fit in the narrow width at the end ofthe platform, my platform is a bit wider - I think
• photos of wooden nos. 7 & 4 both have 4ft arms but a later one of metal post has 7 being 3ft, also
• 6 being a tiny arm and bracket, not sure why unless a practicality of constructing signal, maybe arm tacked on later?

 

Thanks

Jon

 

No.7 should be a 3ft arm Jon (although if the GWR got it wrong why shouldn't you - maybe the loop had passenger status at some time?).  I think 6 might be suffering from a bit of modelling licence and slightly changing things at that end as it should very definitely have a 4 ft arm.

[bécasse]

Surely 7 reads to the branch (and should therefore have a full size arm) with 4 reading to the main line. There appears to be no signal reading from the bay toward the branch siding and that suggests that that wasn't a common move.

[The Great Bear]

Surely 7 reads to the branch (and should therefore have a full size arm) with 4 reading to the main line. There appears to be no signal reading from the bay toward the branch siding and that suggests that that wasn't a common move.

 

The move to the siding is controlle by No.24, post #17 in the thread by Stationmaster covered this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75320-signalling-for-begbrooke-any-comments-please/?p=1136659

 

so yes I think you are right about No.7

 

Thanks

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

The move to the siding is controlle by No.24, post #17 in the thread by Stationmaster covered this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75320-signalling-for-begbrooke-any-comments-please/?p=1136659

 

so yes I think you are right about No.7

 

Thanks

 

Jon

Sorry John - brain not fully in gear yesterday!  And I was thinking of the later situation when 7 had become a 3ft arm.