Signalling for Tingley Common

Discussions of the prototypes and how to model them. Show us how you do it.
Bellerophon
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Bellerophon » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:48 pm

A friend of mine has given me suggestions for signalling arrangements on my layout. I didn't want anything over complicated as my knowledge is limited but I wanted something fairly plausible. As signal building is now in progress (as can be seen) I wondered if anyone could check out the suggested plan (hopefully attached). The track layout is awkward I know owing to baseboard joins, so movements will add some interest! Thanks.
Attachments
IMG_0847.JPG
Tingley Common.png

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:58 pm

Is the photo reversed, or are the signals really the wrong way round? The ones on the diagram seem to have a problem too...

So far as commenting on the diagram is concerned, I think it would be a lot simpler if you could number the signals. Any arbitrary order is OK; it would make it much easier to explain which signals anyone commenting is writing about. I can see possible issues with several, but without some reference system, explaining which ones and why will be a bit difficult...
Regards
Noel

Bellerophon
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Bellerophon » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:11 pm

Many thanks Noel. The photo is correct so that's probably my first mistake..(b....r). The diagram is the best I could do with my computer skills but I can try and add some numbers. Thanks, Howard.

Bellerophon
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Bellerophon » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:25 pm

Does this help a bit?
Attachments
T common sigs.pdf
(146.08 KiB) Downloaded 53 times

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:31 pm

Bellerophon wrote:Many thanks Noel. The photo is correct so that's probably my first mistake..(b....r).


Shame about that. The modelling looks pretty good, too. Signal arms in the UK are always to the left of the post as the driver faces them.

Tigley Sigs.JPG


1 is OK
2 should be before the crossover to 1, and probably on the other side of the line.
3 Depending on your prototype there are a number of possibilities here, but probably the most likely are either a bracket with the LH arm a subsidiary arm [ringed, smaller or w.h.y.], or a running signal plus a dummy alongside.
4 and 5 should probably be consistent, either two for both or one conditional dummy for both, depending on prototype practice. If two dummies, then both the headshunt and the goods shed line would have exit dummies as well, I would expect. The back siding would also need an exit dummy then, although 7 can read to either possible destination.
6 see under 8
7 is OK
8 If 3 is a running signal rather than a dummy, then 8 can be moved well beyond the yard exit, and be the starter. 6 is then redundant, as locos/trains can pass the yard exit on the main when shunting, under the authority of 1 or 3 as relevant (plus hand signals from the box if necessary) as far as 8.
9 should probably be immediately before the crossover; there is no requirement for it to be by the box.

Above is my opinion only, others may disagree. It is also given without specific knowledge of your prototype, which may mean modifications are required. It is also possible that period is relevant, as signalling did change over time. Hope this helps.
Regards
Noel

Bellerophon
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Bellerophon » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:49 pm

Thanks Noel. That helps a great deal. I'm amazed how complicated/intricate signalling in reality is, unlike the simple explanations you get in some modelling books. I'll re-check my small collection of GNR signal pictures. Something as simple as signal arms I've never seen mentioned in books or perhaps it's just too obvious to mention. Well, I wish they had! The instructions with the kit were a bit vague too, at least to me. Thanks again, Howard

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:34 am

Bellerophon wrote:I'm amazed how complicated/intricate signalling in reality is, unlike the simple explanations you get in some modelling books


The basic principles are fairly simple; however, applying them to a given practical situation was often not, complicated by ostensibly similar layouts being used in different ways and thus needing to be signalled differently. Also, different companies had different ideas on how to signal various track layouts, and how many signals were required to do the job. You may find a copy of M A Vanns' Ian Allan ABC "Signalling in the Age of Steam" is useful if you want to know more, as it explains the background and history fairly briefly and clearly, although it is inevitably a bit technical.

For your layout, it depends on how many trains you want to be in the yard at any one time. If only one, then the rear siding would probably becontrolled by a hand lever at the point, not by the box, as it is not on a running line, in which case 5 would be a single dummy [for exit to the main line] and no exit dummies from the individual sidings would be needed. Incidentally, I should have said that I have assumed that both of the lines at the bottom of the diagram are running lines, based on the locations of 8 and 9.
Regards
Noel

andrewnummelin
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:43 am

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby andrewnummelin » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:26 am

It's outside my own particular area of interest, but is the layout typical for the GNR? It appears to be a small station so is the (running) loop for the goods yard normal?
Instead of the 2 crossovers at the left hand end I would have expected a trailing connection from the lower main line with a single slip in the upper main line so avoiding facing points and the associated locking.
Regards,

Andrew Nummelin

John Palmer
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby John Palmer » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:01 pm

andrewnummelin wrote:It's outside my own particular area of interest, but is the layout typical for the GNR? It appears to be a small station so is the (running) loop for the goods yard normal?
Instead of the 2 crossovers at the left hand end I would have expected a trailing connection from the lower main line with a single slip in the upper main line so avoiding facing points and the associated locking.
I had much the same thoughts. May be worth a look at GNR signalling layouts as posted on John Hinson's Signal Box website: https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?selectpg=Great+Northern&viewpg=Go%21. Tumby Woodside and St James Deeping look like representative examples of GNR practice with regard to wayside stations and bear out Andrew's observation about avoidance of facing connections.

Edited to add that I like the somersaults pictured - some very nice work has gone into those.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Tim V » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:06 pm

Agree that the signalling on Tumby Wood looks more like what I would expect to see (even with a GWR hat on!).
Tim V

Alan Turner
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Alan Turner » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:56 pm

I would have expected something along these lines:

Tingley.png


which I know doesn't help because the track is probably already laid.

regards

Alan

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3158
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby grovenor-2685 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:03 pm

The signals heading to the right do need left hand arms though, and both discs leading out of the yard should be yellow, with the left hand one red there is no access to the goods shed.
Rgds

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:19 pm

The use of yellow for conditional ground signals [and distants] dates from the MoT 1925 requirements; before that it was common to use a normal red ground signal with white and green lights instead of red and green, although alternatives did exist. The rules were not applied retrospectively, so a local yard might well keep its pre-1925 signals until closure 40-odd years later, so long as they worked OK. Inconsistencies could arise if a single signal failed terminally or was accidentally destroyed, and had to be replaced, if this was done to the new specification without altering the others.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:28 pm

Alan Turner wrote:which I know doesn't help because the track is probably already laid.


https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=6356
Regards
Noel

Alan Turner
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Alan Turner » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:47 pm

Noel wrote:
Alan Turner wrote:which I know doesn't help because the track is probably already laid.


https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=6356


Well as I thought.

Any way modified diagram:

Tingley.png


regards

Alan

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:08 pm

I agree it's a matter of opinion, but I'd still put the second semaphore of the right-bound line well beyond the crossover, I think, Alan. That way it can act as the starter; with the diagram as it is, you need an advanced starter. Otherwise all shunting between the yard loop and the main at that end would involve getting permission from the box in advance, which seems a little OTT for such a small station/yard.
Regards
Noel

Bellerophon
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Bellerophon » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:51 pm

I'm learning a great deal here. If I were to build again I would definitely use a single slip on the crossover but as it was my first effort I didn't want a turnout straddling a baseboard joint. I now have an exctoscale single slip in my gloat box ready to build for another time. Swapping the signal arms round seems to be going smoothly...perhaps I shouldn't have said that.

Harmonising a Bach chorale is much easier than signalling a layout!
Thanks, Howard.

John Palmer
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby John Palmer » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:53 am

Noel wrote:The use of yellow for conditional ground signals [and distants] dates from the MoT 1925 requirements

Noel, are you able to clarify this reference, please?

I note that reference is made to such use of yellow in the MoT's 1928 document "Requirements for Passenger Lines" etc, but this seems to be an entirely distinct publication from an endorsement by the Ministry of the conclusions on colour reached in 1924 by the IRSE's committee on three position signalling. I have found a mention of such an endorsement having been issued by the MoT in 1925, but have been unable to identify the endorsement document in question. One possibility is that it is (part of) a document catalogued in the National Archives as "Signals: Coloured lenses - standard specification. File No: SR.14235", but this is not accessible online so I have been unable to check. The 1928 "Requirements" publication is prescriptive as to the use of yellow colouring on signals and their lights for new or reconstructed railways, and I should be interested to learn whether any earlier Ministry endorsement of the the IRSE committee's report was similarly prescriptive. If so, it would fix a date falling before 1928 as the moment when the use of yellow colouring on certain ground signals became mandatory (possibly for existing lines as well as new, depending on the document's scope). It might, presumably, also fix a pre-1928 date on which the phasing-out of Coligny Welch lamps on distant signals began.

It may well be the case that the railway companies were not subjected to a retrospective obligation to change the colours of ground signals qualifying for yellow, but presumably the Ministry made obligatory the change of distant signal colour from red to yellow. In which case, by what means?

davebradwell
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby davebradwell » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:43 am

A question which relates to the current discussion on the position of the starter: my rather basic understanding suggests that, as drawn, the ground discs only give a proceed with caution indication. Surely this would mean the driver proceeding through the entire block section at reduced speed unless he was authorised by a proper signal which indicates line clear to next signal? This applies to both running lines where trains leave the yard by disc signal. I suspect the answer depends on original company and division.

DaveB

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:26 am

Sorry, John, I don't have details of the official documents involved, I'm afraid. I was just making the point that the use of yellow ground signals, or not, depended on the date at which the layout was set. My sources were Michael A Vanns' Ian Allan ABC "Signalling in the Age of Steam" and http://www.railsigns.uk/sect2page6/sect2page6.html, both of which agree on 1925. Neither is a primary source obviously, and it is possible that they are not independent, either, but this was sufficient for my purpose, I felt.

Following your post I have looked at Adrian Vaughan's "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Signalling", which states on p26, referring to the change in colour for distant arms:

"The change stemmed from the Great Central Railway which had used this scheme for years. The Ministry of Transport in 1917 ordered that all lines should follow the Great Central's example, but the the Great War delayed the change. Amalgamation, which followed the War, took up the years 1921 to 23, and it was 1927 before the Great Western even started to comply with the instruction, taking six years to finish the job."

Again, not a primary source, but credible, and consistent with 1925, but not 1928.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:11 am

davebradwell wrote:A question which relates to the current discussion on the position of the starter: my rather basic understanding suggests that, as drawn, the ground discs only give a proceed with caution indication. Surely this would mean the driver proceeding through the entire block section at reduced speed unless he was authorised by a proper signal which indicates line clear to next signal? This applies to both running lines where trains leave the yard by disc signal. I suspect the answer depends on original company and division.


The diagrams posted are only partial, for the layout as built, not full diagrams for the box as a whole, so some signals are not shown. In this case, shunting in either direction would require 'offscene' signals to control access to the forward sections, at least in normal practice. The alternative would require obtaining permission from the box in front before shunting could take place, and then withdrawing it when the shunting was complete, which would be a pain for all concerned. All dummies would then give drivers authority to proceed up to, but not beyond, that section signal. Traffic moving right to left would therefore meet the 'Home' [9 in the earlier diagram] and an "offstage" starter. Traffic in the reverse direction would meet the 'Home', the 'Starter' and an "offscene" 'Advanced Starter'. My suggestion was that the 'Starter' [8 on the earlier diagram] could be moved "offscene" to the right, abolishing the need for an advance starter. Using a dummy as the signal giving permission to enter the forward section would be very unusual, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened somewhere...

If you are thinking that the yellow dummies in the later diagrams are caution signals, this is not the case. They are conditional stop signals, i.e. they apply to one route in front, but not the other. For the route to which they apply they are mandatory stop signals, for the route to which they don't apply they can be ignored, and passed when 'on'. They have yellow and green aspects. A normal dummy in their position would be a mandatory stop signal for both routes; conditional signals make the signalman's life easier and reduces the number of signals required. As indicated previously, prior to yellow being used, such signals would look like normal dummies, with a red arm, but with white and green aspects rather than red and green.
Regards
Noel

Alan Turner
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Alan Turner » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:52 am

Noel wrote: Using a dummy as the signal giving permission to enter the forward section would be very unusual, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened somewhere...
.


I give you Highley:

HYDiagram.jpg


regards

Alan

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Noel » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:48 am

Alan Turner wrote:I give you Highley:


And 7 is a yellow arm dummy as well. Note that all of the starters are locked until an appropriate token is released.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby Tim V » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:41 pm

Highley is an interesting example, should a train be sent from Hampton Loade (for example) to cross at Highley, it has to be sent under 'warning' (rule 5) section clear but station or junction blocked. Note only home and starter.

The yellow disc was probably put in under preservation, GWR practice was not to use such devices, the white light in the dolly could be passed on the road it didn't apply to.
This pictures dates from 1992.
Highley July 1992 Yashica T3 295-003.jpg
Tim V

John Palmer
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Signalling for Tingley Common

Postby John Palmer » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:07 pm

Noel wrote:... My sources were Michael A Vanns' Ian Allan ABC "Signalling in the Age of Steam" and http://www.railsigns.uk/sect2page6/sect2page6.html, both of which agree on 1925. Neither is a primary source obviously, and it is possible that they are not independent, either, but this was sufficient for my purpose, I felt. ...

Thanks, Noel, that's helpful in supporting a conclusion that yellow-faced ground signals probably shouldn't appear on any depiction of a pre-1925 railway. Elsewhere on the forum there's a thread dealing with the lights exhibited by rotating ground signals, with emphasis on the GER. I think I made reference there to such a signal at Chappel (MacLean, Pic. Record of LNER Constituent Signalling, plate 121) which the caption noted as having a yellow face. If that's correct there must be a strong supposition that as originally installed by the GER that signal had a red face but was subsequently repainted to conform to the 1925 edict. In which case, some pre-1925 signals did get repainted in accordance with the new rules whilst doubtless others simply retained their original paint scheme.

The Highley diagram is interesting, but there seem to be multiple variations of it, the one posted by Alan bearing an S&T Engineers Office Reading marking - genuine? Not sure I see any need for warning acceptances for all 'meets' at Highley - surely that's not necessary if a Down goods has already been recessed in the sidings before an Up train is offered by Hampton Loade? And why is disc 7 yellow whilst 8 is red? Is that due to the spur beyond 10 points giving access to Highley Colliery, and for that reason required to remain under signalman's control?


Return to “Signals and Control Systems”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests