Penhafod Upper - 1978

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:30 pm

Progress steady during the week...
Firstly, I have now drawn up the signal box diagram which looks like this:
signalbox diagram_filled.png

This is my stab at the locking table and I'd be grateful for any expert who wants some fun and with my thanks to criticise or comment before draw up the tappet table:
Penhafod locking table.png
Penhafod locking table.png (16.21 KiB) Viewed 3786 times

Finished adding fishplates to the Goods South Loop and NCB sidings and the four turnouts now have tie bars, although as yet not connected back to the frame. On that subject, I have been puzzling these last 39 years how to attach the working Model Signal Engineering (MSE) lever frame to the edge of the baseboard. The layout has always been intended to be exhibited, and for the lever frame to be detachable. I finally came up with a solution which I will work on in the next few weeks.
Had the first running day in nearly 40 years today....
Ran a Heljan Crompton (I know, I know, they didn't appear in South Wales until the 1980s, but it's all I have to hand) up and down the Goods South Loop and sidings and had a very depressing time of it. On the plus side, most of the plain track is ok but the turnouts are another story. To be fair to the layout, I'm not too happy with the mechanism of the loco, so I may get another loco out of works and see if that one is any better. I fear though that my P4 tracklaying skills in 1978 were not, shall we say, top drawer? Some judicious fettling probably required..

TH

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:53 pm

This is my stab at the locking table and I'd be grateful for any expert who wants some fun

Fun huh, I'll do something tomorrow :)
regards

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:25 am

I note that you have posted the diagrams on RMweb also. You may well get replies there from stationmaster Mike who has more detailed knowledge of GWR quirks that I do as I learned my trade on the LMR and never worked on the Western. So don't be surprised if he comes up with something a bit different from me. Such differences can be discussed subsequently.
Regards

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:11 am

Hi Keith
Yes, I put the diags on RMWeb because of a thread I found there that had some very useful replies from the Stationmaster and, since I didn;t work on the WR either, I wanted to make sure there are no howlers in the signalling... thanks for offering to look at the arrangement..

TH

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:38 pm

I have done a critique for you attached, hope it is some help.
Penhafod locking 1.pdf
(37.78 KiB) Downloaded 79 times

Penhafod locking 1.odt
(62.31 KiB) Downloaded 56 times

regards

John Palmer
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby John Palmer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:47 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by the arrangements for the engine release crossovers. If these are worked from local ground frames I would expect any signals controlling movements over such crossovers also to be worked from the associated ground frame, rather than from the signal box. I would have thought it more likely that any such movement would be hand signalled by the operator of the ground frame concerned - probably the fireman of the engine being released.

A possible alternative to the arrangement shown would be to have the platform points on each release crossover bolted normal by a FPL controlled by a lever in the associated ground frame, such lever to be released from the signal box. When so released by the box, working the FPL lever would unbolt the point and permit its reversal by a second lever in the ground frame. This would ensure that the crossover point adjacent to the platform is properly bolted for a facing movement over it by a passenger train.

<edit>Posted before I'd seen Keith's critique, which deals with the same issue</edit>
Last edited by John Palmer on Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:56 pm

Great replies, Keith and John, thanks for taking the time..
I'll look at your notes, Keith in a while.
Re the engine release crossovers, yes it makes sense to release the GF from the signal box and have local handsignals (it also throws up two spare levers in the box which I'll need if, as seems to be the case, the shunt signals need to be enhanced for one per route). I'm assuming the the engine release crossovers don't need FPLs in the trailing direction (i.e. facing the buffer stops). On the model itself, the crossovers will be worked electrically from the frame, but this is only an expedience for the model because the crossovers are on a different board to the frame.
Many thanks

Tony

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:59 pm

...sorry, addendum to my last, I meant 'assume that the crossovers don't need FPLs in the trailing direction, i.e. the point on the Goods Loop South.' I understand that the platform point would need an FPL in the facing direction for passenger movements, so releasing this frm the box would enable the GF to be operated..

TH

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:28 pm

Engine release crossovers quite often did not have any FPL, sometimes they did, sometimes not. Although, being pedantic, it is a facing passenger move the real risks were minimal with a very slow speed move for the last vehicle in the train (if it was actually set back after the runround) if it came off the guard should feel it and should still be alert in case of any passenger issues.
With an electric release Gf you could have a 2 lever frame with the electric lock on the fpl lever or a one lever frame with electric lock, either way the release lever in the box would have to be backlocked and the points proved normal before the lever could be restored to normal.
All this electrickery was a bit pricey and the alternative of Annets keys would seem quite likely. Both rod operated bolts or electric release on the GF imply a busy place where the time taken to walk down with an Annets key would be a problem.
regards

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:49 pm

I've had a good look at your very detailed document, Keith and thank you so much for taking the time to compile it. Herewith my responses, which are more in way of acknowledging my errors and omissions... I shall be at Scaleforum this year, so I certainly owe you a drink at the very least!
Penhafod locking 1_TH response to KN comments.pdf
(38.6 KiB) Downloaded 53 times


Best regards
Tony

User avatar
steamraiser
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby steamraiser » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:57 pm

Would the exit from the colliery sidings had a trap point to prevent unauthorised moves into the goods loop?

Gordon A

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby Noel » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:28 pm

Given that the South loop is not a passenger line, a trap on the NCB line would be optional, but not required by BoT rules, I think. As the holding sidings are NCB their loco can only access them by means of running rights over the loop, but the issue would be the gradient on the NCB main line. If this was down towards the station then a catch point might be deemed necessary to deal with possible runaways on the NCB main line.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:34 pm

I've had a good look at your very detailed document, Keith and thank you so much for taking the time to compile it. Herewith my responses, which are more in way of acknowledging my errors and omissions...

There do seem to be a couple of questions in there :)
I’m assuming that this is a trap to prevent a loco running from the spur into no 13?

Yes, the trap or scotch block will protect the passenger movement in and out of platforms 1 & 2.
Ah, this leads to the question of how many shunt signals. I was assuming the 18 referred to movts
from platform 1 and 19 to plat 2. I was also assuming that each would not control a specific route,
but would allow a shunting movt from the respective platform to either the engine spur or the
advanced starter (6) depending on how the slip 13 was set. Am I wholly wrong in GWR practice?

With 2 signals per platform and two routes for each I assumed you had intended one signal per route. On a single line like this there is no need for a shunt signal down to 6, its usual just to use the main arm. You would not be shunting out there if something was already occupying the track. So main arms to 6, shunt discs to the spur is the best way, no ambiguity.
Regards

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:40 pm

Some excellent replies, many thanks..
Drat time on the platform end gantry, Keith... I have already made up (quite a few years ago) a two arm gantry with what is now shown as signals 16 and 19 at the ends, so moving 19 inboard to accommodate the shunt signal 18 to its left is going to be a grrr moment! But what's the point of finescale modelling if not to get it right!?
Regarding the movement from the NCB sidings to Goods Loop South, I would agree that it doesn't need trap points. In effect, Goods Loop South is mainly used by the NCB shunters although the normal shunt move for incoming empties for the colliery would be that either a) the WR loco would firstly propel the train into the engine spur to release the brake van if no loco is already there or b) a loco in the engine spur would collect the brake van, which would be fouling no 24's switch. Then the train engine can back the empties to the NCB sidings and get released for further traffic. The WR locos do not have running rights into the colliery. When released, the loco can either go to the spur if unoccupied or to the buffer stop end of the second holding siding if empty. Normally, the second colliery loco would have a loaded train either to be pulled out directly from the screens to the Goods Loop and back into the second holding siding. The NCB loco would then collect the brake van from the engine spur and deliver it to the second siding. The train loco can then propel the whole lot back into Goods Loop South and then onwards to Cardiff Docks... bear in mind that this is intended to be for exhibitions and on the basis that exhibition layouts should have something moving every couple of minutes, I hope that this will be a series of interesting moves, interspersed with passenger movements.
Mind you, it will considerable less interesting if I don't sort out some of the problem trackwork...

Tony

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:47 pm

Re one of Keith's statements in his very welcome write up:
"Secondly the value of signals 25 and 27 is obscure, if 26 and 28 are ground frames as shown then the man on the ground (shunter or guard) will control the points and give movement instructions, to use the signal he would have to be able to advise the signalman when it should be pulled off, just a waste of time and effort."
Perhaps someone can clarify, but from when I lived down south and visited a lot, I thought I saw a ground disc on the platform side of the engine release at Kidderminster station on the SVR?

John Palmer
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby John Palmer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:45 pm

NorthHighlander wrote:Re one of Keith's statements in his very welcome write up:
"Secondly the value of signals 25 and 27 is obscure, if 26 and 28 are ground frames as shown then the man on the ground (shunter or guard) will control the points and give movement instructions, to use the signal he would have to be able to advise the signalman when it should be pulled off, just a waste of time and effort."
Perhaps someone can clarify, but from when I lived down south and visited a lot, I thought I saw a ground disc on the platform side of the engine release at Kidderminster station on the SVR?

Movements over the release crossovers at Kidderminster are indeed under the control of discs reading from the platform lines to the engine lines. Kidderminster's layout differs from yours in that both the crossovers and their associated discs are worked from the box; there are no ground frames in the Kidderminster layout, and engine releases are controlled by the signalman.

Further information on the Kidderminster layout can be found here: http://www.svrsig.org.uk/svr/Frame1.htm. Although a heritage railway, I imagine it's intended to reflect GWR practice. Evidently it was thought necessary to bolt the engine releases, but you can see some differences in the locking arrangements applied to each. For example, on Platform 1 the FPL No.51 stands normally 'in' and must be reversed to release the crossover points 52.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby Noel » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:37 am

John Palmer wrote:Although a heritage railway, I imagine it's intended to reflect GWR practice.


Or was it that the current arrangement was necessary to meet modern requirements, since a completely new station was built by the SVR on a different site to the original [which remains in use by the big railway]? Or perhaps it was an SVR decision? The two platforms were built at different times, which may explain the differences in locking arrangements.

In any event, GWR practice is possibly not altogether relevant, since Penhafod Upper would have been a TVR station originally, and after the grouping the GWR, and BR(WR), normally left existing arrangements in place unless there was a specific reason for making changes.
Regards
Noel

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:48 pm

Thanks for the heads up on Kidder..
Although I can see the reasons why the SVR would have wanted to have everything under sbox control, and it may have been a Railway Inspectorate requirement, it would have made good theatre for the visitors to watch the fireman releasing the loco under g/f control. But I guess from Keith's comment to me, it would probably have required him/her to visit the signalbox on every occasion to get a key, if they didn't have an electric release. I guess cost is also involved!
Noel makes a good point and there was certainly plenty of TVR interest when I would regularly stay on holiday in the Rhondda... someone has asked me a good question. Given that, in the real world, the Barry joined at Trehafod Junction and used the station as its northern terminus platform from Barry via Wenvoe, might Penhafod Upper have been a BR station rather than TVR and thus acted as its northern terminus proper?? Someone else asked me why it's called Penhafod Upper.. is there a Penhafod Lower? A bit of headscratching and reference to Google and other maps reveal that there was an extension to the Treferig branch from Llantrisant which terminated in a single platform with run round loop at, of course, Penhafod Lower.... ain't pretend a wonderful thing!

Tony H

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:01 pm

After something of a delay i note that Stationmaster Mike put in some ideas on RMweb and the topic has since advanced a bit there.
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/page-5#entry2749793

There seems to be some confusion over the steep hill on the approach. My assumption, based on the station name, is that the station is at the top of the hill with the junction at the bottom. If this is correct then some of the SMs comments are off, going by his comments he was assuming the opposite.
So perhaps you could clear that up.
At the bottom of the hill you need to protect the station or junction from any breakaways from the back of an ascending train, or a runaway coming down.
On a single line a worked catch with a slotted joint is needed, usually just inside the outer home, whenever the signal stands at stop the catch would be in the derailing position but the slotted joint would allow it to close against the spring for ascending trains. Pulling the lever would close the switch for a legitimate downhill move and would release the signal.
At the top of the hill a similar arrangement could be used, between the outer home and the advance starter to catch any stray vehicles from careless shunting. One example I know of, albeit on the Southern, was at Bodmin North https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=642. You could have one like that, but unlike Bodmin you have a point you can use to direct any stray vehicles into the engine siding, and I would use that (ie reverse the normal position of 14) given that any shunts from north to south would have the loco on the downhill end, and the local instructions should require that.
I looked back through others' comments as well as mine and I can't any suggestion to put a seperate trap at the end of platform 1, so a bit lost as to why you did that abortive work :)

Re. Locking table, the SM has said that GW practice was to use columns as: Released By Locks Normal Locks Both Ways Releases.
As I mentioned before 'releases' is just an inverse of 'released by' which is why one or the other was often omitted, having it there does allow a double check as the releases are then shown twice just as the locks are. 'Locks both ways' is needed unless there turns out not to be any, and I've never seen a locking table that shows the converses for these.
I'll have a look through your revised table soon.
Regards

PS. had a look at the locking, looks like I need to make similar corrections as with version 1. The essential point to point and signal to point locking is missing. I'll try and find time tomorrow.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Had a look through the locking table, attached is corrected version with notes, do ask if anything is obscure.
Penhafod locking 3.pdf
(36.12 KiB) Downloaded 52 times

Penhafod locking 3.odt
(68.65 KiB) Downloaded 52 times

regards

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:11 pm

Many thanks for the time you have taken to provide a very detailed response to my latest diagram, Keith.
I have now read the document in detail and there are significant changes.
When I responded on RMWeb on:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... -go/page-5
I had misread your document on first reading and took it that you were suggesting a catch point between the Starter and Advanced Starter and not the Outer Home (in the opposite direction coming up the bank) and the Advanced Starter as you had written. Your recommendation places the recommended catch point inside the tunnel or just outside the north portal. In either case, it would be 'off the layout'. I guess I could move the advanced starter nearer to the signal box and have the catch points just outside the south portal, which would be visible. However, I have placed the advanced starter to permit the longest train that can be accommodated in station limits to be clear of any starter when standing at the advanced starter, so I think I will assume a catch point at the far end of the tunnel. (but with the tunnel at 782 yards on a 1 in 50, any runaway would be going at quite a lick when it hit the catch points!) Given that this is a signalbox lever with no actual operand, I might take up your second suggestion, i.e. to reverse the normal position of the east end of the double slip (14 points) to divert to the engine spur. I wonder if the catch points at the northern end of the tunnel could be controlled from Trehafod North Jct, moved a bit north and releases their home signal from the branch when pulled?
Re FPLs, I am not sure that a minor branch on the TVR would have had track circuit locking, but I take your point (oops!) about lock bars being difficult on d/slips. It will be interesting to research that point. (oops again!)
Ground frame and Annetts Keys. I've been thinking about this. I know that the timetable will be busy as an exhibition layout, but I have been pondering the possible timetable in reality. We have:
An autotrain from Pontypridd, all stations to Penhafod which might be extended to Caerphilly and Machen - 4 times a day?
Barry Island to Penhafod via Cardiff, DMU service accelerated in 1957 and the rear portion of the Treherbert service every hour.
Barry Island to Penhafod via Wenvoe, 4 times a day?
Then the coal empties and loaded and occasional merchandise traffic.
If we assume that the signalbox is on two shifts 6a.m. to 2p.m. and 2p.m. to 10p.m. and the block section averages 8 minutes, we can get a maximum of 5 trains an hour in both directions, 50 trains a day absolute maximum. The above frequency would suggest 18 passenger and, say, 6 mineral trains a day, which is 2.4 trains per hour in each direction. I wonder if having to obtain an Annett's key from the signalbox every 20 minutes would be practical??
The overwhelming limitation is that I have a 28 lever frame which I really can't and don't want to alter. Taking levers 19 and 20 out will result in three spares but one will be used, as you suggest, to supplement the existing signal 24 (ground signal on Goods Loop South). To avoid taking up two levers for the ground frames I wonder if this was a better solution:
http://tillyweb.biz/gallery/nn/norchardekt.jpg
I can't find any details of the key boxes you referred to.
I haven't checked your revised locking table in detail, but I need to make some lever allocation alterations anyway because of the prospective rodding runs.
Anyway, you have given me plenty to think about and I value your comments and the time you have taken.

Best regards

Tony Hagon

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:32 pm

NorthHighlander wrote:Many thanks for the time you have taken to provide a very detailed response to my latest diagram, Keith.
I have now read the document in detail and there are significant changes.
When I responded on RMWeb on:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... -go/page-5
I had misread your document on first reading and took it that you were suggesting a catch point between the Starter and Advanced Starter and not the Outer Home (in the opposite direction coming up the bank) and the Advanced Starter as you had written.

The catch has to allow the shunt moves and hence needs to be protected by the advanced starter.
Your recommendation places the recommended catch point inside the tunnel or just outside the north portal.

Yes, when I saw your photo of the advance starter up against the portal then i realised that the catch would end up at the other end of the tunnel and off the layout. And yes, if the tunnel is 782 yards that would be half way to the junction and not really a suitable place even if convenient for modelling.
In either case, it would be 'off the layout'. I guess I could move the advanced starter nearer to the signal box and have the catch points just outside the south portal, which would be visible.

Apart from the loss of shunting room piling up any runaways into the portal wing walls is not the best idea either.
Given that this is a signalbox lever with no actual operand, I might take up your second suggestion, i.e. to reverse the normal position of the east end of the double slip (14 points) to divert to the engine spur.

In the circumstances that would be my preference also.
I wonder if the catch points at the northern end of the tunnel could be controlled from Trehafod North Jct, moved a bit north and releases their home signal from the branch when pulled?

Indeed you would need a catch in this position at the bottom of the hill, might even make it a run off spur on an upgrade with a sanddrag, seeing as its outside the modelled area you can be generous.
Ground frame and Annetts Keys. I've been thinking about this. I know that the timetable will be busy as an exhibition layout, but I have been pondering the possible timetable in reality. We have:
An autotrain from Pontypridd, all stations to Penhafod which might be extended to Caerphilly and Machen - 4 times a day?
Barry Island to Penhafod via Cardiff, DMU service accelerated in 1957 and the rear portion of the Treherbert service every hour.
Barry Island to Penhafod via Wenvoe, 4 times a day?

Were autotrains still running by 1978? I would have thought it would be all DMUs. But either way no need for loco runrounds so these would not need the GF released. So you would not be needing the Annets keys all that often.
To avoid taking up two levers for the ground frames I wonder if this was a better solution:
http://tillyweb.biz/gallery/nn/norchardekt.jpg
I can't find any details of the key boxes you referred to.

The item in the picture linked to is a Tyers key token block instrument. It will be good for your single line control and would provide the Line clear release for signal 28 but its got nothing to do with arrangements for GF releases.
I'll look through my books and see if I have any illustrations of Annets key boxes.
I haven't checked your revised locking table in detail, but I need to make some lever allocation alterations anyway because of the prospective rodding runs.

There should be no need to alter lever allocations for the rodding runs, the rodding can be arranged to cross at the box lead out or where there are right angle sections to cross the track or reach the point drives. The lever allocations are done for best pulling arrangements, then the rodding designed after.
regards

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby Noel » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:55 am

A couple of comments:

grovenor-2685 wrote:Were autotrains still running by 1978? I would have thought it would be all DMUs


Steam on the WR ceased in 1966, with south Wales one of the last areas fully dieselised. So definitely DMUs, not autotrains in 1978.

grovenor-2685 wrote:The item in the picture linked to is a Tyers key token block instrument. It will be good for your single line control and would provide the Line clear release for signal 28 but its got nothing to do with arrangements for GF releases.


Not necessarily quite true. The key tokens in the machine all have additional keys on the disengaged end, for which probably the most common purpose was the release of a remote g/f within the section [I don't know what Norchard use them for]. Agreed that they are not relevant within station limits, since the key token would be given up on arrival. [Staffs and electric staffs (both full size and miniature) also had such keys where required.]
Regards
Noel

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby grovenor-2685 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:44 am

Not necessarily quite true. The key tokens in the machine all have additional keys on the disengaged end, for which probably the most common purpose was the release of a remote g/f within the section [I don't know what Norchard use them for]. Agreed that they are not relevant within station limits, since the key token would be given up on arrival. [Staffs and electric staffs (both full size and miniature) also had such keys where required.]

Agreed, my comments related to the station under discussion, not a general case! It was/is normal for key tokens or keys attached to staffs etc to release mid section groundframes.
Regards

NorthHighlander
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Penhafod Upper - 1978

Postby NorthHighlander » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:28 pm

Yes, the Tyers instrument with the key tokens would have been given up on leaving the block section... to clarify, Keith, the LAYOUT was started in 1978, it depicts the era around 1959, so autotrains might still be pertinent... there's a philosophical argument here... if I say the model is based at 1959, exactly what date and time to the second would it be? In which case, by definition, nothing could ever move! So, I am justified in saying the PERIOD is around 1959 +- 5 years, probably! That enables me to run Hymeks as well as autotrains!

TH


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests