Adrian the Rock wrote:I think the top station has already been well covered. Personally, though, I'd offer a further variation for the main station:
If that 'bang road' route was positively needed, then I agree, unless a slightly modern TC control is envisaged, such that the bang road routeing is not released (free to use) unless TC'g in the platform shows occupied, making the train or vehicles already in the platform form the route's limiting point for shunting.Danny252 wrote:Adrian the Rock wrote:I think the top station has already been well covered. Personally, though, I'd offer a further variation for the main station:
One quick note - should there be an LOS on the L-R main as well as the R-L? Your disc at the right hand end reads to all 5 routes possible, including bang road.
Regarding the bottom siding's yellow disc for the crossovers, and the red 'Off' disc from the shed, while I can't say that such an arrangement is unworkable or was never done, I would suggest that where that sort of use of a 'normally Off' disc is provided, there would also be an opposing 'normally Off' disc, i.e. at the crossovers in this case, and they would both probably work off the same lever - this sort of arrangement I have definitely seen: Whether you make a single red disc at the crossovers additionally work in that way for moves towards the shed, or provide a second disc and have the route indicator (if required, see below) work only with the upper disc, I can't decide.Adrian the Rock wrote: " .... discs that read right through the pointwork; this means that some of the discs are fitted with stencil-type route indicators (which should be pretty easy to model as stacks of rectangular black boxes with grey-painted faces), .... "
" .... The disc from the shed is normally off and allows locos etc to shunt freely up and down the bottom siding, unless the signalman replaces it in preparation for a move across the crossovers.
Yes. What I tried to work from was lulfan's statement that the era was early-mid 60s, while at the same time trying to steer things in directions easier to model. A plausible argument in favour of my proposals could be that a lot of new housing was built in the area in the 50s and 60s so the layout had to be expanded at some point in that timeframe to cope with increased demand for both passenger and goods traffic. I did include one triple-disc but of course that too could alternatively be a single one with (or without) three stencils.StevieG wrote:...Re using so many route indicators for shunt signals, apologies if the period and company origin of this layout has been established and I've missed it, I'd say that liberal use of route indicators for multi-route discs tended to be a slightly modern practice - from 1950s installations onwards perhaps.
Otherwise, the ancestry of the signalling might, instead of the route indicators, dictate more multiple-stacked discs (e.g. GW/WR style) such as you already show; or a single disc, without any route-indicating, reading to all or most routes (a la LNE/ER practice).
Indeed. My thinking when I included this was that this may have been a busy line so you wouldn't want to have to occupy the L-R main just to shunt a loco at that end, as such shunts would obviously be not infrequent. In the rush hour you may want to be able to run a loco round a reversing train in the R-L platform or goods loop while another train runs through on the L-R main....Lastly, I would think that actually, the R-L Main's Limit-Of-Shunt facility might only be provided if traffic working did or had warranted it, and that it would not exist if it was considered that any shunts between the platforms and/or the 'loop'/sidings could instead shunt out to the L-R Main.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest