Edwinstowe Station... LNER 1930's (ex-LD&ECR, ex-GCR)

[jrg1]

Good Luck with your project-very interesting.

I have 3D prints for Edwinstowe station building, Goods Shed and Water Tower, for a planned layout based on the Sutton extension.

Happy to share my LDEC files with you.

As for your signalling queries, I am afraid I am in HAFC territory here...........  

[gingerangles]

1 hour ago, jrg1 said:

Good Luck with your project-very interesting.

I have 3D prints for Edwinstowe station building, Goods Shed and Water Tower, for a planned layout based on the Sutton extension.

Happy to share my LDEC files with you.

As for your signalling queries, I am afraid I am in HAFC territory here...........  

 

Thanks for the reply @jrg1!

 

Yes, if you dont mind sharing that would be absolutely amazing thanks!  I'll ping you a message.  Not sure if you've read through the whole thread but I was planning to build out of card with my own textured printed sheets - I'm currently experimenting with the signal box.  I have been toying with the idea of 3D printing mind and potentially thinking of getting one myself.  

 

If you have used the plan in your picture a word of caution - I'm not sure of its X-Y accuracy... I'm not by any means finished or completely convinced of the issue but with the work I have done so far on the station building in Inkscape (and this is counting bricks for dimensions and scaling the plan accordingly) has the long and side elevations not matching up to each other - i.e. with the length scaled correctly on the long elevation the end elevation is too narrow and the hight is off.

 

Thanks for letting me know re the signalling post 😂

[5BarVT]

On 04/09/2024 at 13:40, gingerangles said:

I've been back on giving my signalling layout some thought not least as I want to end up with at least something like the correct rodding and cabling routes that make sense and terminate in the right place.  I've got a slight 'issue' in that my plan doesn't match that of the readily available 1913 signal box diagram - I want to bring back in to service the Bay Platform for passenger use. 

 

Here are the 2 plans I am using for easy reference with the below text:

 

 

 

 

Which are the effectively the same info and I've shared here before.

 

I have been told that it looks like, according to this plan anyway, that the GS 7 looks like a late addition as it is out of sequence and may have originally been a spare along with 6.  I've also seen a version of a map with the headshunt for the bay doesn't exist, this is interesting as, as it stands, point 17 would require a FPL if the Bay was in use for passenger traffic but if the shunt didn't exist this would possibly not be the case(?). 

 

What I want to end up with is a functional and realistic plan which matches my layout scenario.  I'm potentially going to be making a lever frame with interlocking as a project sometime in the future so with this in mind I dont want to do anything silly now which may cock that up.

 

So - I need to do a little rejigging of the plan to:

• Move 41 back to the pole
• Add a FPL to 17
• Combine 13 & 14 as my physical switchblades wont be separate
• Renumber as required as would have been sensibly realistic

I have the following initial questions which I'd be very grateful of folks would let me have the answer / their thoughts...

1. Is the blue colouration on the drawing indicative of track for in-use/occupied passenger trains?
2. Why is 25 [FPL] seemingly annotated as attached to 24 and not 26 - which is the 'facing point' for trains departing the Back Platform?
3. Is it my imagination or are some of the ground signals a different symbol - 15 and 20 for example? Why is this if this is the case?
4. There is a gap/break in all of the platform lines and trackwork running Top-Bottom on the plan - Under the word MAIN if you look - is this indicative of something?  I know between the main platforms there is a crossing point for staff in this approximate location?
5. Why are the signals all at one end of the frame or the other - is this how it was always done? (1-5 Up side and 40-44 Down side if you look)
6. I've wondered why 13 & 14 were separated but as I've looked at it more I think this is to allow access in and out of the headshunt separately to the access to the Up main which is tied with the catch point on Siding No 1.  i.e. if I understand correctly - as it is now, with interlocking you could allow a move out of the headshunt, over point 13 in either direction  and close catch point 14 if 11 was still set to normal.  This way you could shunt from Siding 1 to the Back Platform at the Lincoln end without having to affect the Main lines.  How's that sound - or am I talking nonsense!? 😂

 

I was originally thinking of renumbering the GS's along the Up line to 6, 7 & 8 (which was ignoring #30 which seems to be differently synced), replacing 7, 16 & 8 as follows. 

 

 

 

I (think I) now realise that the above wouldn't have been realistic as it would cause interlocking headaches with adjacent levers being so jumbled on the frame, it was also throwing me off as I was forgetting/not realising the fact that 7 is only where it is as a late addition and is itself out of sequence... 

Which I can live with (or change it) as I know it as a fact.

 

So that made me have a rethink as follows:

• 41 - back on the pole
• 13 - renumbered 14 to match my pointwork
• 15 - renumbered 13 to free up #15, 13 and CP14 still adjacent levers on the frame
• 16 & 17 - renumbered 15 & 16 to go in sequence and allow...
• 17 to be become the FPL

As per this diagram:

 

 

 

Please let me have any feedback on that - is this plausible/possible? Anything wrong or improvements to be had?

Obviously I could renumber the whole thing from scratch but I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible in order to retain as much of 'the original' as possible.

 
One of the other factors playing on my mind was that my mimic panel was very cramped - mainly in order to fit inside a picture frame I had acquired and this has left it a little hard to read, so whilst at trying to sort out the above I thought I'd improve on the panel design by making it bigger and also including colouration and some other bits I'd missed...

 

Here you go, as with my revised numbering scheme above, again - let me know your thoughts...

 

 

Can’t give definitive answers to all the questions, but here goes for some:

 

I have the following initial questions which I'd be very grateful of folks would let me have the answer / their thoughts...

Is the blue colouration on the drawing indicative of track for in-use/occupied passenger trains?

Yes, it appears to indicate passenger rated lines.

Why is 25 [FPL] seemingly annotated as attached to 24 and not 26 - which is the 'facing point' for trains departing the Back Platform?

Looking back at the OS map in your first post, the toes of 24 and 26 are too close to fit an FPL between them.  As the FPL is only required from the back platform it will have been installed between 24 and 22 where it was easiest to get in.  I think the position of the number on the diagram is indicative of its position on the ground.  Note the heavy line between 24 and 26 which I think is is the FPL.

Is it my imagination or are some of the ground signals a different symbol - 15 and 20 for example? Why is this if this is the case?

Don’t think so.  Feels more like a reproduction error to me.

There is a gap/break in all of the platform lines and trackwork running Top-Bottom on the plan - Under the word MAIN if you look - is this indicative of something?  I know between the main platforms there is a crossing point for staff in this approximate location?

Can’t help with this one, sorry.
Why are the signals all at one end of the frame or the other - is this how it was always done? (1-5 Up side and 40-44 Down side if you look)

It is usual (though I know of some exceptions) to have the main running signals at the ends of the frame.  The signalman (almost invariably a man back in those days) would walk along the frame setting points and FPLs as required and then the signals last.  It’s to cut down on the walking up and down the frame.

I've wondered why 13 & 14 were separated but as I've looked at it more I think this is to allow access in and out of the headshunt separately to the access to the Up main which is tied with the catch point on Siding No 1.  i.e. if I understand correctly - as it is now, with interlocking you could allow a move out of the headshunt, over point 13 in either direction  and close catch point 14 if 11 was still set to normal.  This way you could shunt from Siding 1 to the Back Platform at the Lincoln end without having to affect the Main lines.  How's that sound - or am I talking nonsense!? 😂

Took me a while to work this one out!  First thought was to reduce weight on the lever, but then 11 has 3 ends.  I think it might be to do with trapping protection for the passenger status of the back platform line from vehicles left in the headshunt.  Trapping for the main line is provided by 11 for both the back platform and siding 1.

The only way to replicate in model form would be a separate trap point on the headshunt.

 

Paul.

Edited September 5 by 5BarVT
Mis typing

[gingerangles]

Paul, @5BarVT, as always thank you very much for the input!
 

So moving onwards...

• Blue colouration - we'll go with that then and I've added the colouration to the Bay Platform on my diagram.
• FPL at 26 - right OK, so if the FPL is installed further along I presume it will still be mechanically linked back to the switch rails of point 26? The dark line?  Is this then a case of additional rodding back to the switch rails or is there some other form of rod-locking going on potentially?  On the layout my points are toe to toe but even so I think I'd have enough room to replicate the FPL in the 'normal' place.
• GS notation - agreed, was just checking my unknown unknowns... you know.
• Gap in the linework - Yeah - weird, it's apparent on 3 versions of the diagram i have, including the hand drawn one, so it must mean something... 🤷‍♂️
• Signal levers at opposite ends - thanks, interesting to know 👍
• 13&14
  • When you say q1 - what is that, or is that a typo and should have been '11'? 
  • I dont think I explained myself very well here.  However I think I can see now that my explanation didn't hold water! 🤣
  • I understand what you are saying (I think) and that sounds reasonable to me - it allows 14 to provide ML protection from Siding 1 whilst also allows 13 to provide protection to the Back Platform from the HS which wouldn't be the case if they were linked 👍
  • A further question on this then - is it going to be appropriate to set back trains into the Back Platform line and remove wagons off the rear utilising the shunt?  I think that may well get classed as a stupid question but, as someone once said... the only stupid questions are the ones you dont ask 😊

I am fine with 13&14 getting linked together model wise - just trying to understand the philosophy behind it all.

 

Any thoughts on the renumbering exercise? 🤠

Edited September 5 by gingerangles
forgot summut

[5BarVT]

On 05/09/2024 at 14:55, gingerangles said:

FPL at 26 - right OK, so if the FPL is installed further along I presume it will still be mechanically linked back to the switch rails of point 26? The dark line?  Is this then a case of additional rodding back to the switch rails or is there some other form of rod-locking going on potentially?  On the layout my points are toe to toe but even so I think I'd have enough room to replicate the FPL in the 'normal' place.

Sorry, me being a bit light on the explanations and a bit loose on the terminology.  So here is v2!

The Facing Point Lock (FPL) is connected to the switch toes as you say.  Where there are no track circuits, there will also be an FPL Bar to prove that there are no trains approaching/over the point.  The FPL Bar sits just below railhead on the approach to the points, it is part of the rodding run to the FPL and is pivoted longitudinally so that when the FPL is operated (in or out) the bar lifts up into the flange way.  Any wheelsets there prevent the bar from lifting and thus prevent the lock from being operated.  Typically they were about 45’ long (don’t remember the precise length, but they had to be longer than the greatest inter-bogie distance of coaching stock).

So 26 FPL would be at the toes of the point, the FPL Bar can’t fit between 24 and 26, or in the flange gap of 24 switches.  It would be fitted once there was sufficient clearance between the stock and switch rails of 24.  In that position it is not effective for a move coming out of the dock siding, but as that isn’t a passenger move that’s OK.

Hope that helps.

On 05/09/2024 at 14:55, gingerangles said:

13&14

• When you say q1 - what is that, or is that a typo and should have been '11'? 

Typo! Since corrected. :-)

 

On 05/09/2024 at 14:55, gingerangles said:

I understand what you are saying (I think) and that sounds reasonable to me - it allows 14 to provide ML protection from Siding 1 whilst also allows 13 to provide protection to the Back Platform from the HS which wouldn't be the case if they were linked 👍

The rules on trap points were (until very recently): Sidings must have trap points to prevent runaway vehicles reaching running lines (Goods or Passenger), Goods lines must be trapped at Passenger lines.

So: 11 points provide trapping against the main line for both Siding 1 and the Back Platform.

14 provides trapping against the Back Platform for Siding 1

13 provides trapping against the Back Platform for the Head Shunt.

 

The justification for 13 is that the back platform is a passenger line at the other end.

14 is more dubious and is very much in the area for argument and opinion!

 

On 05/09/2024 at 14:55, gingerangles said:

A further question on this then - is it going to be appropriate to set back trains into the Back Platform line and remove wagons off the rear utilising the shunt?  I think that may well get classed as a stupid question but, as someone once said... the only stupid questions are the ones you dont ask 😊

Yes that’s fine, or adding vehicles.

And it’s not a stupid question - I’ve had professional engineers getting themselves tangled up with when you are allowed to remove trapping protection for a train going onto the trapped line (they were trying to make it too complicated claiming increased safety when the reduced reliability was likely to make it less safe(!)).  Another area of opinion and argument (and one of my specialisations!).

 

On 05/09/2024 at 14:55, gingerangles said:

Any thoughts on the renumbering exercise? 🤠

There were no comments because I was happy with what you had done.  Not a super detailed ‘what can I find wrong here’, but fine for a model.  Well done.

 

Paul.

[gingerangles]

24 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Sorry, me being a bit light on the explanations and a bit loose on the terminology.  So here is v2!

The Facing Point Lock (FPL) is connected to the switch toes as you say.  Where there are no track circuits, there will also be an FPL Bar to prove that there are no trains approaching/over the point.  The FPL Bar sits just below railhead on the approach to the points, it is part of the rodding run to the FPL and is pivoted longitudinally so that when the FPL is operated (in or out) the bar lifts up into the flange way.  Any wheelsets there prevent the bar from lifting and thus prevent the lock from being operated.  Typically they were about 45’ long (don’t remember the precise length, but they had to be longer than the greatest inter-bogie distance of coaching stock).

So 26 FPL would be at the toes of the point, the FPL Bar can’t fit between 24 and 26, or in the flange gap of 24 switches.  It would be fitted once there was sufficient clearance between the stock and switch rails of 24.  In that position it is not effective for a move coming out of the dock siding, but as that isn’t a passenger move that’s OK.

Hope that helps.

Typo! Since corrected. :-)

 

The rules on trap points were (until very recently): Sidings must have trap points to prevent runaway vehicles reaching running lines (Goods or Passenger), Goods lines must be trapped at Passenger lines.

So: 11 points provide trapping against the main line for both Siding 1 and the Back Platform.

14 provides trapping against the Back Platform for Siding 1

13 provides trapping against the Back Platform for the Head Shunt.

 

The justification for 13 is that the back platform is a passenger line at the other end.

14 is more dubious and is very much in the area for argument and opinion!

 

Yes that’s fine, or adding vehicles.

And it’s not a stupid question - I’ve had professional engineers getting themselves tangled up with when you are allowed to remove trapping protection for a train going onto the trapped line (they were trying to make it too complicated claiming increased safety when the reduced reliability was likely to make it less safe(!)).  Another area of opinion and argument (and one of my specialisations!).

 

There were no comments because I was happy with what you had done.  Not a super detailed ‘what can I find wrong here’, but fine for a model.  Well done.

 

Paul.

 

That's absolutely brilliant, thanks Paul... I definitely owe you a drink of one sort or another!

[gingerangles]

Cattle Dock scaled and mocked up.

There should be a water tower behind this and I can decide if I should paint it on the backscene, move it to the side or not bother with it.

[richard i]

Make a very shallow relief model?

richard 

[Andy_C]

Interesting shape for the cattle dock. Is that typical of your plan?

[gingerangles]

35 minutes ago, richard i said:

Make a very shallow relief model?

richard 

 

Yes that could be the thing to do, I could lessen the depth of the dock so that (i) it fits better & (ii) gives a little more room for a low relief tank 👍

[gingerangles]

36 minutes ago, Andy_C said:

Interesting shape for the cattle dock. Is that typical of your plan?

 

Yes mate, think it's fairly typical, matches the outline on the OS plans and is the same shape as the STD drawings I've got.  I imagine the odd shape is to allow access to the gates, which narrow to merely the width of the van doors, without having to actually enter the pen.

[gingerangles]

So, so far I've merely given the track and sleepers a blow over with sleeper grime. I'm not a huge advocate for wildly different colouration over the rails/chairs/sleepers but believe I need some.

I intend to place my scenery at the end of summer, a nice summer, not like the one this year... dry looking sleepers and a matt, dry finish to everything.

 

Had a go at mixing some dry brushing and washes on a section to see how it looks. Might need to add some ballast I guess for the full effect. Let me know what you think or any tips / suggestions / methodology most welcome as usual...

 

 

[gingerangles]

59 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

So, so far I've merely given the track and sleepers a blow over with sleeper grime. I'm not a huge advocate for wildly different colouration over the rails/chairs/sleepers but believe I need some.

I intend to place my scenery at the end of summer, a nice summer, not like the one this year... dry looking sleepers and a matt, dry finish to everything.

 

Had a go at mixing some dry brushing and washes on a section to see how it looks. Might need to add some ballast I guess for the full effect. Let me know what you think or any tips / suggestions / methodology most welcome as usual...

 

 

OK so you can probably see nowt in that video really 😂

 

Here's some good ol' pics...

 

 

 

 

[Note - N Gauge rail joiners for programming track isolation.  Absolutely buggered if they are doing anything at all BTW but it's what was suggested.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy_C]

Always important to have a bit of N gauge on your layout😎

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, gingerangles said:

OK so you can probably see nowt in that video really 😂

 

Here's some good ol' pics...

 

 

 

 

[Note - N Gauge rail joiners for programming track isolation.  Absolutely buggered if they are doing anything at all BTW but it's what was suggested.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of thing comes very much down to personal choice but of the various finishes, I like the 4 sleepers at the LH side if the top photo best. I am not so keen on the ones with the more visible light grey highlights.

[gingerangles]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

This sort of thing comes very much down to personal choice but of the various finishes, I like the 4 sleepers at the LH side if the top photo best. I am not so keen on the ones with the more visible light grey highlights.

 

Thanks @t-b-g and yes i'd agree on the preference front.  

 

Some of what I'd done didn't turn out as I had hoped and looked very artificial - Of the lighter ones I had dry brushed with a pure white anticipating that a wash would dull it down more.  In reality it either (i) didn't or (ii) obliterated the white and the sleeper grime colouration.  Some of them had a wash of Pheonix "Weathered Wood" which I had high hopes for however this appears to be very blue/grey in colour and not what I was going for.  Which was something like this:

 

 

I would agree with you though in that I liked the same 4 sleepers.   - Typically those have happened by accident and I'm not sure what I did 🤠

I think those got an absolute minimum in dry brushed white then a glancing blow of rust wash on the chairs.  In comparison to the above I'd guess they need a little more variation in light, might be an airbrush job over dry brush.

 

The other thing I need to remember I guess is that there will be a further round of overall weathering once the ballast is in to add variations and staining from stood locos etc and that what I am trying to achieve right here right now is the generic overall appearance for the most part with some variation I guess.

[t-b-g]

38 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

 

Thanks @t-b-g and yes i'd agree on the preference front.  

 

Some of what I'd done didn't turn out as I had hoped and looked very artificial - Of the lighter ones I had dry brushed with a pure white anticipating that a wash would dull it down more.  In reality it either (i) didn't or (ii) obliterated the white and the sleeper grime colouration.  Some of them had a wash of Pheonix "Weathered Wood" which I had high hopes for however this appears to be very blue/grey in colour and not what I was going for.  Which was something like this:

 

 

I would agree with you though in that I liked the same 4 sleepers.   - Typically those have happened by accident and I'm not sure what I did 🤠

I think those got an absolute minimum in dry brushed white then a glancing blow of rust wash on the chairs.  In comparison to the above I'd guess they need a little more variation in light, might be an airbrush job over dry brush.

 

The other thing I need to remember I guess is that there will be a further round of overall weathering once the ballast is in to add variations and staining from stood locos etc and that what I am trying to achieve right here right now is the generic overall appearance for the most part with some variation I guess.

 

The other thing to be a aware of is that back in the day, the sleepers may have been treated differently. I don't know if more modern sleepers are still treated with good old fashioned creosote or not but there would have probably been a more frequent maintenance/replacement of sleepers in earlier times, especially on a main running line. I don't think the sleepers used on preserved railways and that are still around on the system today will look quite the same as they did on the railways of nearly 100 years ago.

 

Something I like to see on a model is the sort of variation seen in this shot. The areas around the rails, where brake dust and oil would tend to drop, are considerably darker than the strips down the centre of the tracks and between the tracks.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/clownetopline/6765349213

 

It is in BR times but it shows a nice effect.

 

[t-b-g]

Just generally browsing the web for LD&ECR stuff and found this. You have probably seen it but it is a cracking side on shot for scaling buildings, brickwork etc.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152010806@N03/31184115698/in/pool-1615654@N24/

 

It still had its original doors and windows when that shot was taken.

 

[gingerangles]

39 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The other thing to be a aware of is that back in the day, the sleepers may have been treated differently. I don't know if more modern sleepers are still treated with good old fashioned creosote or not but there would have probably been a more frequent maintenance/replacement of sleepers in earlier times, especially on a main running line. I don't think the sleepers used on preserved railways and that are still around on the system today will look quite the same as they did on the railways of nearly 100 years ago.

 

Something I like to see on a model is the sort of variation seen in this shot. The areas around the rails, where brake dust and oil would tend to drop, are considerably darker than the strips down the centre of the tracks and between the tracks.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/clownetopline/6765349213

 

It is in BR times but it shows a nice effect.

 

 

Yes I know what you mean... although that last shot is actually Whitby Station it's still only at the end of the platform and obviously they haven't been bothered to replace them for concrete so what you say still applies.  I think it was the lighter colouration in the centre was what I was trying to achieve with the dry brush however the detailed nature of the moulding of the sleepers means it just picks up on the raised parts and doesn't quite achieve what I was after.  Like I say I may have more success with the airbrush.

 

The shot is a good example I think, thanks... also I hadn't picked up on the fact there is the Chesterfield-bound side point rodding visible in the shot - not got many photos of that so thanks again 😊

[gingerangles]

37 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Just generally browsing the web for LD&ECR stuff and found this. You have probably seen it but it is a cracking side on shot for scaling buildings, brickwork etc.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152010806@N03/31184115698/in/pool-1615654@N24/

 

It still had its original doors and windows when that shot was taken.

 

 

Yeah, nice clear shot that one cheers 👍

[Worsdell forever]

33 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

 

Yes I know what you mean... although that last shot is actually Whitby Station it's still only at the end of the platform and obviously they haven't been bothered to replace them for concrete so what you say still applies.  I think it was the lighter colouration in the centre was what I was trying to achieve with the dry brush however the detailed nature of the moulding of the sleepers means it just picks up on the raised parts and doesn't quite achieve what I was after.  Like I say I may have more success with the airbrush.

 

The shot is a good example I think, thanks... also I hadn't picked up on the fact there is the Chesterfield-bound side point rodding visible in the shot - not got many photos of that so thanks again 😊

 

Those sleepers were laid when the new NYMR platform was put in 10 or so years ago, they were new then and of course have regularly had steam dribbling over them but nothing like a main line in the 30s. Not sure what wood they are but they have used jarrah in the past but not sure if it's exported from oz any more.

[gingerangles]

Guess which plonker deleted his new signal box diagram 😒

[Andy_C]

Ouch. Not got restore option?

[gingerangles]

14 minutes ago, Andy_C said:

Ouch. Not got restore option?

 

No... I'd been shifting it about using a memory stick and updated files the wrong way round.  Normally keep this stuff on the cloud but in this instance the updated version was on the stick... which I deleted thinking it was the other way round🤦‍♂️

[St Enodoc]

5 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

 

No... I'd been shifting it about using a memory stick and updated files the wrong way round.  Normally keep this stuff on the cloud but in this instance the updated version was on the stick... which I deleted thinking it was the other way round🤦‍♂️

Is it the same as one of the versions posted here?