Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Your last additional crossover is seriously bad news in signalling terms if you want to use the whole platform length, as westbound trains (the main direction of use in the southmost platform) would have to stop roughly in line with the east end of the point on the adjacent track. Suggest you drop this one and accept that trains from the yard have to run "wrong line" through the station and cross at the east end - one of those annoying limitations that makes a track plan more interesting! This probably impacts back on your east end layout changes too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
QUOTE (John Webb @ 22 Oct 2008, 15:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Uses two curved points, as did the first version which I've crossed out. Gives the Yard line access to and from the central bi-directional road but leaves the lower through platform completely usable without any restriction.

If I was the engineer responsible for planning the track and signalling here, I'd also remove the short section between John's new crossover and the existing crossover near the platform ends. All this does is allow a train to enter the yard from the bottom platform while another is leaving the middle platform westbound. Pretty unusual for both of these to be happening at once. Depending on the precise status of the yard you might replace the point at the west end of this section with a trap point rather than removing it entirely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
QUOTE (John Webb @ 22 Oct 2008, 18:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think I see what you are getting at. In other words the 'Future Yard' track comes off the inner main line after it has been reformed from the bidirectional line and lower through road.

Indeed so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
I think I'd omit S17, as it is very close to S7 and would have to have an irregular aspect sequence. The only instances of this I can think of in platforms are in termini or areas with very low permitted speed. This may compromise the length of train that can fit in the northernmost through platform, and I agree it would be helpful to move the bay point further east.

I'd also suggest moving S3 further back from the station if there is room to do so. Similarly with S12 - in fact if you could move this so far back that it is off scene it would solve your feather problem! Only at very busy stations with low speeds and four-aspect signalling would the station controlling platform entry be right up against the pointwork. Few models achieve anything like prototype signal spacings but just to give you an idea you should have over 1000m at 50mph and over 2000m at 125mph between each three aspect signal and the next one.

For more details: http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb...397/Rt0034a.pdf and go to Appendix A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
John has posted drawings of the various types of signal in a previous post. I agree with his recommendation of three-aspect signalling (where the main signals have three lenses) since the more complicated four-aspect signals are rare west of Bristol.

You need a couple more three-aspect signals in each direction round the rest of the layout so that trains can follow each other round the layout. Unless you have DCC you will probably only have one train going round in each direction, but best to put at least two more signals on each track. That way each signal can change from red through yellow and back to green before the train comes round again.

It looks like you have plenty of room to move S12 back from the points. Ideally it should go back a scale 180m from where it is now, but on a model you could get away with moving it less far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
You've drawn S6 and S4 to the right of the lines. Normally they would be on the left unless there was a particular problem with the driver seeing them in this position. Also as drawn the "straight on" route from S3 is into the bi-directional line - if this is so then it would have a position 1 indicator applying to the through line, either instead of or as well as the one shown. I think however the actual turnout configuration suggests a main route into the through road.

Do you actually need S13? I may have lost track of this thread but I thought the two through tracks were uni-directional.

I think you need a signal in the siding above S8, even if this is out of use. If it was out of use when the signalling was installed then the siding would have been removed to avoid the complication of including the point in the signalling. If it went out of use later then there would almost certainly still be a signal there (probably another GPL). There are places that haven't seen a train for years, maybe decades, where the signal is still there and still lit. Sometimes the signal is still lit even if the point has been removed!

I think I see what you are intending to do with the subsidiary (ancillary) aspects - have a GPL at the foot of the main signal. This would work better if you could lift it up to the correct height about half way up the main signal. I'm not familiar with Eckon/Berko but I have a feeling the workings for the GPLs may be buried underneath the baseboard in which case this wouldn't work. In this case you might be better just making a dummy subsidiary aspect and sticking it to the signal. If you do have a lighted subsidiary aspect then it only ever lights with two white lights, not white/red or red/red which only appear on GPLs that are separate from main signals. Aren't there other places where subsidiary aspects are needed, not just the east end platform starters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
QUOTE (John Webb @ 31 Oct 2008, 19:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Jason - the indicator with the GPL signal in your photo above is actually a 'Stencil' indicator.

I think this is one of the latest ones which are actually more like theatre indicators. They use a matrix of white LEDs or fibre optics to show one of several route codes in the same display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
That looks excellent, and as you say the water-clear LEDs will improve it further. I think your Roger Murray signal is actually a London Underground prototype so don't read too much into the detail of its fittings etc, but it confirms you are on the right track.

The thinnest kind of wire is the enamelled copper that is intended for winding coils etc - Rapid do this in various sizes and I have some but haven't got round to doing signals yet. If you have any old mice around the individual cores from their cables are supposed to be useful too.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top