Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

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

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Sheardown » Thu May 29, 2014 7:47 am

Pete2320 wrote:
Mike Hodgson wrote:
Mike Sheardown wrote:Conversely, where trains / light engines were having to pause on the main (no matter how briefly), for points to be changed etc, this would be regarded as 'coming to a stand,' and BBI would be required prior to this manoeuvre?



Yes. I suspect the reasoning behind this is that provided the train keeps moving, it can be expected to have got out of the way by the time the the train being accepted arrives, even if that does then SPAD the Home. However if it stops, it might be unable to restart or the signalman might get distracted so there is greater risk of the overlap being foul. Obviously there is still a risk that the first train might derail, come to a stand because of some failure etc, but this can be seen as an informal risk evaluation that one situation is less dangerous than the other.

Not really. Although it is not necessary to block back for this train, it would still not be permitted to accept another from the box in rear until the overlap is clear. But yes, I suppose if one is accepted in error (the man in rear is going to offer it as he does not know what is happenindg at the box in advance of him) then the train that was fouling the overlap should be well out of the way by the time another arrives.

Pete


So reading between the lines here, would it be fair to say that not BBI for a train that was fouling the clearing point, but non the less, 'on it's way' (as opposed to shunting), was not required because the amount of time it was likely to be fouling the clearing point, was in essense, not worth blocking back for? Then as Pete says, passenger trains would still not be accepted whilst this manouvre was taking place, but, this period of 'non acceptance' would not be likely to last long. Also, this approach wouldn't prevent BBI taking place, should the train subsequently fail within the clearing point.

Best wishes

Mike
Mike Sheardown
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:46 pm

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby kbarber » Thu May 29, 2014 9:03 am

Mike Sheardown wrote:
So reading between the lines here, would it be fair to say that not BBI for a train that was fouling the clearing point, but non the less, 'on it's way' (as opposed to shunting), was not required because the amount of time it was likely to be fouling the clearing point, was in essense, not worth blocking back for? Then as Pete says, passenger trains would still not be accepted whilst this manouvre was taking place, but, this period of 'non acceptance' would not be likely to last long. Also, this approach wouldn't prevent BBI taking place, should the train subsequently fail within the clearing point.

Best wishes

Mike

Maybe there's a link to junction working here.

Where there is a (trailing or crossing) junction within the clearing point, a train may not be accepted while the junction is occupied by another train, nor while a train has been accepted from the other line, nor while the points are set for a train running to the other line if the junction is within its clearing point. But there is no requirement to block back under these circumstances - it is entirely up to the signalman to accept (or not) in accordance with the regulations. The alternative would be that the junction signalman was blocking back dozens of times every shift (and where signalbox grading was influenced by workload the likelihood tha management would have to concede lots of higher grades). The situation where a train is departing a bay or siding is perfectly analagous, even though few signalmen would consciously apply the junction acceptance section of Reg 4 instead of the 'straight line' section in these circumstances. To my mind, that's probably why BBI isn't required for a departure that's going to keep moving until it's beyond the clearing point.

Strictly, should a departing train fail within the clearing point it becomes an obstruction rather than a train, and 6 bells should be sent. But if Reg 5 is authorised there is no need to send 6 as, if the next train to be offered is a class permitted for Reg 5 under the SB Special Instructions, it may legitimately be accepted under Reg 5 anyway. (Likewise for a derailment, technically, although a signalman accepting a train that will block access for the Breakdown Train might find his actions subject to a degree of criticism by higher authority.)

One suspects that, in reality, BBI wasn't applied as strictly as it should have been for a quick move - a loco off the sidings already accepted and needing to stop only momentarily to reverse. If that were to fail or derail a quick telephone conversation seems the most likely course, to agree the time at which BBI 'was' sent & acknowledged (and if you don't have a private block phone circuit just hope the local District Inspector isn't earwigging on the omnibus circuit...)
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Thu May 29, 2014 12:52 pm

kbarber wrote:
Where there is a (trailing or crossing) junction within the clearing point, a train may not be accepted while the junction is occupied by another train, nor while a train has been accepted from the other line, nor while the points are set for a train running to the other line if the junction is within its clearing point. But there is no requirement to block back under these circumstances - it is entirely up to the signalman to accept (or not) in accordance with the regulations. The alternative would be that the junction signalman was blocking back dozens of times every shift (and where signalbox grading was influenced by workload the likelihood tha management would have to concede lots of higher grades). The situation where a train is departing a bay or siding is perfectly analagous, even though few signalmen would consciously apply the junction acceptance section of Reg 4 instead of the 'straight line' section in these circumstances. To my mind, that's probably why BBI isn't required for a departure that's going to keep moving until it's beyond the clearing point.


I am usually fairly cynical about management's attitude to costs, I think but I think you can fairly argue the case for not sending BBI on safety grounds in that situation. As you say, BBI would be exchanged very frequently, and I think it is fair to say that the frequency could have make almost meaningless so the risk is that signalmen would not take it too seriously.

Coming back to the period being modelled, I don't know whether BBI was in the MR rule book then. I know there were some company rule books that don't have it and they only used the term "Blocking Back" to refer to what we now call BBO. The junction working bit would all have been in the book though.
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Pete2320 » Thu May 29, 2014 1:05 pm

Mike Hodgson wrote: Coming back to the period being modelled, I don't know whether BBI was in the MR rule book then. I know there were some company rule books that don't have it and they only used the term "Blocking Back" to refer to what we now call BBO. The junction working bit would all have been in the book though.

I also wondered that but short of an authoritive answer I'd point out that the Rotary Block peggers had a BBI position. OK, RB came in a little later than the period under discussion (c1912 I think) but presumably the regulation already existed.


Pete
Pete
Pete2320
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Barton on Humber

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Thu May 29, 2014 10:44 pm

I don't have a set of MR regs, but BBI was in the LMS 1934, LYR 1919 books. I do have earlier books for some companies, but I would have to dig for them and I don't have time at present.

Would Rotary Block have been used at Millers Dale?
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Pete2320 » Thu May 29, 2014 11:35 pm

Mike Hodgson wrote:Would Rotary Block have been used at Millers Dale?

Not at the date we are looking at as it hadn't been invented. The point I was making was that when RB was introduced the MR must have had a BBI regulation otherwise the instruments would not have had the BBI position on the commutator.

Pete
Pete
Pete2320
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Barton on Humber

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 pm

I find that I do in fact have a set of MR regulations, dated 1917 so I can give you an answer on blocking back, although at a slightly later date than the original question, but I think it would have applied in 1900 too.

Regulation 8 (a) : Train out of Section ... must not be given until the signalman has satisfied himself that the last vehicle or bank engine, with tail lamp attached, has passed the Home Signal.
8 (b) during foggy weather or falling snow ... must not be given until the train has proceeded at least a quarter of a mile beyond the home signal and is continuing on it journey...
There is no mention of restoring the block to normal, but it must be inferred.

Regulation 3 : Prior to the despatch of a train from A, provided the signalman there has received train out of section and the block indicator is in its normal position must ...


Regulation 4: unless special instructions are given to the contrary, a train must not be allowed to approach .... until the Line is clear for at least a quarter of a mile ahead of the Home signal.
Regulation 9 covers Blocking Back Outside, but BBI is not mentioned anywhere in the book.

So in good weather the box in rear could validly offer any train provided the line is clear to Home signal irrespective of whether the overlap is occupied. It is then down to the signalman to refuse the train or accept under the Warning (but only where specially authorised by the General Manager) if the overlap is not available. It seems likely that in practice, if the first train was moving one would wait for it to get a little further along the line and then give full acceptance under reg 4 - ie just adopt a leisure pace and accept normally.

Given that this method of working places reliance solely on the box in advance, there is no need for a BBI signal to tell the box in rear when it is not in order to offer a train.

This practice does seem rather difficult to justify in a set of regulations issued so soon after Quintinshill, where disaster would have been avoided had the Caley signalmen applied BBI or used lever collars, which were both apparently in their rules two years at the time. Perhaps the Midland felt justified in not tightening up procedures because of the exigencies of wartime traffic.

The regulations proper do not mention Rotary Block, although 3 pages of SGIs at the back cover the peculiarities of those instruments. These SGIs again mention BBO but not BBI, and the only indicator positions described are the usual Line Blocked, Line Clear and Train on Line. I would suggest that the MR regarded rotary block as the same as normal AB regulations, but with the addition of interlocking to force observance of certain rules. The SGIs essentially explain how to deal with certain malfunctions and other exceptional situations.

Presumably the BBI position on the commutator was a later modification
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Sheardown » Sun Jun 1, 2014 11:44 pm

Mike Hodgson wrote: Given that this method of working places reliance solely on the box in advance, there is no need for a BBI signal to tell the box in rear when it is not in order to offer a train.


I wonder if the above, in essence, is the answer regarding BBI for this time period of c1900?

Unfortunately I don’t have any regulations for 1900 either, but a book I do have entitled ‘The First Principles of Railway Signalling,’ does offer some interesting views on the thinking around the same time as Mike’s regs. above. It was published in 1918 by the Railway Gazette, and written by C B Byles, who was Signal Engineer for the L&Y from 1897 to 1911.

On Blocking Back he writes:

It has been explained that, under standard block working arrangements, the line is considered normally blocked and that no movement may take place without the direct permission of the signalman. Experience has shown, however, that there is a risk of signalmen overlooking vehicles standing on the main line and that they may in consequence, notwithstanding the presence of the obstruction, move the indicator from blocked to clear and so permit a train to approach. As a partial safeguard against this possibility, the Blocking Back signal was introduced a few years ago, and the use of this signal is really a partial revision to methods that were in use in the earlier days of block signalling, when the line was regarded as normally clear.

For me, this adds more weight to Mike’s point about ‘there being no need to tell the box in rear when it is in order to offer a train,’ as according to this, the primary purpose of BB, is simply to act as a reminder to a signalman that his own stretch of line contains an obstruction.

Also, given the publishing date of 1918 and the reference to BB being introduced “a few years ago,” does this mean that it is unlikely that BB would have been used in 1900 at all?

With regard to BBI vs BBO, the book continues:

The blocking back code is given in a different manner according to whether the obstruction is intended to take place within the protection of the home signal or outside the home signal. In practice, to employ the signal for the former purpose is found very inconvenient at busy places, and it’s use is therefore usually restricted to roadside stations and to certain level crossings. A movement outside the home signal must, however, in all cases be protected by the blocking back signal being sent to the box in rear. The effect of giving this signal from B back to A, would be that A would not attempt to offer a train to B and, if the section were less than half a mile in length, A would himself refuse to accept a train from the rear.

Again, this last paragraph seems to support the idea that BBI is only an aid to a signalman in reminding him of an obstruction, as the lack of it’s use does not compromise his duty to maintain the ¼ mile clearing point. I find the BBO explanation interesting, as the greater importance given to it seems to be driven by the fact that in this scenario, not only is the ¼ mile clearing point completely compromised and unprotected, but that it recognises it’s potential to foul the clearing point of the box in rear also.

Personally, I’m feeling a lot clearer on this now, in terms of how Millers Dale signal box might have been worked, particularly in the way in which shunting moves onto the main line may have been handled. However, where things start to get very confusing for me again, is when considering the operation of the boxes at another station on my layout, namely Marple. My reason for this, is that the station was operated by 2 signal boxes (plus a 3rd one for the yard only) – one at either end of the station – but the distance between the respective starting and home signals for each is only around 300 yards, and thus well under the ¼ mile!!! How on earth would these boxes have been operated??

I’ve added a diagram below, and whilst I’ve attempted to add signals in what I think is a logical manner etc, it is only the track layout that is available to me, so any comments on the plausibility of the signalling would also be valued. There are also a number of trap points which I’ve observed in a couple of photos I have for the period, so I’ve added these also, though their use doesn't seem to be consistent.


http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii565/MSheardown/Marple1_zps59ec1f7d.jpg


Best wishes

Mike
Mike Sheardown
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:46 pm

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby kbarber » Mon Jun 2, 2014 9:05 am

Mike Sheardown wrote:<snip>
...where things start to get very confusing for me again, is when considering the operation of the boxes at another station on my layout, namely Marple. My reason for this, is that the station was operated by 2 signal boxes (plus a 3rd one for the yard only) – one at either end of the station – but the distance between the respective starting and home signals for each is only around 300 yards, and thus well under the ¼ mile!!! How on earth would these boxes have been operated??

I’ve added a diagram below, and whilst I’ve attempted to add signals in what I think is a logical manner etc, it is only the track layout that is available to me, so any comments on the plausibility of the signalling would also be valued. There are also a number of trap points which I’ve observed in a couple of photos I have for the period, so I’ve added these also, though their use doesn't seem to be consistent.


http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii565/MSheardown/Marple1_zps59ec1f7d.jpg


Best wishes

Mike

The crucial distance is measured from the home signal at the box in rear (South 7 and North 11 as you've drawn them). If the 1/4 mile distance extends beyond the first signal of the advance box, then a train must not be accepted under Reg 4 until Train out of Section (or Obstruction Removed) has been received from the advance box. The way I heard it explained was that you must have 'normal needle' from the advance box before you can accept from the rear. (There would almost certainly have been either a slot on the other box's distant or 'indicator working' between the boxes, in addition to a distant below the rear box's home signal, in order to get braking distance, unless line speed was low enough that a train could pull up in the length of the platform.) I wonder if the Yard box was classified as a signalbox at all? It might have been simply an overgrown ground frame, in which case trains would simply be advised by phone. If it was classified as a signalbox the line to the other boxes was surely a goods line and quite likely worked by nothing more than a block bell (probably with a set of local bell codes).
User avatar
kbarber
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby John Hinson » Mon Jun 2, 2014 9:40 am

kbarber wrote: I wonder if the Yard box was classified as a signalbox at all? It might have been simply an overgrown ground frame, in which case trains would simply be advised by phone

I don't have a huge amount of information on the signalling at Marple other than dates but the history appears to have been complicated with boxes coming and going at frequent intervals until things settled down in 1905 with the opening of the new Station box which covered all except Marple Wharf Junction. If we are looking at 1900 (as at Millers Dale) the situation was:
Marple South: op 16/8/96, cl 12/3/05
Marple Platform: op 14/10/94, cl 12/3/05 (this, then would be the box marked as "Yard SB" on the drawing).
Marple North: op 1875, cl 12/3/05

I have no idea on the layouts or method of working other than the line behind the box was described as a passenger loop (although not a "loop" in the true sense, acting more as a departure bay for both directions). I couldn't guess at the signalling arrangements but being used only for departures the presence of block signalling should not be assumed. This line survived until 1964, under full control from the new box of course.

It is worth noting that the Midland's obsession with avoiding facing points wherever possible often resulted in situations where it was necessary to shunt into Bay lines rather than arrive direct - even at some two-platform terminus stations you could only arrive in one!

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Mon Jun 2, 2014 11:29 am

There's a train register from Millers Dale Junction on ebay at present, albeit much more recent and rather expensive as registers go.
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Sheardown » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:42 pm

kbarber wrote:The crucial distance is measured from the home signal at the box in rear (South 7 and North 11 as you've drawn them). If the 1/4 mile distance extends beyond the first signal of the advance box, then a train must not be accepted under Reg 4 until Train out of Section (or Obstruction Removed) has been received from the advance box. The way I heard it explained was that you must have 'normal needle' from the advance box before you can accept from the rear. (There would almost certainly have been either a slot on the other box's distant or 'indicator working' between the boxes, in addition to a distant below the rear box's home signal, in order to get braking distance, unless line speed was low enough that a train could pull up in the length of the platform.) I wonder if the Yard box was classified as a signalbox at all? It might have been simply an overgrown ground frame, in which case trains would simply be advised by phone. If it was classified as a signalbox the line to the other boxes was surely a goods line and quite likely worked by nothing more than a block bell (probably with a set of local bell codes).

Thanks for this, and sorry it’s taken me so long to respond, but I’ve been away for a while.

I’ve now re-drawn my track diagram to reflect the additional distant signals you mention, and I’ve also added shunt signals for the North and South crossovers, as well as for propelling into the Up Loop. I’ve come across a photo that shows these for the South crossover, and so assume that they would also be present elsewhere:

http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii565/MSheardown/MarpleTrackPlan32_zpsaaab7ba6.jpg

Your description of not accepting a train until the block indicator for the corresponding ‘advance’ Marple box is at normal, is also very helpful, and this now makes a sense to me.

I still feel uneasy about the way I’ve allocated the signalling and point control for the Up Loop, as due to the obvious siting issues of both the North and South signal boxes, I wonder how the Up Loop could have been worked safely. Marple was a key point on the Midland’s London to Manchester route at 1900, where down expresses were often split 3 ways (to Liverpool; Manchester Central and Manchester Victoria), and the same reassembled in the Up direction. This required some very smart working, with both the Up Loop and Down Bay being used extensively for re-marshalling purposes. My worry is, that there seems too much room for conflicting moves in the Up Loop, with the potential for traffic to be entering it simultaneously, from either end, and / or from a siding, due to the various signal boxes being unaware of what the other(s) were doing.

To help illustrate my concerns, here’s a flavour of how busy it got at Marple around 1900, in a quote taken from a book entitled ‘Railways of Marple and District From 1794,’ by M T Burton:

The busiest period was the 2 hours following 8.15 a.m., when no less than 23 trains were booked to call, terminate or start at Marple, in addition to those passing through without stopping.

The first of the torrent was a Midland Up local from Stockport, which terminated at the Up platform, and quickly shunted into the Down bay. This was followed at 8.27 by a Down G.C. New Mills-London Road train, the morning business express; at the same moment an Up Midland local for Millers Dale was calling at the opposite platform. 7 minutes later the same Up platform received the 8.35 arrival from Manchester Victoria, which terminated and shunted into the Up loop, before the train with which it connected, the Midland West of England Express from Central, drew in at 8.48, and soon departed again for Bristol. Meanwhile at the other platform, a Down G.C. Hayfield-London Road local departed at 8.47, followed 3 minutes later from the Down bay by a local for Stockport and Altrincham, formed by the loco and coaches of the 8.15 arrival from Stockport.

At 9.15 arrived another Up train, a Midland non-stop service from Victoria, to connect with the following St. Pancras express. The Victoria train had however to quickly shunt out of the way into the Up loop, as 4 minutes later at 9.19 an Up G.C. local for New Mills was due, while at the same time in the Down platform a Midland semi-fast from Rotherham and Sheffield halted for 3 minutes; it left for Manchester Central at 9.20, closely followed 3 minutes later by the return to Manchester Victoria of the train which had arrived at 8.35- this would leave from the Down bay, if there had been time to get the stock across between trains, or if not, from the Up loop.

Traffic was now reaching a crescendo, and at 9.25 an express from Liverpool Central arrived, terminated in the Up platform, and was quickly propelled into the Up loop, and the engine turned on the turntable.
Within a few minutes the Manchester-St. Pancras Dining Car express drew in at 9.31, with through coaches for Nottingham and Sheffield also attached: promptly the shunter detached the rear 3 or 4 coaches destined for Sheffield, and the main express departed at 9.36; the Sheffield coaches were quickly provided with an engine (probably off the 8.57 local arrival from Stockport) and left 4 minutes later.

At the same moment as this caravan like train was being dealt with at the Up main platform, a Derby-Manchester express was being divided at the Down main platform. Arriving at 9.30, the rear 2 or 3 coaches were shed for Manchester Victoria, and left in the Down platform; once the main train had left for Central at 9.35, the loco and coaches which had been waiting in the Down bay since arrival from Victoria at 9.15, drew out, backed onto the Derby coaches and left for Victoria at 9.38. Hard on its heels, the connecting 9.44 for Liverpool left from the Up loop, with the train that had arrived at 9.25.

It can thus be seen that at approximately 9.35, all four platforms were occupied with 7 trains or portions standing in them simultaneously destined for Liverpool, Manchester Victoria, Manchester Central, Sheffield, St. Pancras and Nottingham, and one from Stockport; two trains were dividing simultaneously, there were 4 departures within 5 minutes and three light engines shunting from line to line.


I think that Mr Burton conveys very well, both the excitement and the frantic level of activity at Marple during this period, but as I say, I’m unclear as to how the 3 separate signal boxes would co-ordinate this level of traffic between them, particularly since I’m also unsure as to whether they would have had the benefit of telephones in 1900? Would the Platform signal box have been the hinge pin, in basically co-ordinating all movements in and out of the up loop? Would block instruments have been used to help with this, and if so, how?

Best wishes

Mike
Mike Sheardown
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:46 pm

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Sheardown » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:48 pm

John Hinson wrote:I don't have a huge amount of information on the signalling at Marple other than dates but the history appears to have been complicated with boxes coming and going at frequent intervals until things settled down in 1905 with the opening of the new Station box which covered all except Marple Wharf Junction. If we are looking at 1900 (as at Millers Dale) the situation was:
Marple South: op 16/8/96, cl 12/3/05
Marple Platform: op 14/10/94, cl 12/3/05 (this, then would be the box marked as "Yard SB" on the drawing).
Marple North: op 1875, cl 12/3/05

Hi John,

Thanks for these. The signal box opening and closure dates fit in well with Marple’s changing role at this time, with it being by-passed for express services on the opening of the ‘Cut Off’ line between New Mills and Heaton Mersey in 1902, followed by Chinley becoming the new re-marshalling point for expresses after rebuilding in 1905. I guess the reduction from 3 to 1 signal boxes, reflected the reduction in traffic brought about by these changes.


John Hinson wrote:It is worth noting that the Midland's obsession with avoiding facing points wherever possible often resulted in situations where it was necessary to shunt into Bay lines rather than arrive direct - even at some two-platform terminus stations you could only arrive in one!

John

You’re hitting the nail on the head here, in terms of the way Marple was worked, and given that Buxton is the third station I’ll be modelling, I’ll be very interested to see how that was worked in 1900, and just how much shunting was actually involved. I've got a feeling that it may have been rather a lot??!!

Best wishes

Mike
Mike Sheardown
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:46 pm

Re: Track Layout Diagram for Millers Dale c1900

Unread postby Mike Sheardown » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:50 pm

Mike Hodgson wrote:There's a train register from Millers Dale Junction on ebay at present, albeit much more recent and rather expensive as registers go.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the tip. This seller used to have quite a few from around this location in the Peak District (i.e. Millers Dale Jnc. Buxton Jnc. Peak Forest Jnc etc). I did buy one for Millers Dale Junction when I first saw them in October last year, and because there was a bit of a bidding war for it, I ended up paying quite a bit, and so I’m probably partly responsible for the price being set quite high now.

It makes interesting reading, and I particularly liked the use of the branch passenger ‘is line clear’ bell code, for the Buxton Turnabout, as it helped me to get my head around routing codes. There was a bit of a discussion on here about it.

Cheers and thanks again

Mike
Mike Sheardown
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:46 pm

Previous

Return to Signalling - model railways/simulators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 2 guests