Request for signalling advice; semaphores on LNER ECML

[Loxborough]

Those of you with memories for this sort of thing may remember me asking questions a little while ago about signalling for a projected layout based on Tallington. Well, for various reasons I have had to put a heating fuel tank in the railway room, so the  layout has become shorter than expected. Tallington won't really fit without absurd compression or being sat on a 1200mm curve, so I have made up something based loosely on generic aspects of various smaller ECML southern region stations such as Abbots Ripton.

 

Set in 1937.

 

So, we end up with a layout and, based on my very limited understanding of signalling, signalling that looks like this.

 

 

Following a suggestion from Beast last time I was on here asking daft questions, I will make the signals route setting. Thus only the signals and the uncontrolled turnouts have levers. All the controlled turnouts will be automatically set by means of relays when the signals are set. I plan to use a Modratec interlocked lever frame to prevent conflicting signals being set.

 

All quite ambitous but I got a long way towards this on a previous layout so I am reasonably optimistic.

 

I am, however, less confident about signal positioning and layout, so if anybody fancies engaging in some constructive pointing and giggling then please help yourselves...

 

In particular, I have not included any distants as I have only the vaguest idea of which signals around a station should be accompanied by them. Also, it seems to me that the 4 shunting signals 16-18 and 21, all stacked up, seem odd, but if I am going to have route setting signals I don't really see a way around them.

 

Any way, all suggestions very welcome, and gratefully received.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

George

[LNERGE]

You mentioned Abbots Ripton..

 

 

[bécasse]

Generally fine but there is bad news and there is good news.

 

The bad news is that you have a lot of somersault signals to build - and you need at least four more because all four running roads should have advance starters (= only starter on up fast). Obviously on the real thing there would be distants as well, I am inclined to think that they wouldn't have been splitting ones (so the distant would remain "on" for any crossing move), but probably too far out to be needed on your layout.

 

The good news is that you don't need all those stacked discs. The GN used a natty little rotating disc which applied to any authorised route, some, but by no means all, were updated in LNER days by having "on" and "off"(clipped) white with red/yellow band discs added to the appropriate faces. Furthermore, if LNER standard discs were substituted, it usually had to still be a single disc because levers just weren't available to work stacked discs.

 

You could make all this work with route-setting levers (several levers being able to clear the same disc), but I have to say that I think that at the end of the day separate point (or crossover) and signal levers would prove simpler.

 

You need two "Limit of Shunt" signs, one at the back end of the up slow platform and one on the down slow just short of signals 24/25 - both are obviously for wrong road moves, in this case to allow a train from the London direction to turn back.

 

Trains requiring to turn back would arrive in the down slow platform (passing 25 "off"), loco would uncouple and move (12 "off") forward along the down slow until beyond disc 1, crossovers at both ends of the down platform would be reversed and, passing disc 1 "off", the loco would reverse through the down fast platform and back on to the down slow, stopping just short of the "Limit of Shunt" sign. Once both crossovers had been restored, the signalman would give a hand signal to authorise the loco to move onto the rear of its train in the down slow platform (no disc for this move). After coupling up, the loco would propel the train past 12 "off" and beyond disc 1, the route would then be set across to the up slow and, with disc "1" off, the loco would haul the train on to the up slow, stopping once clear of the crossings; with the straight routes restored and disc 16 "off", the loco would propel the train back into the up platform to await departure.

[Loxborough]

Generally fine but there is bad news and there is good news.

 

The bad news is that you have a lot of somersault signals to build - and you need at least four more because all four running roads should have advance starters (= only starter on up fast). Obviously on the real thing there would be distants as well, I am inclined to think that they wouldn't have been splitting ones (so the distant would remain "on" for any crossing move), but probably too far out to be needed on your layout.

 

The good news is that you don't need all those stacked discs. The GN used a natty little rotating disc which applied to any authorised route, some, but by no means all, were updated in LNER days by having "on" and "off"(clipped) white with red/yellow band discs added to the appropriate faces. Furthermore, if LNER standard discs were substituted, it usually had to still be a single disc because levers just weren't available to work stacked discs.

 

You could make all this work with route-setting levers (several levers being able to clear the same disc), but I have to say that I think that at the end of the day separate point (or crossover) and signal levers would prove simpler.

 

You need two "Limit of Shunt" signs, one at the back end of the up slow platform and one on the down slow just short of signals 24/25 - both are obviously for wrong road moves, in this case to allow a train from the London direction to turn back.

 

Trains requiring to turn back would arrive in the down slow platform (passing 25 "off"), loco would uncouple and move (12 "off") forward along the down slow until beyond disc 1, crossovers at both ends of the down platform would be reversed and, passing disc 1 "off", the loco would reverse through the down fast platform and back on to the down slow, stopping just short of the "Limit of Shunt" sign. Once both crossovers had been restored, the signalman would give a hand signal to authorise the loco to move onto the rear of its train in the down slow platform (no disc for this move). After coupling up, the loco would propel the train past 12 "off" and beyond disc 1, the route would then be set across to the up slow and, with disc "1" off, the loco would haul the train on to the up slow, stopping once clear of the crossings; with the straight routes restored and disc 16 "off", the loco would propel the train back into the up platform to await departure.

 

Thanks very much for a full and extremely useful answer. Of course, as is i suppose almost inevitable, the answer throws up some more questions;

 

1. Advance starters. The idea is that this will be part of a fairly substantial roundy roundy, with block control. There will therefore probably be advance starters but the section of track between the starter and the advance starter will just be treated as a short block. Or does that sound wrong?

 

2. Distants. As the roundy roundy will operate using blocks, there will be a case for distants. I had anticipated just putting combined home/distants at the beginning of the blocks before the station homes (if that makes sense). the question for me is whether there would be distants combined with the starters, or just with the advance starters... 

 

3. I have become mildly obsessed with the idea of having route setting signals so am going to stick with that. I like the idea, though, of having a single disc operated by several route setting levers in order to avoid disc stacking; Thanks.

 

4. I had only thought of running through trains but I like the operational potential of having a London train turning back, as you describe, so will go with that as an additional move, and will add the LOS signs as you suggest.

 

Altogether very helpful and thought provoking, thanks again.

 

George

[beast66606]

Not convinced by the limit of shunts - they would only be provided if there was a need, and there is no need, certainly the one proposed for the down slow has no signal which could read to it.

 

The signalling, as drawn, does not allow for trains to run round in the down platform.

 

 

David - Let's not go through the same battles we had when you were 509 - keep it simple and stop trying to add arms and legs to what is a reasonably easy question.

[beast66606]

George,

 

The  first thing to decide is what moves you want to make, as it stands it's a fairly conventional station with slow / fast crossovers although the centre siding is unusual, and then the signalling can be finalised.

 

You then need to decide which signals are going to be modelled, and those which aren't - but don't worry too much just yet, let's finalise the signalling first.

[bécasse]

Thanks very much for a full and extremely useful answer. Of course, as is i suppose almost inevitable, the answer throws up some more questions;

 

1. Advance starters. The idea is that this will be part of a fairly substantial roundy roundy, with block control. There will therefore probably be advance starters but the section of track between the starter and the advance starter will just be treated as a short block. Or does that sound wrong?

 

2. Distants. As the roundy roundy will operate using blocks, there will be a case for distants. I had anticipated just putting combined home/distants at the beginning of the blocks before the station homes (if that makes sense). the question for me is whether there would be distants combined with the starters, or just with the advance starters... 

 

3. I have become mildly obsessed with the idea of having route setting signals so am going to stick with that. I like the idea, though, of having a single disc operated by several route setting levers in order to avoid disc stacking; Thanks.

 

4. I had only thought of running through trains but I like the operational potential of having a London train turning back, as you describe, so will go with that as an additional move, and will add the LOS signs as you suggest.

 

1. Your station has to have distants, homes, starters* and advance starters* because of the way the connections are arranged - it is bad practice to have a train enter a block section just on the authority of a disc signal - but unlike modern multiple aspect signalling these signals won't normally allow trains to follow each other through the station area. However, you could, for example, admit a train from the down slow into the down slow platform and, once it is at a stand, you could set the road for a train to come down the down fast, through the down fast platform and then across on to the down slow ahead of the train standing in the down slow platform. [* Just a starter, but in the advance starter 'position', on the up fast.]

 

2. If I understand you correctly, you intend to have your station with its "station" group of signals and then several further signals as you go round the 'oval' back to the station again. Each of these further signals are in effect intermediate signals which would at one time have been controlled by small intermediate signals boxes but which, even before the 1930s, were often remotely controlled. Each of these would typically be a home/distant pair, the station advance starter posts would carry the distants for the first intermediate, and the last intermediate post would carry the distant for the station. You could have one train per signal section for these intermediates.

 

3. Your choice, of course.

 

4. I had seen it more as a casual facility than something that might actually be used regularly - regular use would probably have prompted something better to be done than this partially signalled arrangement. The historical background is that until the end of the Victorian era, casual rounding of trains often required the use of a rope or a chain, however, this was outlawed (except where specifically authorised - and it wouldn't have been here) in the early 1900s and many stations acquired a second crossover to facilitate casual rounding. However, your station, with fast/slow crossovers at either end of the down platform, would already have been physically able to round trains without resorting to a rope or chain, and, rather than adding a second crossover, the most minimal alterations (just to the interlocking as it happens) would have been made to facilitate it.

 

Two points to add:

 

A. Trains were normally only allowed to enter a section when the line was clear not only to the next stop signal but to a clearance point beyond. In the case of stations this effectively meant that the line right through the station had to be clear before a train could be accepted - and, if the next block section wasn't clear to its clearance point, not only would the distant have remained on, but a train would be checked (brought almost to a stand) at each stop signal in sequence before being brought to a full stand at the advance starter to await clearance of the block section.

 

B. For reasons totally outside its control, the LNER was a very poor railway and had to "make do and mend" to a much greater extent than the other three post-grouping railways. Even a station on the GN main line would, apart from a few blue signs and, of course, some of the passing trains, have looked little different in 1937 from how it had looked 25 years earlier before the Great War.

[beast66606]

I give up, I could correct the latest batch of errors which have been posted but frankly I don't see why I should - having already been corrected once, my old friend 509 / B@casse is oblivious to his errors and continues unabated without even a pause to try and type a simple reply. I've been here before and it gets tedious having to spend twice the necessary amount of time to assist someone just because one person seems to want to type the longest reply possible for the simplest question.

 

George - If you want further assistance from me - PM  me. If you want to follow the advice given above - good luck. 

[Loxborough]

Ok; I think the best thing is for me to withdraw the question and build what seems to me to be best. It is, after all, only a model railway and, if the price of getting it right is to perpetuate an electronic slanging match, which nobody would enjoy watching, then I would rather get it wrong.

 

George

[The Stationmaster]

Ok; I think the best thing is for me to withdraw the question and build what seems to me to be best. It is, after all, only a model railway and, if the price of getting it right is to perpetuate an electronic slanging match, which nobody would enjoy watching, then I would rather get it wrong.

 

George

George what you have in the plan you posted  at the top of this thread is basically correct for the GN mainline - the things I would question are the use of double/multiple discs, not even the LNER went in for those but the that company did use examples of two separate single discs fro route indicating purposes.  So get on with it as you have drawn it and no one would be in a position to criticise what you are doing - it's straight forward signalling practice and you've got all your running signals right.