[Lancashire Fusilier]

Hi all,

Now I know how to post pictures, look out!

Please see attached. John Webb reviewed previous examples and from his comments I am incorporating chages into my three signal boxes on my layout. Starting at the start however please see below the Cyril Freezer original plan and where the plan currently sits. There are changes to incorporate that are getting along now.

I had someone draft it up with some minor ammendments to suit my loft room which is 11' x 9.5' instead of 12' x 10' as per the original design.

There are a number of things to change on this plan that I will get to soon, namely removal of some facing points etc. I then made a mimic diagram, originally with the plan of centralising control on one panel. It was suggested that I would benefit from decentralised control based loosely on each of the three signal boxes and this is the way that the layout will develop. As such I then went on to produce three mimic or signal diagrams based on my own reading of books and now having had some comments I hope to finalise these diagrams so I can commence construction of the track work and signalling arrangements. I have had a crack at re-doing the last diagram for Hightor in line with some comments received howver the rest of the comments will be incorporated in the coming week or so.

Any constructive feedback and comments are more than welcome as I don't want to find out after I built it that it is wrong!

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Updated East Tor and Hightor a little more now and hopefully that are reflective of a more prototypical track design and signalling layout. I may put in slotted distants on some of the Matlock starters or even fixed distants as that might look the part while sort of being accurate as the scale distance of the track makes distant signals difficult to site accurately.

Revised (renumbered) Hightor diagram - I realised that the numbering was based on left to right instead of right to left. The diagram will be correct as the operator looks at the track but the signal box will be facing the operator and therfore would have had a left to right diagram in the box. Blah, Blah, Blah, maybe but I am keen to get my head around this properly.

 

[John Webb]

All seen - I'll add comments and explanations for said comments in the next few days.

Regards,
John Webb

PS Matlock - signal 21 (ground disc) is this controlling the exit from the engine shed? If you could clarify, please.
John

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

John,

I will update Matlock today and re-post. Don't bother commenting on the diagram that is shown on the previous post. If I knew how to edit I would have removed it as I went back through your comments last night and re-did some of the signalling. I trust you are well?

Cheers,

Paul.

 

[Bigdog]

Hi Paul,

Layout looks interesting. Now you know how to post photos, be interested in seeing what you've done so far. Have some pleasant memories of Matlock... got married there 25 years ago this week! Proposed to my wife in between the river and the railway line!!!.... well it was a pretty place.

I'll follow your progress with interest,

Brian, in overcast Phuket

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Right this should be it now. Revised Matlock and East Tor diagrams to include all comments received thus far.

Apologies if these are too large but the medium size in Flickr was too small to read the text.

The total count now gives the following summary:

Hightor:
20 Lever Frame
4 Spare Levers
5 Turnouts / points
11 Signals of which:
3 are gound discs
4 are single arm stop signals
4 are on 2 pair of 2 arm bracket signals

East Tor:
25 Lever Frame
4 Spare Levers
9 Turnouts / points
2 Catchpoints
11 Signals of which:
0 are ground discs
3 are single arm stop signals
8 are on 4 pair of 2 arm bracket signals

Matlock:
35 Lever Frame
5 Spare Levers
10 Turnouts / points
2 Ground frame points
20 Signals of which:
5 are ground discs
6 are single arm stop signals
1 miniature shunting signal
8 are on 4 pair of 2 arm bracket signals

This creates an interesting shopping list!
16 x Brass Masters lever frames
26 x Tillig points
2 x Catch points
8 x Ground Discs
13 x Single arm stop signals (Some of these I may add the odd fixed distant arm to - need to look at that)
10 x Double arm bracket signal / single pole - (I can play with different designs here for variation)

By the time I look at different types of signals (lattice, timber and tubular) and then different heights plus muti-doll or bracket type there should be plenty of fun to be had with out being too boring and making evry signal tubular post all the same height etc.

However, batch building becomes a little less feasible so I will look at all this under advisement I think (ie over a glass of red wine!)

 

[beast66606]

Some quick comments for you

You are missing several traps, even if you don't model them its worth considering that they would affect the size of the cabins required, same
with distants and FPLs, you might not model them but they add to the lever count (although you could use the economical FPL as its ex Midland)

Lever frames were generally numbered with the main running line signals to the ends, so the up signals would be 1,2,3 for example, then the disks reading to the up direction, then points, then disks reading to the down and then down signals.

High Tor
what is the thoughts behind it being completely bi-directional ?
Missing traps

East Tor
Missing several ground signals - for setting back off the up mainly.
Missing traps
No signal protecting exit from up loop.

Matlock
The GF on the shed/siding is unneccesary however it *is* necessary to control points 33 or you need signals for to control movements over 33 from the loop
GF on siding E and F not required.
Missing traps
No call ons so all platforms must be clear before anything can arrive, makes running round in platform 3 interesting !, add a call on under 28 at least.
Disk 18 would be double
Signal 21 needs a shunt ahead if you are allowing engines to run forward to setback over points 23/16
Arms 2 + 11 should be miniature
The cabin would most likely be at the other end of the platforms, near to the majority of the layout it controls.

hth

 

[Richard Johnson]

*** Beast 666 - What a great response - I'm really pleased Paul posted this thread!

Nutting it out logically will keep me thinking for a while! - signalling is an area I have lots and lots to learn about, so my sincere thanks for that comprehensive comment and to all who are contributing!

Silly question probably - why should disk 18 be double?

Second question:

Signals are positioned according to general rules and constructed and placed for good sighting.

When we make a model of a real location, we still have compromises in that even when curvature is large by model terms or geography is realistic as we can make it, we probably always change the sighting of all but the signals that are truly "local" to the station or junction areas.

So... when you build the model - would you as "signalling experts" who are concerned with accuracy, consider it better to continue to simply follow the prototype being modelled (with inevitable reduced signal distances) OR to also change the height and positioning of the signals to suit the sighting as it is for the "drivers view" in the "modelled world"

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[beast66606]

Hi Richard,

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 22 May 2008, 08:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>*** Beast 666 - What a great response - I'm really pleased Paul posted this thread!

Always happy to help - but signalling is often a difficult area to comment on because generally its either "right" or wrong, and humans don't like being told they are wrong

QUOTE Silly question probably - why should disk 18 be double?

Two routes, most companies used multiple disks to indicate which route the driver was taking, the Southern frequently/mostly used one disk for all routes, the LNWR often didn't bother with disks at all, certainly in the early days

QUOTE Second question:

Signals are positioned according to general rules and constructed and placed for good sighting.

When we make a model of a real location, we still have compromises in that even when curvature is large by model terms or geography is realistic as we can make it, we probably always change the sighting of all but the signals that are truly "local" to the station or junction areas.

So... when you build the model - would you as "signalling experts" who are concerned with accuracy, consider it better to continue to simply follow the prototype being modelled (with inevitable reduced signal distances) OR to also change the height and positioning of the signals to suit the sighting as it is for the "drivers view" in the "modelled world"

Richard
DCCconcepts

If modelling a prototype I would go for the compressed distances but still model the prototype, in very compressed areas you may have to lose a signal though.

For a fictional place I would draw the signal plans as it developed from building to present day/closure (ie several time periods) and depending on which time frame I was modelling I would steer the signalling "history" towards what fits best on the model !

The difficulty with signalling is *generally* its easy to point out when things are wrong but there are often many ways of getting it right, signal cabins and their layouts were designed around traffic requirements (sometimes this was a future need and never materialised !) and without those discussions happening only best guesses can be made.

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Firstly thank you all for taking the time and interst and it is most appreciated. Just chatting baout that earlier with Richard actually!

I think I can answer the question about the double ground at 18 on Matlock. The double stack would refer to the route through point 24 as well as just the crossover from 16 to 23. Am I on the right track there?

With regards to traps, I have been constrained by the original plan by C Freezer to some extent and have modelled a catch point on the East Tor diagram at the two locations shown on Cyril's original plane, namely the catch point on the far left inner branch and subsequent sand drag shown on the other side of the branch. As no other catch points were shown I didn't consider them. Mr Essery would be most upset I guess!

You are totally correct about the FPL (Facing Point Locks) as I take it all facing points should have a blue lever then in the box too? Took me half an hour to work out the FPL acronym!

The numbering I am happy to address - perhaps someone could be so good as to mark up my drawing then rather than me posting several iterations all of which may still be a guess on my part?

Hightor
As to Hightor's bi-directionality, no reason really other than it didn't say I couldn't! I thought that maybe better ops might come from having the flexibility to run trains in both directions around the branch lines as I once read that with signalling you have to signall for every eventuality and as I hadn't yet nailed an operational timetable so to speak I didn't want to limit myself to single direction running. Happy to consider it though if felt it would be better to have it one way.

I assume traps would be placed where ever a track joined a trailing point onto the main running line so would need to be sited at 18 and 3 perhaps on the Hightor diagram?

East Tor
I assume the missing ground signals would be at points 14 & 5 plus 2 & 17 crossovers? Traps I feel I have captured however if there would have really been more than this these can be added in to the lever numbers in the box albeit that some of them will not be modelled (ie where they would be in the tunnelled section shown on the diagram with a dotteld line - also hence why there is no signal shown protecting the passing loop exit back onto the main. Although I won't be building a physical signal for this location I should include it on the diagram(??) and definitely in the lever count for the box models?

Matlock
The GF to shed siding etc I was told by John Webb would be hand operated and I assumed that meant a ground frame. Perhaps that is not the right terminology? Please help!

Ditto as an assumption on the other sidings E and F too.

I have mentioned 18 as a double at the start of the post. Please confirm my understanding is correct.

I had not envisaged the requirement to perform a setback over points 23/16 however it is a valid operation and easily fixed with a shunt ahead doll on the bracket.

Arms 2 and 11 I thought were there to allow a train through to bypass the platform. However I am thinking that your rationale for this (please elaborate) would be that this would not be done at speed due to the facing points and nature of the sidings etc and as such would be looked at asa shunting move and not a branchline run - correct?

I thought the same about the cabin but purely put it where Mr Freezer did! I can easily site this somewhere near 15 and 16 perhaps? Any suggestions as to where it would be best placed?

Wonderful stuff, can't believe I think I understand some of this now after reading so many books. This is a worth while exercise that directly impacts on occupancy detection systems and operational aspects too so well worth going through the process I believe.

Thank you Beast again for your input. I know Mr Webb is also casting an eye over the inclusion of his original round of comments so hopefully we will all be aligned at the end of this process. Cheers for now.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Semaphores are really not my thing but:

18 would be double because there are two posible routes from it, Up Main and Outer Branch. Both should have controlling signals. I am a little confused as to what purpose it serves though. If 18 is a disc, why doesn't 21/22 have one?

As for sighting, if you add in signals or change the distances you may alter the feel of the layout. If you alter the height they may stand out too much. Short signal sections really only exist on really busy lines, like at London Bridge, and it may affect the feel.

In my opinion, if you are modelling an exact area, stick with what is there, if not, go with what you feel looks right.

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks for the interest in this one.

QUOTE (hairyhandedfool @ 22 May 2008, 17:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>18 would be double because there are two posible routes from it, Up Main and Outer Branch. Both should have controlling signals.

Is that the same as I indicated above or a different reason? For clarity.

QUOTE (hairyhandedfool @ 22 May 2008, 17:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I am a little confused as to what purpose it serves though. If 18 is a disc, why doesn't 21/22 have one?

I understand that as 18 is a shunting movement signal only and not a running movement the ground signal is appropriate where as 21 and 22 control passenger line movements and must have full size arms controlling the routes on the up main and branch lines.

 

[beast66606]

Off to RailEx for the weekend - I will give a better reply on my return

 

[hairyhandedfool]

QUOTE (Lancashire Fusilier @ 23 May 2008, 01:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Is that the same as I indicated above or a different reason? For clarity.

erm... yeah, I was doing ten things at once and spend over half an hour on that post!! multi-tasking really isn't me.

QUOTE (Lancashire Fusilier @ 23 may 2008, 01:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I understand that as 18 is a shunting movement signal only and not a running movement the ground signal is appropriate where as 21 and 22 control passenger line movements and must have full size arms controlling the routes on the up main and branch lines.
Yes, yes, but I didn't think full size arms would control shunting movements and as 18 has two shunt moves, it would be logical for 21/22 to have the same moves in addition to the full size arm. Am I over complicating a signal? Semaphores are not my strong point.

I understand 18 as a shunt move signal, but why is it there? What shunt move would occur?

A train arrives on platform 1 behind signal 18, there are no sidings to shunt into so it must shunt behind 29 or 25 signal and return to the station, if it returns to platform 2 a stop signal or limit of shunt would be needed at the far end. If the train was to continue outside station limits surely a full arm would be at 18. Where could it go from platform 2 or 3 that it could not go from platform 1? Am I missing something?

 

[John Webb]

LF (Paul) has incorporated most of my comments in his revised diagram of Matlock. My apologies I didn't make clear to him that the local operation of points in sidings etc would be by a simple point lever, not a ground frame.

His 'Matlock' bears no resemblance, by the way, to the prototype; it's just that he likes the name! So there is no prototype signalling diagram he could follow. It was my suggestion that 'High Tor' be signalled fully bi-directional to allow a train to overtake another going in the same direction to give greater operating flexibility.

Re signal 18 - the Midland, as I understand it, did not always have a separate disc for each route a shunting loco could take. It was up to the driver to check that the route was set for the way he needed to go. The interlocking would ensure that it could only be cleared if the points were set for a viable route. For example although signal 19 refers primarily to a move onto the run-round loop, it might also be used for calling on an engine to a train in the platform after the loco has run round.

There is another consideration regarding shunting moves, and that is that they should strictly take place within "station limits" defined in the forward direction by the starting signal. In a station like 'Matlock' there would almost certainly be an 'advance starter' on the up main and the outer branch lines, but the small distances between stations on this layout makes such signals rather difficult to include. It might be considered near to prototype to inclde 'Limit of Shunt' boards a couple of coach lengths up the outer branch and the up main to allow shunting movements. I believe the signalman might still need to use the 'Shunting forward into Section' signal to the next box; I am not very certain on this point.

But rereading Bob Essery's book, the ground discs 6 and 34, in the absence of advance starters, should be minature arms.

Re catch points: they are not always used. For example at the Damams passing loop on the Keithley and Worth Valley Railway, which is on a distinct slope, it is only the down-hill end of the loop where a catch point is fitted, not the upper end.

I'd agree that the other end of the platforms would be a better location for the signal box, closer to the majority of points and less distance for the signalman or train crews to go for single-line tokens for the branches.

Regards,
John Webb

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks again for the comments - I feel we must be nearly there then! I take it you are in agreement with the inclusion of the facing point locks on the facing points on the main lines. Would these have been black and blue levers that controlled the point and lock in a single pull? Also it appears that I have more work to do on getting the numbering done correctly.

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...would be by a simple point lever, not a ground frame.

So I will change the diagram to reflect this - very easy to do this one.

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was my suggestion that 'High Tor' be signalled fully bi-directional to allow a train to overtake another going in the same direction to give greater operating flexibility.

I will retain this flexibility and assume a token style process for single line running. The integrated software/hardware operating the signals will manage the directional interlocking constraints imposed.

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Re signal 18 - the Midland, as I understand it, did not always have a separate disc for each route a shunting loco could take. It was up to the driver to check that the route was set for the way he needed to go. The interlocking would ensure that it could only be cleared if the points were set for a viable route. For example although signal 19 refers primarily to a move onto the run-round loop, it might also be used for calling on an engine to a train in the platform after the loco has run round.

That is also my understanding to however it would appear that it would not be wrong to have the two disks at 18 so will place as such.

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There is another consideration regarding shunting moves, and that is that they should strictly take place within "station limits" defined in the forward direction by the starting signal. In a station like 'Matlock' there would almost certainly be an 'advance starter' on the up main and the outer branch lines, but the small distances between stations on this layout makes such signals rather difficult to include. It might be considered near to prototype to inclde 'Limit of Shunt' boards a couple of coach lengths up the outer branch and the up main to allow shunting movements. I believe the signalman might still need to use the 'Shunting forward into Section' signal to the next box; I am not very certain on this point.

I am not including the advance starters sue to the space constraints but will include limit of shunt boards on the Up Main, Inner Branch and Outer Branch lines as appropriate - less costly and easier than signals anyway!!

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But rereading Bob Essery's book, the ground discs 6 and 34, in the absence of advance starters, should be minature arms.

Does the limit of shunt sign insetad of advance starters negate the need for the miniature arms at this point then? I would have thought probably not as both signals provide access to main lines. In this case should they be miniature black arms with yellow bands or conventional red and white miniature starters? I feel that miniature shunt ahead signals at 21 and 22 would not be required given the limit of shunt signs but is this the case?

QUOTE (John Webb @ 28 May 2008, 03:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'd agree that the other end of the platforms would be a better location for the signal box, closer to the majority of points and less distance for the signalman or train crews to go for single-line tokens for the branches.

I will move Matlock to the end of Platform 2 then if agreed? Are the other boxes sited correctly then?

 

[John Webb]

QUOTE (Lancashire Fusilier @ 29 May 2008, 03:08) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks again for the comments - I feel we must be nearly there then! I take it you are in agreement with the inclusion of the facing point locks on the facing points on the main lines. Would these have been black and blue levers that controlled the point and lock in a single pull? Also it appears that I have more work to do on getting the numbering done correctly.
Could have been either combined Points/FPL levers or separate. The 1906 tumbler lever frame at St Albans South box has separate FPLs, but I am not clear if this was because of the type of locking or changes made by the LMS or in BR days.

QUOTE Does the limit of shunt sign insetad of advance starters negate the need for the miniature arms at this point then? I would have thought probably not as both signals provide access to main lines. In this case should they be miniature black arms with yellow bands or conventional red and white miniature starters? I feel that miniature shunt ahead signals at 21 and 22 would not be required given the limit of shunt signs but is this the case?
To be honest I'm not certain on this point. I think they would be minature arms as they would be interlocked to the block instruments so that they could not be cleared for the exit until 'Line Clear' was obtained. It may be one of those things that was not a hard and fast rule. Quite likely if done one way someone will produce a prototype example of it being done the other!

QUOTE I will move Matlock to the end of Platform 2 then if agreed? Are the other boxes sited correctly then?
The move of Matlock and the location of the other boxes seem fine to me.

Regards,
John

 

[beast66606]

re Limit of Shunts (LOS)

They are provided to prevent a shunt move continuing beyond a certain limit (hence the name), normally to the next box, in effect they are a fixed red and must not be passed - so they cannot be used in a situation where trains would need to pass them - for this purpose a miniature arm on the main signal, showing an S for Shunt ahead, is provided, which gives the driver authority to proceed for a limited distance for shunting purposes only.

If LF can provide updated diagrams then further comments - if required - can be made

(I will number one for you also)

Sorry about the delay - been a busy couple of weeks in work

 

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks for that. My files are at work and I am on leave so will update at lunch time on Monday hopefully with the new comments. I didn't think the LMS or former MR used S placed on small arms though. Would that be the right way to go at these two locations then?

 

[John Webb]

I haven't found a direct photo of a MR shunt ahead signal yet, so I'm not certain if they used an 'S' sign alongside the arm or one uncovered when the arm was cleared. I'll carry on looking and if I find something I'll post it.

Regards,
John