Lacathedrale

Getting there slowly

Had a sneaky read of the British Railway Signalling book by Alan Williams and G. M. Kichenside - I think I might have come up with a first draft of a signal diagram, though I'm sure those brackets are all wrong!

That's perfect, thank you - I was concerned that two sleepers past the knuckle of the wing rails might not be enough, but clearly no problem. Much appreciated!!

Where (if there should), the gap be on the wing rail on the common crossing which extends through as a single unit to end in the point rail of an obtuse crossing? Pic attached. The Track book suggests a certain location but is in the context of a diamond rather than a slip - I feel like I'm going to have a very tiny common crossing assembly, encroach into the area of the switchblades, or have a very tiny piece of rail at the end of the point rail.

Thanks Richie, that makes perfect sense. I've asked some pertinent questions in this thread and found some wonderful answers: I am having a think about whether that up loop is worthwhile - I think in the current configuration it's not providing much at all. I could either move the platforms forward and put a turntable and coaling platform behind the station, or move the platforms rearward and have the up loop connecting to some facilities that are otherwise inaccessible from the mainlines, like a fish dock. Both examples using Marylebone again for justification. I'm still not 100% on the exact signal layout, but I'm excited by the idea of working signals and maybe some basic bell-code type interaction between the FY and layout. Certainly there's more than enough scope for both - and the potential for an 'automatic' signalmen at the FY using an Arduino.

"Because it's there", George Mallory 1923 I haven't even got close to applying saw to wood, but to properly site my layout in a place and time, with interactions beyond the four borders is pretty important for my childlike brain!

Thanks very much again Chris and Mike, it's very kind of you to take the time to answer me!

Excellent, that's perfect! If it's not too much of a pain I have a few supplementary questions which are related more to signalling rather than signalboxes: Shunt operations within the limit of the home and advanced starter (as opposed to platform starters) would not require individual shunting signals on the platforms, would they? In the other direction, would there be calling-on signals for the platforms (for example, for a station pilot to back up to coaches from an inbound tender loco)? If so, where would they be located? I got the impression that the home would be a single semaphore arm - but not sure about anything between that and the platforms themselves! (for the sake of argument, a station with five roads (i.e. a couple of platform faces, a couple of sidings) For other movement around the station area I can imagine ground signals for sidings and protecting any movement from a siding/goods line that would bring it onto a passenger line, I gather the latter would be routed to the signalbox rather than as a ground frame?

Wow, thank you all so much - very exhaustive. Becasse, how would this have worked in the (19)20's? I assume a similar process but probably not with a button! Flying Pig, thank you - this is exactly my thought. In my notional railway A (terminus on layout) and B (somewhere in the fiddle yard) will be close enough that B's distant would be on A's starter. For yourself and Railwest, With regard to the slotting of B's distant - does this mean that he would be unable to clear it, or that if he did clear it the position of A's starter would 'hold' it at caution until that was cleared too? Overall, this seems like a little fun addition to a terminus layout that would otherwise be purely shuffling trains. I'm not sure about the idea of using full size machines, but in general operational signals combined with a call and return of signalmen between two operators seems pretty fun.

Thank you both, that's really great to hear. I am specifically referring to the latter example in RailWest's post. Along those lines, when would B set the distant? I read that it would be interlocked to be on unless A's starter was off - and that wouldn't happen until B has accepted a train from A, and A has set the starter.

If I have a box at the mouth of a terminus, I can understand that there will be down outer home/home signals inbound to the station, and then in return will be platform starters and advanced starters leading out. However, if there is a distant signal on one of the advanced starters, that represents the block AFTER the block that the starter is gating entry to - right? I.e. it would be controlled by the next signal box along, representing that signal box's onward area of control (rather than representing the block between the advanced starter and the home signal of the next box) - is that right?

Yes - my layout Godstone Rd is a half-minories (in my humble opinion) and I spend an annoying amount of time aligning traverser tracks for basically any movement beyond station limits - which is a bit of a pain when the crux of the layout is to bring trains from the FY onto the station and then out again!

TBG, I think the different is this solenoid operated loading mechanism - a single push-button to align track, energise the rails - like a cartridge of a rifle I'd imagine? Certainly my brief acquaintance with a manually operated traverser was less than ideal, so pretty interesting that the Maybank chaps went straight to something electrical and mechanised from the get-go. Though as you have described the Denny-style rotating FY tracks may be superior, I'm not altogether convinced yet (though I must add without any real world experience to back it up either way), that an extra 5 minutes to restage the trains is worth the hassle of creating (and budgeting space for) a 360 rotating baseboard.

I was thinking of how one could do that, RJS - but as IMT has said, there is a fair amount of operation with just the four slots. I think that after 45 minutes of operating, one could either call it a night (if at home) or have a short tea break (if at an exhibition) and restage off-scene. I didn't factor in destination boards and that's a good point - it would be useful for an A and a B pattern, particularly if rakes are made up differently for the B-pattern. IMT, I would be very eager to see your timetable/diagram, any chance of posting it?

Ah, another real world question - in the Track book in Chapter 5, there are sections on assembling common and obtuse crossings - both of which show photographs of the assembly jig with timber markings. My own jig is without such markings so I gather they are done by the author - it would be EXTREMELY helpful to have these, so I can properly align etch/chairplates while assembling the crossings. Is there an obvious way of applying these to the jig that I'm missing?

Ah, I see - so given the relatively sharp curve required at the country end, and the minmum train lengths at the station end - I don't think a road in the middle would work, particularly. The more I ponder your post and have had a play, the pocket and using the down line for shunting seems to work well enough. It's a happy coincidence I've got approximately my max train length on the visible section of the down main, too I feel like that line might be suitable as the end of a loop, which has the connections to the carriage sidings parallel with the station (and of scene) and/or an engine shed down where the FY is, similar to Marylebone? Access to the carriage sidings from say, P4 blocks ALL moves, much like we are dicussing here? https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=414

I decided to run an experiment based on the four staging tracks for Maybank - would that be enough? Well, i think so! If we imagine that the station is empty, and four trains are in the fiddle yard - each train has a minimum of five movements: when it arrives when the pilot shunts its coaches when the loco moves off to the FY or another platform road, and for departure: the loco arrives to pick up a given set of coaches when it departs Each one would take a few minutes, so four trains operated precisely as this would take about half an hour. I think the challenge would be to come up with realistic movements that allow one to expand beyond the railway equivalent of the Towers of Hanoi. Presumably, there would be about fiveclasses of trains that would arrive at the station with some subtly different operating patterns: Mail/Parcels/Newspapers arriving first and being shunted with outbound traffic Sleepers arriving and the coaches being gently shunted to a lesser used platform and the station pilot not hanging around nearby, before being taken away to the carriage yard Long distance trains, operated as per standard pattern above Short distance trains, operated via a tank loco that doesn't need to be turned A push-pull commuter train, that don't need to even run around and can immediately depart. Despite this, the majority of work above is either simply elided or duplicated rather than any practical variety. I can think of a few additional movements that would make things a ltitle more exciting: setting out and picking up loose coaches or short rakes to make up a longer train, setting out and picking up NPCS for addition to or removal from existing rakes. staggering arrivals and departures to clog up the station - how? operating to a fast clock

In terms of setting and era, to me this really must be in the 20's or 30's - big pacifics and coaches with lots of obnoxious gilt and lining. Specifically which company, I think is anyone's guess? Hi Richie, should I infer that shunting necks were more rare than I have given credit? I would have thought it was standard operating practise! In terms of operation that's what I'm after - the alternative is to use one of the running lines which would work, but seems a bit wasteful! If I were to build this, I am looking to attempt in 2FS - the little cameo I've done is fine, but it's just too small to do anything than be anything other than a semi-static diorama as I alluded to in the OP. My trackwork gets better every time, so it's just a case of sticking with it through some small adversities I think. Lovely links, cheers Ah that's a cracking observation, I I didn't really twig that the pilot would sit inside the station but that makes sense, particularly around the signalling and use of the departure line. I would never have thought of that, thank you! It does beg the question then - is it worth including that 'new' pilot/neck for any other purpose? Either as a road the engine service area (which for the sake of argument I will assume is parallel with the main a short distance down the line, or maybe a branch of some kind? Thinking of Cannon Street's MPD and the wye which connects to Charing Cross - maybe a suitable source and destination for some commuter trains? Or, as per the original design I can just leave it off and take this blessing of two points saved.

Thank you kindly Ian, I'll be readingthat thread with eager eyes now As for the NMAG, I'll see what the schedule holds but I've done a huge amount of travelling in the last few weeks so I'm hoping to have a bit of time to get on with doing... something!

Just by way of having something physical, I printed out the plan and put some trains on it. Here's the world's most confused LMS inspector and GWR Autocoach driver arriving behind a Type 3 on the Up main. In the other direction, you can see the station roads which are from left to right for now!) - a carriage siding/parcels platform/milk dock, Platform 3, 2 and 1, and the 'old' loco pocket. You can also see the curve of the headshunt and pilot pocket in the bottom right. I really like the symmetry the old pocket adds to the plan even though the 'new' pocket is much better situated. Maybe the solution is to adapt the 'new' pocket into a connection to an off-scene an engine shed. That way, it can be used to escape the pilot, but only to clear the other roads. By a happy coincidence, every turnout on the scenic section of the layout fits into approx 3' x 1', more or less what you can see here. It consists of five standard turnouts, a three-way and two single slips. I think this is great, because I can build the whole thing separately - and should the need arise, I can remove it from the layout as one piece for maintenance/adjustment/salvage. One thing I'm particularly happy with is the smooth geometry - just look how long that slip is compared to the EE Type 3!!

Hello Pacific - I didn't mean literally, just thinking out loud in terms of the functional result - a compact(ish) city terminus. It's really inspirational and searching for it earlier today found me again in this thread and thinking about these layouts. Amazing to think that GCR was only 6 years out of the way when this photograph was taken! That odd kinked scissors in the front/bottom of the layout is something I would never have considered, but clearly there's always something to learn.

Rather than clutter the Minories thread with random thoughts about a potential Minories-based layout, I thought it might be better to keep it separated and not derail the fascinating discussion there. I've always wanted a railway that DOES something, and after my little 2FS cameo has become partway done, I've realised that it doesn't. I know that many people find lots of enjoyment from shuttling a single loco back and forth, or playing the Inglenook game - but it's just not for me. Maybe because my young brain was saturated with Commodore and Nintendo games? Either way, I needed more. Minories has been a more or less constant in my mind since discovering in on Carl Arendt's micro layout sight, and I've whipped up a number of different arrangements in every setting from privatisation SE London to communist Poland and 70's Japan. I've never actually built one of them though - even if my 4mm layout 'Godstone Rd' comes fairly close. I was looking through the 'Is Minories Operationally Satisfying' thread in this subforum and a kind gent (imt) suggested my attempt at contraction needed some tweaks. I found that post and had a look today, and came out with this, version 1: The simplicity of the Minories design is evident - the only real changes are the substitution of back-to-back turnouts with single slips. After a short time operating this in XtrkCAD, though totally feasible and enjoyable - one thing nagged me which was how the shunter (top middle) would need to reverse into the down main to either exit the pocket, or manipulate carriage stock and release locomotives. A simple tweak was to add a loco pocket and a headshunt at the bottom of the throat, and an additional carriage siding/parcels/milk dock at the bottom of the layout - and so, version 2. Due to the strange geometry of XtrkCAD's turnouts, the double track spacing was huge, so I mocked it up in Templot, which shows a 20" minimum radius (on that 90 degree turn into the FY), as well as a minimum platform length of just over three feet was easily attainable in the space. The space available is approximately 8' x 8' in an L shape around the edge of my workshop, above my workbenches. To retain some air, the scenic section can only be 1' wide, and the fiddle yard only 8" and made of plain, varnished wood. As per my current whim, the layout would be built to 2mmFS.

Hello there, I'm just about to embark on laying down my first single slip - if I can crack it, then I've only got one more thing to succeed at (an asymmetric threeway) before I can say that i am fully equipped to deal with whatever a layout I'm thinking about building can throw at me. I've built a crossover and about half a dozen standard turnouts with varying success, though recent efforts have been significantly better and more reliable. I'm building in 2mmFS rather than 7mm or 4mm and I have the tools available, I'm just thinking about order - the association book 'Track' is very useful in giving the basics but I can't find anything on slips, threeways, diamonds, etc. unless I'm going mad - so any pointers would be gladly appreciated. Many thanks,

I had a little play on a minories plan in XtrkCAD - two trains of five coaches, two mail vans, two tender locos and a tank - after 15 minutes I hadn't even finished the two trains! It got complicated pretty quickly balancing inbound and outbound moves! I did play about with expanding it - I feel like for the 'cost' of three turnouts a headshunt and another parcels road this makes the layout seem alot bigger, but I don't know if it's any better EDIT: Removed random plans and discussion to separate thread, here

I've tried to approximate this with #6 turnouts and it's a bit of a dogs breakfast - fits into 7' x 18" in N gauge: Honestly, I'm not sure what one gains from this layout, other than just being another iteration of the Minories pattern? If it wasn't for the THREE double slips it would seem like a feasible 'general purpose' alternative...