Signalling Signalling Podimore

[AJC]

A very happy Christmas to you all. I’ve been woken early by a marauding two-year old so have been sketching a schematic plan as an aid to thinking about signalling the layout (see link in the signature).

The station modelled is effectively a single track light railway affair with a kick back siding and a double-ended goods siding (not a loop) serving a private mineral siding. Here’s the full plan:



And here’s the bit the railway would want signalled:



I suppose the question is whether the right hand end needs a shunt arm and whether the sidings require ground signals: the Southern were notably parsimonious in such things relative to their Swindon neighbours. And yes, I know the running line needs a trap to protect it from the kick back.

Thoughts please!

Adam

 

[Martin Shaw]

Merry Christmas Adam
The LSWR wasn't overly generous with signals so even in late Victorian days there might not be very much to see. A lot depends on the era modelled and given it isn't a crossing loop there might be no more than 2 ground frames released by the single line tablet (probably) from the 30s onward. You can always invoke rule 1, a little more guidance please.
Regards
Martin

 

[AJC]

Merry Christmas Adam
The LSWR wasn't overly generous with signals so even in late Victorian days there might not be very much to see. A lot depends on the era modelled and given it isn't a crossing loop there might be no more than 2 ground frames released by the single line tablet (probably) from the 30s onward. You can always invoke rule 1, a little more guidance please.
Regards
Martin

Thanks Martin, and happy Christmas to you too.

That was along the lines I’d thought. We’re in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s here and the ground frame we can see (only the RH end of the scene is modelled) is under cover because outdoor ground frames in model form look a little strange but might only serve one end.

This would be a line built under the Light Railway Act (1896) so limited signalling was part of the spec’ Passenger service struggling on so FPLs at each end and on the kick back.

I’m in favour of minimalism, so that suits. Do let me know what else you’d need to know, because there’s a very good chance I won’t have thought of it.

Adam

 

[cbrailways]

Adam. How long is the loop please. I can then work out to signal it for you.

 

[AJC]

Adam. How long is the loop please. I can then work out to signal it for you.

Howdo - based on similar SR-controlled light railways, sufficient for 20 mineral wagons (that’s what all the ND&CJLR loops were, for example, and about the same as the Basingstoke and Alton) so 350 ft.

Adam

 

[Martin Shaw]

I think that by nationalisation there would have been 3 GFs, one for each end of the "loop", and one for access to the sidings off the running line, all token/tablet controlled. Given the origins of the line under the Light Railways Act there would have been a bare minimum to start with.
Regards
Martin (hungry and looking forward to lunch)

 

[Martin Shaw]

Adam
A little bit of clarification perhaps. I have found the signalling diagrams for the ND&CJR crossing loops at Hole, Hatherleigh and Petrockstow. They were all opened on 27/7/25 to what the late George Pryor called SR "Light Railway" Signalling. I don't think there was anything particularly SR about the signalling, it is just about the basic minimum you would expect on a light railway. Each loop was worked from a 7 lever ground frame on an elevated stage work and note up is from Halwill to Torrington. Levers 1 and 2 were the down home and starting signals, 3 the up end loop points and EFPL, 4 the sidings points and EFPL if facing to passenger moves, 5 the down end loop points and EFPL, 6 and 7 the up starting and home signals. The signals were all standard SR rail built posts of minimum height. There was no legal need for distant signals but two were provided, down at Hole, up at Hatherleigh, presumably to cope with sighting of the respective home signals. Single line control was by Tyers No6 instruments located in the station buildings and one pull releases were provided on the starting signals, although apparently not at Hatherleigh which I think is a drawing error rather than actuality, it makes no sense otherwise.

In respect of your model it seems more likely that had a goods only loop existed on the ND&C it's signalling would have logically followed that of the passenger loops, but my scenario outlined earlier is broadly speaking more likely a WR provision on a former SR line. As ever rule 1.
Regards
Martin

 

[cbrailways]

A key element here is the frequency of services that would shunt the sidings etc. In early days most of the sidings would not have had shunting discs, movements being controlled by handsignal. If a connection was more than 200yds (later 350yds) from the signal box then a Ground Frame would have controlled the siding connections with the ground frame mechanically released by what is known as a 'mid-way lock'. It really therefore depends on the position of the controlling signal box and its ability to reach the connections at each end of the loop. Of course as we say Rule 1 applies here, so as I previously stated, I'll sketch out a possible signalling scenario for you. It might be a week or so before I can complete that as I'm in the middle of a major signalling mechanical locking change at Bodmin General (the real thing that is, not a model, although I sometimes refer to it as my 'big model railway').