Black Country Blues

[wagonbasher]

Easy to tell it's a model.........2 buses on a bridge, would NEVER happen in real life.

 

Stewart

One bus on the bridge is obvious and cheesy so we went for two. Two cheeses are better than one.

 

Andy

[2ManySpams]

One bus on the bridge is obvious and cheesy so we went for two. Two cheeses are better than one.

 

Andy

 

I do like buses on bridges....always good to see something that occurs frequently in real life on our models....

[Andy Y]

One bus on the bridge is obvious and cheesy so we went for two. Two cheeses are better than one.

 

Andy

I was just getting pedantic about the Brum Buz getting lost.

[TheSignalEngineer]

If it's not too late, the signal needs moving back a couple of inches - actual not scaled - it's foul of the crossover where it's planted. If not then not to worry.

 

Excellent stuff - reminds me of my days in signal boxes when 40s whistled and rats gurgled at the various cabins

The ground signal should be a scale 6 feet from the joint at the toe of the points.

The main signal would be at the same place if the line were not track circuited.

About the time that BCB is set there was an instruction regarding the position of clearance joints. To put it simply the joint would be 16' back from the toe of the points and the main signal would be at least 6' further back, so 22' from the toe of the points.

 

Regarding the ground signal, it should be set so that the top is a maximum of 3' 4' above rail level. IIRC the 3-arm disc was designed to fit the available space in the 6-foot.

[Mark Forrest]

I was just getting pedantic about the Brum Buz getting lost.

and the less said about the time travelling DMS the better!

[bbishop]

Guys,

 

If this were London, then there would be a pair of tram / trolley bus posts opposite each other.  If the posts were also used for street lighting, then it is possible the replacement posts are still opposite.  RMWebbers in South East London could have a look at the lighting along Downham Way.

 

Bill

[wagonbasher]

Guys,

 

If this were London, then there would be a pair of tram / trolley bus posts opposite each other.  If the posts were also used for street lighting, then it is possible the replacement posts are still opposite.  RMWebbers in South East London could have a look at the lighting along Downham Way.

 

Bill

Yes most trolley and tram systems would have pairs of poles (either side of the road) with a cable strung between them and the power lines hung from them. In our screen the poles that are not used for street lighting have been removed. 30 years ago ex trolley poles were common in Walsall and Wolverhampton but the only one I can find now is in Wolverhamptons Park Lane depot.

 

Andy

[chrisf]

Yes most trolley and tram systems would have pairs of poles (either side of the road) with a cable strung between them and the power lines hung from them.

 

Most, but not all.  Some narrow roads would have a line of poles along one side of the road carrying arched brackets from which two lots of overhead were strung.

 

Chris

[DonB]

Of course we had 2 buses on a narrow bridge at the same time,.... How else could they snarl-up the traffic flow?

BUT.. It was worse when we had Trolley buses, with their limited ability to manouvre  and if they broke down....seemingly immovable!!! 

Fantastic acceleration however, and great for pace-making on a bike going to work.

[avonside1563]

The ground signal should be a scale 6 feet from the joint at the toe of the points.

The main signal would be at the same place if the line were not track circuited.

About the time that BCB is set there was an instruction regarding the position of clearance joints. To put it simply the joint would be 16' back from the toe of the points and the main signal would be at least 6' further back, so 22' from the toe of the points.

 

Regarding the ground signal, it should be set so that the top is a maximum of 3' 4' above rail level. IIRC the 3-arm disc was designed to fit the available space in the 6-foot.

 

I think that position of the signals is dictated by the baseboards and hence it would be very difficult to position the post much further back and the discs are about as far back as they can go, Geoff would be able to say for certain.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I think that position of the signals is dictated by the baseboards and hence it would be very difficult to position the post much further back and the discs are about as far back as they can go, Geoff would be able to say for certain.

The proximity of the bridge is also a problem. If the signal were slightly further back it would be dangerous in steam days for the Fireman to carry out Rule 55. In the real world the signal would probably have been on the approach side of the viaduct. Also the Civil Engineers weren't keen on lots of hot water running down through their track into the masonry.

 

The position of the ground signal looks about right, although a lot were moved to the cess side in later days.

 

This box diagram from Watery Lane pre-electrification shows some good examples of positioning http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=206

[The Stationmaster]

The proximity of the bridge is also a problem. If the signal were slightly further back it would be dangerous in steam days for the Fireman to carry out Rule 55. In the real world the signal would probably have been on the approach side of the viaduct. Also the Civil Engineers weren't keen on lots of hot water running down through their track into the masonry.

 

The position of the ground signal looks about right, although a lot were moved to the cess side in later days.

 

This box diagram from Watery Lane pre-electrification shows some good examples of positioning http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=206

It would definitely look a bit more LMRish if that Home Signal was moved back in rear of the viaduct (and it might then look as if that Sulzer Type 2 was standing at it while the slab train crossed over and I wouldn't be dropping bricks in the pond ).

[Geoff Cook]

The ground signal should be a scale 6 feet from the joint at the toe of the points.

 

Is this the minimum distance and would this be measured from the face of the disc to the joint forward of the first Timber

 

The main signal would be at the same place if the line were not track circuited.

About the time that BCB is set there was an instruction regarding the position of clearance joints. To put it simply the joint would be 16' back from the toe of the points and the main signal would be at least 6' further back, so 22' from the toe of the points.

 

I am not quite sure as to what is meant by clearance joints

 

Either way it needs moving, due to the board joint the maximum distance that it can be moved is for it to be 80mm (20ft) back of the rail joint of the toe of the Up line turnout

 

Regarding the ground signal, it should be set so that the top is a maximum of 3' 4' above rail level. IIRC the 3-arm disc was designed to fit the available space in the 6-foot.

 

Due to an accident/collision the 3 disc ground signal has to be rebuilt, the white metal base broke so it will be built to a new height, having a better look at an actual photo I have of a 3disc ground signal the base of it is considerably lower than the base supplied in the MSE kit, should have been more observant

 

The new signal will be made from brass bar rather than a flimsy white metal casting, so that loco's on steriods will do it no harm, hopefully

[Geoff Cook]

It would definitely look a bit more LMRish if that Home Signal was moved back in rear of the viaduct (and it might then look as if that Sulzer Type 2 was standing at it while the slab train crossed over and I wouldn't be dropping bricks in the pond ).

 

If the photographer hadn't been posing shots very,very early Sunday morning and putting them in the same post there would't be any bricks to throw in the pond

 

I also note that Old Gringo has clicked the Like button without realising what work needs to be done to put it on that board forward of the viaduct

[The Stationmaster]

If the photographer hadn't been posing shots very,very early Sunday morning and putting them in the same post there would't be any bricks to throw in the pond

 

I also note that Old Gringo has clicked the Like button without realising what work needs to be done to put it on that board forward of the viaduct

Sounds as if you have a volunteer in the shape of a certain chap with a fascination for the west  (well he did 'like' the idea as you say  )

 

The photographer he could always have moved the train with the baby Sulzer on it - but then he might not be allowed to drive or he had an urgent, hmm , 'phone call' which took him elsewhere?

 

PS I do think the signals look rather nice and definitely help to make the scene, sorry to hear that the triple disc suffered damage as it was a very impressive looking job.

Edited October 22, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[avonside1563]

Who's to say that it wasn't a different working in the second photo, coincidentally with the same loco and wagonload

[Andy Y]

Who's to say that it wasn't a different working in the second photo, coincidentally with the same loco and wagonload

 

Which is entirely what happened but we skipped the bits in the sequence in between those workings.

[Mark Forrest]

I'm possibly missing something obvious here but (so we can avoid it happening again) which two photos and what exactly were we doing wrong?

[avonside1563]

The two in this post Mark

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74645-bcb-the-final-countdown/?p=1197478

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Is this the minimum distance and would this be measured from the face of the disc to the joint forward of the first Timber

 

The S&T usually quoted distance to centre of post, but that only makes about 1mm difference on the layout. The joint at the points would have been 5'5" from the toe at that time, then the signal would be a minimum of 6' from there.

 

 

I am not quite sure as to what is meant by clearance joints

 

Either way it needs moving, due to the board joint the maximum distance that it can be moved is for it to be 80mm (20ft) back of the rail joint of the toe of the Up line turnout

 

 Sorry Geoff, that's me dropping into tech speak. The clearance point would be the distance along the track coming back from the turnout where a vehicle the wheels of a vehicle could be without a move going through the crossover sideswiping it. It's calculated by determining the Fouling Point, which is defined as where the outside edges of the rails are 6' apart, then going 16' along the track. This is to allow for vehicles with a long overhang. In practice the insulated joint was positioned by marking the rail opposite the toe of the points then using the first rail joint (or first convenient place to cut a joint in CWR) further than 16' back. In cases of difficulty an accurate measurement of the Fouling Point was taken then the clearance point was accurately calculated depending on the angle of the turnout.

On the BCB layout if the signal were the points side of the viaduct I would expect it to be a minimum of 16' from the toe of the points if it will fit there.

 

 

Due to an accident/collision the 3 disc ground signal has to be rebuilt, the white metal base broke so it will be built to a new height, having a better look at an actual photo I have of a 3disc ground signal the base of it is considerably lower than the base supplied in the MSE kit, should have been more observant

 

The new signal will be made from brass bar rather than a flimsy white metal casting, so that loco's on steriods will do it no harm, hopefully

The method of mounting the signal could vary depending on the space available. Some were on a concrete base but others, particularly in the 6' were on some pieces of sleeper reject cut to fit the situation.

 

Eric

[Mark Forrest]

(edit: replying to Nigel in post 388):

Ta, so are we saying we should have brought the 24 to a halt at the signal before we let the 20s out if the yard?

[avonside1563]

Not sure Mark, perhaps Mike would enlighten us?

[The Stationmaster]

(edit: replying to Nigel in post 388):

Ta, so are we saying we should have brought the 24 to a halt at the signal before we let the 20s out if the yard?

Exactly so - with the train crossing out of the yard either the Baby Sulzer (Class 24 to younger readers) should not have been accepted or the train should not have been allowed out of the yard until the 24 had been brought to a stand at the Home Signal.  Having put in a lot of thought and hard work to both build it right and capture the atmosphere and 'reality' of the scene it would be a shame not to operate it it as well as it looks.

 

That's my opinion and I must admit Andy's pics paired like that did give me a fun little opportunity but I think the point is there - it looks really good (not that I have seen it 'in the flesh' recently) so why not run it to match its look?  Now for all I know you might do exactly that and the photographic set-up was an 'unforeseen incident. but having got trains crossing properly at Treneglos it could be done on BCB too I'm sure (hints & tips available at no charge).

[Fat Controller]

(edit: replying to Nigel in post 388):

Ta, so are we saying we should have brought the 24 to a halt at the signal before we let the 20s out if the yard?

I would say so; I would be interested to see what others say. Under the signalling and interlocking rules where I work, either the train on the mainline would have been held behind the signal protecting the cross-over OR the signaller would not have been able to set the route for the Class 20s. 

[Mark Forrest]

Thanks both for clearing that up, that is definitely something which we can train out to the operating team and include in the operating sequence. I have to take responsibility for dodgy moves in the photos since I think I was driving both trains and acting as signalman at the time!