Ready-made Semaphore Signals top poll

The problem with the Ratio kits is that (with the exception of the 'rail post' models) they are all plastic and rather fragile for use on portable layouts or where small eager fingers are around. The signal arms are also rather overthick in scale.
MSE signals are good - being metal made they are not so fragile and the arms are a scale thickness. But you need soldering skills to assemble them.
The Hornby ready-made signals are tough, but a bit overscale and not immediately convertable to remote operation.

If you can find someone selling the old Hornby-Dublo signals you will be amazed at the prices usually asked for them. But they are quite reasonable in appearance and it would be nice if the present Hornby could perhaps get something similar back on the market?

Regards,
John Webb

QUOTE (john woodall @ 5 May 2008, 11:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>....I doubt that Hornby wiould be able to make a signal that is asd good as the viesmann one for half the price (unless of course the English ones do not have lattice masts?....

Most British railway signals were either square wooden posts with a taper, round metal posts (which eventually became the standard for British Railways) or on the Southern Railway/Region had a post made from two old rails bolted together with spacers. There were lattice posts but they were in the minority. I think many of us would accept the round post type which would suit much of the 1950s/60s British Railways period popular with many modellers. They are still in use today where semaphore signals have not yet been replaced.

Regards,
John Webb

QUOTE (Edwin @ 6 May 2008, 15:38) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Agreed this would be the best single type, I believe the LMS and LNER both adopted them before BR. Of course the GWR and Western Region did something totally different (as usual)...
The round steel post used by the GWR from the 1930s onwards was not much different from the tubular posts adopted by the other companies around the same time. Looking at photos, the main differences seem to be in the way that the GWR designed and fitted brackets compared to the others.

The lattice masts seem to have been used most in the highlands of Scotland and in a few other areas.

Regards,
John Webb

David, the fact that the GWR & WR used lower quadrant signals compared to most using upper was so obvious to me I didn't think it worth mentioning; perhaps I should have done in the interests of clarity for others.

My comments about the lattice masts were based on a quick thumb-through several reference books while on line.

And of course some railways tried out cast concrete posts....... the variations go on and on, I admit.

But I still think a good compromise would be tubular posts circa 1950s/60s BR practice. You could have both upper quadrant and lower quadrant signals fitted to these and cover a significant set of people's needs with minimum inaccuracy.

Regards,
John Webb

QUOTE (Edwin @ 7 May 2008, 12:19) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think I'm right in saying that both LMS and LNER adopted tubular post upper quadrants at some point in their lifetimes - I'm sure someone on here can confirm (with dates) or deny! ....

My various reference books all indicate a change to steel tubular posts by both GWR, LMS and LNER during the 1930s, but of course these were either installed when an area was resignalled or when individual wooden posts needed replacement so it was not an 'across the board' change. And on the SR the use of posts made from old rail went on well into BR times.

Regards,
John

I do wonder from comments made so far if Ratio could be pursuaded to toughen up their posts, perhaps by having a metal core the plastic is moulded round? This would stiffen and strengthen the post considerably beyond their present fragile state. Substitute a metal arm of the MSE type with the pivot wire already attached for the Ratio plastic arm and you'd have a considerable improvement for a modest increase in price.

Regards,
John Webb