Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

GNoSR Layout

For railway modellers to discuss and share ideas on realistic signalling arrangements.

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby 1ngram » Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:26 pm

I found this site which has a couple of bits about GNoSR shunt signs.

http://www.railsigns.co.uk/sect3page1/sect3page1.html
1ngram
Trainee
Trainee
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:34 pm

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby MRFS » Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:45 pm

Sorted! Square flaps it is then...
ND: Why is there a door handle on the inside of my airing cupboard?
MF: Because it's the fire exit from Narnia.

I like David Lynch films. I don't consider incomprehension to be a barrier to enjoyment.
User avatar
MRFS
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: ex cathedra cantuar

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby John Hinson » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:03 pm

1ngram wrote:I've also toyed with a second platform based signal box at 1 but only because I found a nice kit for one. I've no idea if the layout of the station would justify such an extravagance.

I think two signal boxes would be an overkill for a small station but you could arrange things as one signal box plus a "minor box" (as the GNoS called them). A minor box worked points too far from the signal box to be worked diectly and would probably be worked by a porter between other duties. It would be a small-ish cabin.

In your layout, you have the signal box at the right-hand end of the layout. Realistically this would be at the left end as that is the "busy" end. The minor box could be on the platform towards the right-hand end working the right-end points.

Or, if you have constraints that make it necessary for the SB to be to the right, you could have the minor box on the platform working the points at the left end.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6908
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby kbarber » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:05 am

signalman wrote:
1ngram wrote:I've also toyed with a second platform based signal box at 1 but only because I found a nice kit for one. I've no idea if the layout of the station would justify such an extravagance.

I think two signal boxes would be an overkill for a small station but you could arrange things as one signal box plus a "minor box" (as the GNoS called them). A minor box worked points too far from the signal box to be worked diectly and would probably be worked by a porter between other duties. It would be a small-ish cabin.

In your layout, you have the signal box at the right-hand end of the layout. Realistically this would be at the left end as that is the "busy" end. The minor box could be on the platform towards the right-hand end working the right-end points.

Or, if you have constraints that make it necessary for the SB to be to the right, you could have the minor box on the platform working the points at the left end.

John

That would fit the historical scenario as well; when the station was built the signalbox would be close to the bay/siding points, with a minor box provided along with the loop to work the points that had just sprouted too far away for direct working. OTOH there might be a question of capacity for the extra levers at the original box, in which case we're looking at a new & larger box . Should probably still be nearer the busy end though. But if a new box were being built anyway I'd expect it to be in a position where it could work both ends of the loop - manpower would have become a constraint, this being wartime, and I'd expect the powers that be to avoid providing an extra box (even a minor one).
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby Andrew Waugh » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:25 pm

Danny252 wrote:
Also, with the leftbound home, I would've thought (with my limited knowledge) that the route for the loop would have the top arm (top-left bottom-right rule with arms/disks). Is that overruled by some practise relating to the fact the rightmost route is the main?

Again, if you have the idea that there was some money but not a limitless pot, the quickest way to do this layout would be to add another signal to the lattice post underneath the pre-existing arm, leaving the old upper arm still applying along the main, with detection and wire runs left intact. DTMS?


I don't normally disagree with MRFS, but I would be astonished if this was the case.

The inspector from the BOT would surely have said something polite, but cutting, on the infringement of the requirements (top arm, leftmost route). Particularly as swapping the arms is simple - no need to disturb wire runs or detectors - it is simply a matter of uncoupling the wire from one balance weight and connecting it up to the other.

Further, given that the date of the provision of the loop (1914/5), I would suspect that the leftmost arrival homes would be a bracket post because the topmost arm could not apply to the main or more important route (but when did this requirement come in? It certainly was the case c1920s).
Andrew Waugh
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby MRFS » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:43 pm

Andrew Waugh wrote:Particularly as swapping the arms is simple - no need to disturb wire runs or detectors - it is simply a matter of uncoupling the wire from one balance weight and connecting it up to the other.


:oops: Eats lots of *very* humble pie. I'd forgotten the most obvious way of doing it. [1]

However, was it not the case that inspections were deferred during the Great War - in some cases inspections were either purely nominal affairs that happened if an inspecting officer was in the area or in some cases there was no formal inspection until five or six years later.

I think there might even have been some Great War installations that were never inspected until after they had been returned to their original state.

[1] in mitigation, I think I'd been looking at a picture of Ellon Junction which (by the time of the picture was goods only) and that had one post, two arms in the shot.
ND: Why is there a door handle on the inside of my airing cupboard?
MF: Because it's the fire exit from Narnia.

I like David Lynch films. I don't consider incomprehension to be a barrier to enjoyment.
User avatar
MRFS
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: ex cathedra cantuar

Re: GNoSR Layout

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:26 pm

MRFS wrote:However, was it not the case that inspections were deferred during the Great War - in some cases inspections were either purely nominal affairs that happened if an inspecting officer was in the area or in some cases there was no formal inspection until five or six years later.

I think there might even have been some Great War installations that were never inspected until after they had been returned to their original state.

This was the case during the second world war but I don't think there was much effect on inspections during the first war because the enemy action, railway traffic levels and layout alterations were less significant in their effect on the Ministry's activity.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6908
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Previous

Return to Signalling - model railways/simulators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest