Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline applor  
#1 Posted : 03 June 2016 06:07:04(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Hi guys,

I thought I would post in here instead of my layout build as I am asking for help specific to my signal design.
https://www.marklin-user...layout---K-track-eraIIIa

I have been doing a lot of reading and I believe I have a fair understanding of signalling.
It makes it complicated though that I model 1954 which has some differences.
I understand some areas may have transitioned to colour light signals by this time but I plan to use purely semaphore signals.

I am looking to use Viessmann signals as my layout is pure digital and will have PC control for automated routes on the main (blue) and branch (orange) lines.

The BW and shunting area is rather ambiguous. I believe (at least in 1954) that due to the slow speeds in a Bahnbetriebswerk that while the limits were signalled, the rest was done either visually or hand signals/whistles and so separate block areas are not required.
In this case I have used a RA11/12 with Sh0/1 signal for the limit of the Bahnbetriebswerk and an additional RA10 sign post indicating the shunt limit that extends onto the branch line to the right. No signal is required for the top shunting bay (right below the branch line) since it is unidirectional.

On the second diagram which has the branch terminus station, it has a single exist signal required for the points but the station area itself I do not think there would have been interlocking signals.

For those very familiar with signals I would value your input on my design if I have something wrong or not, or just suggestions.

Thanks!

1.jpg2.jpg

Edited by moderator 02 July 2016 02:59:48(UTC)  | Reason: Topic titles should always start with a capital!

modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by applor
Offline Alsterstreek  
#2 Posted : 03 June 2016 12:25:23(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
In the steam era, Betriebswerk (BW) signaling was rather limited.

Any BW was under walking speed rule. Locos received movement orders via hand signals. Within BW limits there were occasionally warning panels to watch out for the turntable or to avoid flying sparks. Only BW exit and (sometimes entry) was secured by a signal; this could have been a simple track blocking signal - see screenshot.
2016-06-03_11-24-12.png

Another very comprehensive and well illustrated (albeit German) website:
http://www.stellwerke.de/signal/deutsch/zp.html

Edited by user 03 June 2016 21:24:39(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline MaerklinLife  
#3 Posted : 04 June 2016 09:15:38(UTC)
MaerklinLife


Joined: 03/02/2016(UTC)
Posts: 490
AFAIK every route that passes over a diverging turnout has to show HP2. Some of your signals is not able to do this. You might want to look into that.
Offline applor  
#4 Posted : 05 June 2016 06:29:29(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Yes I had a feeling that was the case but wasn't sure and would prefer to save money on single arm signals.
I also wondered if that rule was only for facing points and not trailing points.

Thanks for confirming for me, I will change those over to double arm (HP0/1/2)

Anyone have knowledge about my terminating branch station?
I currently have only an exit signal and intend the station area to be covered with hand signals like the BW unless someone can tell me this is wrong.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#5 Posted : 05 June 2016 10:09:45(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
To illustrate MaerklinLife´s point:
sbspapplor1.png
http://www.der-moba.de/i...ungs-_und_-signaltechnik
Offline Alsterstreek  
#6 Posted : 05 June 2016 10:35:54(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Regarding the branch line signals: This could have been as simple as possible, especially on branch lines with a low traffic volume. E.g., a train dispatcher gave orders and engineers drove at sight, and switches were thrown manually by train crew; warning panels replaced signals. Some signaling diagrams for meeting point (1 example) and terminus (2 examples):
applor1d1nb.png

Then there was the institution of a "Gruppenausfahrtsignal", i.e. a single combined exit signal for several station tracks (requiring good communication between dispatcher and engineers). The latter is well illustrated by this 1966 track plan of the station of Pleissenberg (Sulz):
Bf._Peisseneberg_Gleisplan_1966.jpg

Another oddity: Single-arm Gruppenausfahrtsignal in Emden with 20 km/h speed limit sign on mast.
97236743.jpg

Edited by user 05 June 2016 15:25:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Alsterstreek  
#7 Posted : 05 June 2016 10:43:29(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Speaking of Gruppenausfahrtsignal: The principle existed also for mainline stations governing "parent tracks" with "childre tracks" - see screenshots. This might be of interest for the freight tracks of your mainline station.
gafs1.pnggafs2.png
Source: 1959 DR Signal Rules

Edited by user 05 June 2016 15:26:38(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline applor  
#8 Posted : 06 June 2016 05:37:22(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Thanks for all the info guys.

I have made some changes. All semaphores at the main station are now Hp0/Hp2 except for one which is the only one without a diverging point to the main line.

The branch line info was very helpful and I think my plan is correct.

I am not sure on my shunting area though, simply because of the unusual design I have not seen a precedent.

1.jpg2.jpg
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline Alsterstreek  
#9 Posted : 06 June 2016 10:39:58(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I am not sure on my shunting area though, simply because of the unusual design I have not seen a precedent.
To secure both loco depot and freight tracks merging: Gruppenausfahrsignal (see post #7).
2016-06-06_09-36-22.png
Alternatively, you could replace the black and white shunting signals by simple "W" ("warten" = wait) signs.
ra11.jpg
Offline applor  
#10 Posted : 07 June 2016 04:54:11(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
The problem is, my shunting loop and the two sidings all enter at different locations and do not merge together first as described in the Gruppenausfahrsignal pictures - this is my uncertainty.

Also because when reversing back into the shunting loop the train will need to move up the branch line, which is why I have the RA10 post there.

I do have the 'W' already (RA11) located at the end of the combined freight sidings and BW.

Should I use the 'W' at the shunting loop and the freight sidings like this?

1_1.jpg

Also, I have been looking through my German train books which I imported and while I cannot understand most of what is written, I can see the pictures.

I found this one interesting and relevant. Taken in 1958 it shows an electrified main line with a turntable up front without electrification - though I would say it has fallen into dis-use with the rise of E-loks.
We can see a Sh1 signal for the turntable entry. There are also Sh2 signals on what I imagine are the one-direction lines heading into the turntable.

Altbau-Elektroloks - turntable.jpg
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#11 Posted : 07 June 2016 10:43:02(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Also, I have been looking through my German train books which I imported and while I cannot understand most of what is written, I can see the pictures.

I found this one interesting and relevant. Taken in 1958 it shows an electrified main line with a turntable up front without electrification - though I would say it has fallen into dis-use with the rise of E-loks.
We can see a Sh1 signal for the turntable entry. There are also Sh2 signals on what I imagine are the one-direction lines heading into the turntable.Altbau-Elektroloks - turntable.jpg
Yes. But this is a rather large BW. So you can stick to the "lean" approach with minimized signaling.

BTW: The German text refers only to the train in the background, explaining that occasionally even a fast passenger loco was hauling freight, and commenting on the caboose at train end (instead of being at the normal position right after the loco).
Offline Alsterstreek  
#12 Posted : 07 June 2016 10:54:49(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
I noted that you foresee Ne 5 ("H") panels outside the through track area and on stub tracks.
2016-06-07_09-46-55.png
However, this one pertains only to trains supposed to stop following a schedule or timetable and marks the point where the front of a train has to come to a full stop.
Offline Alsterstreek  
#13 Posted : 07 June 2016 11:02:17(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
The problem is, my shunting loop and the two sidings all enter at different locations and do not merge together first as described in the Gruppenausfahrsignal pictures - this is my uncertainty.

Also because when reversing back into the shunting loop the train will need to move up the branch line, which is why I have the RA10 post there.

I do have the 'W' already (RA11) located at the end of the combined freight sidings and BW.

Should I use the 'W' at the shunting loop and the freight sidings like this?
Like this:
2016-06-07_09-23-03.png

Offline applor  
#14 Posted : 08 June 2016 04:10:26(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Thanks AK for clearing that up.

I think I nearly have the design finalized. I do wonder about the small siding off the branch line at the platform though. We agreed on it for my layout plan but would this be used for a mail van or something or perhaps a temporarly lok siding? Should it be signalled? Or should it be removed...

Thanks to your clarification of the 'H' signal, I have cleaned up the branch line. I believe only one is necessary at the end of the main platform, since this is where the incoming train stops, before being de-coupled and using the loop to connect at the other end of the consist before departing (or perhaps entering the lokdepot and being replaced).
Since this area is all 'self controlled' with hand signals, I am thinking to install turnout lanterns so drivers know which way points are facing.
The main station area is all interlocked so I planned to skip turnout lanterns there (and save $, they are not cheap!)
I am not sure if I must install turnout lanterns in the BW - If I do then this also has the problem with the triple point (2270) since it cannot be equipped with turnout lanterns anyways.

I do wonder about the big loop around the branch line station, whether I should make this unidirectional. I am concerned with route planning how the software will handle this if it is bidirectional, for if a train has occupancy in there would the software know which direction an arriving lok should take?
Or does it know which direction the lok is driving inside the route and so know to send an arriving lok in the same direction?

1.jpg2.jpg
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline Alsterstreek  
#15 Posted : 08 June 2016 11:26:57(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Thanks AK for clearing that up.
Pleasure. Dealing with the good old country keeps me mentally fit while frolicking on my own US-themed layout.
:o)

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I think I nearly have the design finalized. I do wonder about the small siding off the branch line at the platform though. We agreed on it for my layout plan but would this be used for a mail van or something or perhaps a temporarly lok siding? Should it be signalled? Or should it be removed...
A decent gent can never have too many sidings. So it could be good for everything, but I would not put any signals, assuming this is "dark" branch line territory, i.e. trust the dispatcher and the engineer's eye sight.

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Since this area is all 'self controlled' with hand signals, I am thinking to install turnout lanterns so drivers know which way points are facing.
The main station area is all interlocked so I planned to skip turnout lanterns there (and save $, they are not cheap!)
I am not sure if I must install turnout lanterns in the BW
According to the 1959 DB signal rule book every turnout must have a lantern, and the 1957 EBO (Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung ="Ordinance on the Construction and Operation of Railways" / railway regulations) does not allow any exception.

There were simplified rules for branch lines, but I cannot lay my hands on them.

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
If I do then this also has the problem with the triple point (2270) since it cannot be equipped with turnout lanterns anyways.
There is a set for the C-track triple point (see attached page 8), but I dunno about K-track.
74470_betrieb.pdf (1,042kb) downloaded 35 time(s).

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I do wonder about the big loop around the branch line station, whether I should make this unidirectional. I am concerned with route planning how the software will handle this if it is bidirectional, for if a train has occupancy in there would the software know which direction an arriving lok should take?
Or does it know which direction the lok is driving inside the route and so know to send an arriving lok in the same direction?
Dunno about the IT part. Since the loop is a cheat anyway, it does not harm to use it one-directional. Maybe you could make the loop socially more acceptable by hiding the track by view blocks or a tunnel?
Offline applor  
#16 Posted : 09 June 2016 03:30:48(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
A decent gent can never have too many sidings. So it could be good for everything, but I would not put any signals, assuming this is "dark" branch line territory, i.e. trust the dispatcher and the engineer's eye sight.


Excellent this is what I had hoped. Should a sign be used at all?


Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
According to the 1959 DB signal rule book every turnout must have a lantern, and the 1957 EBO (Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung ="Ordinance on the Construction and Operation of Railways" / railway regulations) does not allow any exception. .


Did this come into effect from 1959? Since I model 1954 maybe those rules were not yet in effect? Does this also apply for BW areas?

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
If I do then this also has the problem with the triple point (2270) since it cannot be equipped with turnout lanterns anyways.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
]There is a set for the C-track triple point (see attached page 8), but I dunno about K-track.
74470_betrieb.pdf (1,042kb) downloaded 35 time(s).

Unfortunately I cannot find any option for K track Dreiwegweichen. A rather big oversight from Marklin. My other option is to replace it with a single turnout but this would cost me my shunting lok siding...

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I do wonder about the big loop around the branch line station, whether I should make this unidirectional. I am concerned with route planning how the software will handle this if it is bidirectional, for if a train has occupancy in there would the software know which direction an arriving lok should take?
Or does it know which direction the lok is driving inside the route and so know to send an arriving lok in the same direction?


Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Dunno about the IT part. Since the loop is a cheat anyway, it does not harm to use it one-directional. Maybe you could make the loop socially more acceptable by hiding the track by view blocks or a tunnel?


The track is hidden from view... Both ends enter a tunnel and it is assumed those lines continue in those directions, rather than looping around:)

I will have to enquire in a PC control thread about uni/bi direction. I also need to ask if it could handle arrival/de-couple/loop around in the branch terminal station, since that would look great on automation.



I also have a new question about train operations in the station given how my turnouts have been designed. Scenario:

A freight train is coming into the station from the East and needs to leave his freight consist in the shunting loop.
Coming from the East it means he must enter the 2nd track (from the top).
I would then believe the entry point to that track must be changed and he would reverse all the way back out, now on the departure line heading West.
After clearing the last set of points, these can now be changed so he can drive forward directly into the shunting loop where he can detach and take the loop back around, probably then entering the BW.

Does this sound/look correct and prototypically accurate? Does it matter he has entered the departure track past the signal in order to clear points and enter the shunting loop - or should I move departure signal back?
I have shown the path in Pink:

shunt1.jpg

Freight trains coming from the West into the station are able to take the 4th track and reverse back using the branch line. It could also take the 3rd track but then would also need to reverse on the East bound departure track.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#17 Posted : 09 June 2016 10:39:53(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
A decent gent can never have too many sidings. So it could be good for everything, but I would not put any signals, assuming this is "dark" branch line territory, i.e. trust the dispatcher and the engineer's eye sight.


Excellent this is what I had hoped. Should a sign be used at all?


How about converting the concept to a station located between branching tracks, with the branching tracks actually meeting again in a (hidden) loop? See example of Unterlemnitz station (photo and trackplan complete with signals an signs).
nachschuss-auf-skl-keilbahnhof-unterlemnitz-659927.jpgUnterlemnitzLpl1b.jpg
Offline Alsterstreek  
#18 Posted : 09 June 2016 10:42:13(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
According to the 1959 DB signal rule book every turnout must have a lantern, and the 1957 EBO (Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung ="Ordinance on the Construction and Operation of Railways" / railway regulations) does not allow any exception. .


Did this come into effect from 1959? Since I model 1954 maybe those rules were not yet in effect?
Dunno.

Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Does this also apply for BW areas?
Yes.

Offline Alsterstreek  
#19 Posted : 09 June 2016 10:48:22(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I also have a new question about train operations in the station given how my turnouts have been designed.
Well the worries of the prototypes are the delight of the model railroader.
:o)

I did not pay too much attention to this before, since I did not know from where freight was supposed to arrive. I would be better to have a crossover to allow a train to head directly into the freight yard and avoid dangerous movements. A local freight train could also just drop or pick up single cars. And shunter would have done the job instead of the road engine. If you feel uncomfortable with the scenario you described, maybe a shunter pocket and switching lead should be foreseen to avoid fouling the main line.

Still the "existing" scenario is not wrong per se.
Offline applor  
#20 Posted : 10 June 2016 01:06:13(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I also have a new question about train operations in the station given how my turnouts have been designed.


Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Well the worries of the prototypes are the delight of the model railroader.
:o)

I did not pay too much attention to this before, since I did not know from where freight was supposed to arrive. I would be better to have a crossover to allow a train to head directly into the freight yard and avoid dangerous movements. A local freight train could also just drop or pick up single cars. And shunter would have done the job instead of the road engine. If you feel uncomfortable with the scenario you described, maybe a shunter pocket and switching lead should be foreseen to avoid fouling the main line.

Still the "existing" scenario is not wrong per se.


Well I believed that freight could come from either direction, especially given it is a large station area.

I also had another concern, which was that the through track for the branch line was shared with the main line platform, leading to possible congestion.

I then thought that an easy way to resolve this would be to create another through track by using/modifying the loop around for the freight area, since that track was only being used for loks to loop back around.

Lastly, I have also removed the triple point so that I can use turnout lanterns. I also decided to remove the shunters bay and allocate the small siding on the end of the branch platform to that task.

Here is what I have come up with:

plan7.jpg

Both main lines and the branch line now have one platform and one pass-through track.
I wonder if I should move the dual freight siding from branching off the BW area across to the freight siding instead, though this would reduce the length of that siding and they all still share the same entry point regardless.

While I have already purchased my track, I would rather make the necessary changes now and then sell any excess items rather than have a flawed design.

modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline applor  
#21 Posted : 10 June 2016 06:22:09(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Just wondering also if I should increase the spacing between tracks 2 and 3 and have a platform there, so that I can have more than one train stopped at a platform in one direction.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline Alsterstreek  
#22 Posted : 10 June 2016 09:50:16(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Well I believed that freight could come from either direction, especially given it is a large station area.

Depends on the assumed scenario. If the industrial Ruhr area was supposed to be on the west of and a rural area to the east, the freight flow would be imbalanced. And then this not a large station area. Freight trackage is even very modest, especially given the main line magistrale passing through. A rail-served economic powerhouse looked different. The roundhouse position makes it look big though...
;o)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#23 Posted : 11 June 2016 11:36:26(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Please do not get me wrong, I do not say that the track design is not plausible. And there is a prototypical example (or exception) for almost everything. It all depends on what you want. However, sometimes I am not sure if I understand what you want. Having said (or written) this, let us have a look at what I dub the "paths":
applor1pathes.png
Like that main line trains coming from the upper right hand side can access every station track, but "get stuck" there. Freight trains arriving from the lower left hand main line can use the branch line as switching lead to switch back into freight tracks. However, there is no way to return from the freight tracks to the lower left hand main line.

Further, freight tracks are quite short now, This could be overcome like this:
applor1switch1lead.png
The loco depot itself is one (delivery of coal and sand), but did you foresee any other freight consuming or generating industry? Or is the freight area meant for distributing cars between main and branch lines?

I like your unconventional sweeping lines approach, but that demands exhaustive planning. That is one of the reasons why I prefer C track: It is much easier to experiment with looks and functionalities and adapt track design once the builder experiences a change of mind...
Offline Alsterstreek  
#24 Posted : 11 June 2016 12:26:07(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Just revisited the full track plan in your "eraIIIa" thread: Actually you have plenty of freight track extension space including the chance to "catch up" with main and/or branch line.
applor1ext.jpg
Offline Alsterstreek  
#25 Posted : 11 June 2016 12:43:56(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Or "total remix" - freight area to reside between main and branch lines:
applor2ext.jpg
Offline applor  
#26 Posted : 13 June 2016 09:38:06(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
A fair bit there for me to take on board AK! I appreciate the time you have taken highlighting possible changes.

I agree it can be hard if you are not sure what I want - I do think that those plans would be diverging too much from what I want.

First, the bottom half of the layout is intended to be somewhat of a separate 'section' compared to the city area with the station and BW.
I am looking at possibly putting a divider all the way across that wall line with different scenery wallpapers on either side - A hilly one for the bottom side and a city one for the top side.
While I am not sure about that yet, I definitely do not want to extend my station area through the mountain into the bottom half of the layout.

The station is intended to be servicing mainly passenger services, with minimal freight.
What I am looking for is that any freight that does need to be delivered to this area has a prototypical track layout. This is why I was concerned about the trains coming from the east/north having to double reverse.
I don't think I need to go so far as having a complete drive through from one direction to the other purely for freight.
I envisage that any freight train coming from the east/north would be able to drive straight into the freight siding where he can disconnect and proceed around the loop to the BW.
The freight can then be divided up as required by the shunter and if needed reversed back onto the main line so it can continue its journey on the main line.
Same sort of scenario for freight coming from the opposite direction.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline DaleSchultz  
#27 Posted : 14 June 2016 01:24:33(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,919
I have not had time to read this whole thread in a while, but...

I saw mention that Hp2 is required if the train is about to go through a turnout. I think this is the case only if the speed is below a threshold (40?). If you watch train cab videos you will see that the mainline has turnouts at regular intervals that allow moving trains onto the 'other' track. No Hp2 nor speed reductions.

Hp2 is permission to proceed slowly.

Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline applor  
#28 Posted : 14 June 2016 07:48:43(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
I have not had time to read this whole thread in a while, but...

I saw mention that Hp2 is required if the train is about to go through a turnout. I think this is the case only if the speed is below a threshold (40?). If you watch train cab videos you will see that the mainline has turnouts at regular intervals that allow moving trains onto the 'other' track. No Hp2 nor speed reductions.

Hp2 is permission to proceed slowly.



Hi Dale! I think you have miss-understood what we were discussing.
When we say that Hp2 is required that is only if the route is going through the turnout in its divergent (turn) state.
This means if the turnout is set straight, no speed reduction is necessary - which is what you are referring to on main lines.
This is why I can have only one signal that is Hp1 only, since I only have one exit signal that does not go through a divergent turnout.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#29 Posted : 14 June 2016 12:42:55(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Here how another Maerklinist arranged the BW entry and exit signaling.

Entry: Ra 11 in front of turntable.
2016-06-14_11-18-21.jpg

Exit: Sh 0 on turntable
2016-06-14_11-18-51a.jpg

The BW design reminds me of your plan.
2016-06-14_11-27-30.jpg

Further, there is an interesting coal gondola unloading facility.
2016-06-14_11-28-58.jpg2016-06-14_11-29-56.jpg

Source:
http://stummiforum.de/vi...pic.php?f=51&t=39257
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline applor  
#30 Posted : 15 June 2016 04:19:20(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Thanks for sharing those pics AK.
In fact I just saw that layout in the other 'interesting layout' thread where you posted about it - quite an amazing layout!
I love all the lines, except for the floating area for the upper branch line.

In regards to the BW setup, a bit different since the lok must reverse back to use the coaling facilities etc. Similar to how I had originally planned me and not really correct from what is prototypical.
I love the coal delivery system, quite unique and plausible.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline applor  
#31 Posted : 15 June 2016 04:22:22(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Just going back to Dales comments which I have been thinking about further last night.

I do agree on main lines where they branch off to different routes that trains are able to run at high speed.
While these would be very wide radius turnouts I wonder what else is different or whether Dale is right?
Certainly all the track plans I see from Marklin Magazine they use Hp2 in station areas.
Maybe it is more a case of station areas are the speed restriction, though I have also read the speed reduction is to protect points.

Huh
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#32 Posted : 15 June 2016 10:48:02(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Dale,
Knowing that you run modern ICE trains, from which era (and region) are the cab view videos you are referring to?

Eric,
Pending Dale's reply:
The only meaningful official diagram I could find is about the 1959 DR situation, which was basically identical to the 1959 DB. There, the crossovers between two parallel tracks are to be secured by signals with two arms, respectively.
2016-06-15_09-36-22.png
Source:
https://tu-dresden.de/Me...6he%20der%20Hauptsignale

Then, arms of two-arm signals were not coupled. I.e. depending on the position of a turnout, different aspects could be shown.
2016-06-15_09-27-50.png

Finally, high speed turnouts came into existence during the ICE age. Ignoring the latter, the DB turnout portfolio looks as follows (and I do not know how if all of those were already existing in era IIIa):

Vmax when diverging

EW xx-190-1:7,5/6,6 curved 40 km/h
EW xx-190-1:7,5 curved 40 km/h
EW xx-190-1:9 straight 40 km/h
EW xx-300-1:9 straight 50 km/h
EW xx-500-1:12 curved 60 km/h
EW xx-500-1:14 straight 60 km/h
EW xx-760-1:14 curved 80 km/h
EW xx-1200-1:18,5 curved 100 km/h
EW xx-2500-1:26,5 curved 130 km/h

Special case: symmetric outer curve

sym.ABW xx-215-1:4,8 straight 40 km/h
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline applor  
#33 Posted : 17 June 2016 04:30:39(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
I have been tweaking my layout plan again which is somewhat off topic - so until I finalize a track plan and need to determine signalling I will be posting back in 'My Layout' thread.

On the topic of speed restrictions, while I don't live in Europe I did notice in Brisbane that they simply use speed boards.

Approaching the turnout it has an (80) with a <-(40) next to it pointing in the direction of the divergent turnout, rather than using signals.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#34 Posted : 18 June 2016 11:41:52(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Speed boards: The "Lf x family" existed already in "your" era in Germany. The indicated number x 10 equals the speed limit expressed in km/h.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Single-arm Gruppenausfahrtsignal in Emden with 20 km/h speed limit sign on mast.
97236743.jpg

Lf 4 speed board on signal mast.

Edited by user 18 June 2016 23:25:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline applor  
#35 Posted : 29 June 2016 23:08:03(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
According to the 1959 DB signal rule book every turnout must have a lantern, and the 1957 EBO (Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung ="Ordinance on the Construction and Operation of Railways" / railway regulations) does not allow any exception.


Just coming back to this one again.

I have been investigating turnout lanterns for the 2260/2275 double slip points and posted on the Stummi forums about the issue since I received no reply here.
According to the Stummis and as feared, Marklin do not make the correct lanterns to be used with these points. They are complex due to the requirement of 4 indicated positions from a single lantern.
It was suggested if they are used on the main lines to skip them (which I had originally planned to do).
I noted however that according to AK's research all turnouts required lanterns regardless of interlocking - but according to the Stummis this is not correct.

"The BO/EBO imposes switch lanterns in Main tracks if there is no dependance between switch position and signal. That disposition changes it's number but remains from 1905 to 1928 and also in 1967 - I die not find the postuled 1957 Version in www.
As this interdependance between signals and switches is an elementary factor oft railroad security imposed by the 1928 BO (§21(8)), it is highly probable that your Station is equipped.
There is no ESO of 1959, but 1969 - and it contains no evocation of when to use switch lanterns. Nor does the 1928 SO. Both just describe the form oft these lanterns."

You can follow the discussion here:

http://www.stummiforum.d...pic.php?f=2&t=138447

I wanted to share this in case others following this thread have also seek clarification on their use.

I am not here to say anyone is wrong or not but if this is correct then it saves me buying/installing lanterns for my main station - and most importantly solves the issue of using double slip points.

Interesting to see photos such as this:
http://www.bahnbilder.de...hier-neun-auf-717870.jpg

Which are without doubt main lines and yet they have used turnout lanterns - though while they are not required to be used, does not mean they cannot be used.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#36 Posted : 30 June 2016 11:29:04(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
I am glad that you found an alternative source. You are modeling an era which lies more than 60 years in the past. Obtaining micro-details after such a long time is difficult, and asking two persons results in three opinions. Please note that even Stummiforum member Erich Müller confuses himself when referring to acronyms and version years, respectively.
2016-06-30_10-26-27.png

As a matter of fact, there are the 1957 Eisenbahn-Befähigungsverordnung (EBefVO), the 1959 Eisenbahn-Signalordnung (ESO) and the 1967 Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung (EBO). That is why confusion arose.

For the sake of pragmatism, the following approach is recommended for a MRR:
(Source: http://www.der-moba.de/i...ignale_und_Weichenhebel)
(1) If a station is equipped with semaphore signals, all turnouts should be equipped with laterns.
(2) If a "simple" station is equipped with light signals, all turnouts should be equipped with laterns.
(3) Turnout lanterns can be omitted when modelling a station with "modern" technology.

Over and out.
Offline applor  
#37 Posted : 30 June 2016 23:45:57(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Yes definitely and for me it adds more confusion when everything is in another language:)
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline applor  
#38 Posted : 21 July 2016 01:32:52(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Speed boards: The "Lf x family" existed already in "your" era in Germany. The indicated number x 10 equals the speed limit expressed in km/h.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Single-arm Gruppenausfahrtsignal in Emden with 20 km/h speed limit sign on mast.
97236743.jpg

Lf 4 speed board on signal mast.


I now need to re-work my signal plan now that my layout design changed a bit and I just realised the significance of this picture.

You have 3 tracks coming into a single track and yet the signal is located at the turnouts; I would expect a separate signal for each track before the turnout and that is all.

I was thinking if I should do this for my branch line area where I have 3 tracks (2 for the loop, 1 for station) coming together, Instead of 3 signals at each approach.

Though then I realise the problem is, if multiple trains are waiting to use the track, which one would go - so I do not think this is suitable for me.

It might be that we just don't see in the picture above that there is actually a separate signal for each of those tracks before the turnouts.


Onto a real question though, I was thinking about the pass through track in a station area - would it even need a signal?
I do not think it would be required if the track is purely for a pass through and no trains would be stopping there.
The entry signal before the station would allow the train through the passing track and continuing on the main line.
If a train is departing from the platform, then the entry signal would be red preventing trains from using the pass through track...
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Minok  
#39 Posted : 21 July 2016 21:53:25(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,222
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Speed boards: The "Lf x family" existed already in "your" era in Germany. The indicated number x 10 equals the speed limit expressed in km/h.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Single-arm Gruppenausfahrtsignal in Emden with 20 km/h speed limit sign on mast.
97236743.jpg

Lf 4 speed board on signal mast.


I now need to re-work my signal plan now that my layout design changed a bit and I just realised the significance of this picture.

You have 3 tracks coming into a single track and yet the signal is located at the turnouts; I would expect a separate signal for each track before the turnout and that is all.

I was thinking if I should do this for my branch line area where I have 3 tracks (2 for the loop, 1 for station) coming together, Instead of 3 signals at each approach.

Though then I realise the problem is, if multiple trains are waiting to use the track, which one would go - so I do not think this is suitable for me.

It might be that we just don't see in the picture above that there is actually a separate signal for each of those tracks before the turnouts.


The trick with this photo (and any photo) as you noticed, is that we don't see the full 360 view nor know about the location and what the traffic feeding INTO the switch on the 3 lines coming from the camera position is, nor what happens around the bend past the signal.

One reason I can see there being a need for only the one signal: the signal is all about what is around the bend, where this is a branch line joining some other main line.
Imagine that behind the camera person the 3 tracks are in an industrial park coming off of loading docks, and its all clearly visible whats what - a mini switching yard even. Got forward the way the track is heading is the single exit out of this complex on to the more general rail lines - say the DB switching area or onto the main lines in general. This signal just makes sure no one exits the industrial area without it being properly coordinated with the main rail system around the bend. Behind the camera position, it might be all visual operations. The fact that there is an at grade crossing right there (gates up on the left of the photo) indicates this line is indeed a very rarely used line with the grade-crossing traffic also not being very heavy.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Minok1217/
Offline applor  
#40 Posted : 22 July 2016 02:48:39(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Yes Minok, I agree with that.

I have updated my signal plan with the final track design for validation.

First, we have the area with branch station.

Here I have used 3 signals to protect entry into the branch line that leads back to the station.
I have used speed boards here as well as trains approaching are required to slow to 40km/h before the points and for the trains leaving they can accelerate to 60km/h.

The branch station area is under local control so we have a trapezoid to indicate this and a halt board for the station track.

On the lower main line dual track areas, we have standard stop/go signals paired with distant signals.
The track heading into the main station on the right side uses a Vr0/Vr2 signal (prepare to stop or prepare to go slow) since the next signal is for station entry.
All the others are standard Vr0/Vr1.

Final_plan_branch.jpg

Onto the main station area we have a number of signals. All station signals are Hp0/Hp2 and at the entrances as well as exit from each track.
The bi-directional tracks of course have one at each end. The branch line tracks are bi-directional since only one has a platform and so it needs to be accessible from either direction.

The bottom most main track is the freight track, also bi-directional.
The left end has a Hp0/Hp2 signal but the right end has a Sh0/Sh1 shunt since shunting manoeuvres can be performed into the siding and also into the freight depot.
A Hp0/Hp2 signal protects at the double slip so that shunting can be performed without interrupting the mainline or branch line traffic.
All other freight sidings, yard sidings and entry track from BW are a Wait signal.

Final_plan_station_1.jpg
Final_plan_station_2.jpg

If anyone sees problems or incorrect signal placement please let me know. I am not entirely sure of the freight track and siding signals or if I require another Hp0/Hp2 for the freight track with the Sh0/Sh1.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline applor  
#41 Posted : 03 August 2016 12:15:37(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
I haven't had any input so I turned to Stummis and here is the current plan for those interested:

Final_plan_branch.jpgFinal_plan_station.jpg
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by applor
Offline Alsterstreek  
#42 Posted : 24 April 2017 10:16:15(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Just coming back to this one again.
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
I have been investigating ... on the Stummi forums ...according to the Stummis...:

"There is no ESO of 1959, but 1969 ..."

http://www.stummiforum.d...pic.php?f=2&t=138447


Eisenbahn-Signalordnung 1959 (ESO 1959),

courtesy of the German Federal Railway Authority (German: Eisenbahn-Bundesamt, EBA):

11_eso.pdf;jsessionid=F529D2101BBACCDC3B6072D8BC1E1FAC.live21303.pdf (1,765kb) downloaded 101 time(s).
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline applor  
#43 Posted : 22 June 2018 03:37:51(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
This is an older thread but I wanted to post again since my track plan has changed since my last post and more importantly I have made some additional changes to my signalling plan.

It has come to the stage where I will soon be installing signals on my layout and I found myself revisiting my design to check its accuracy.
What I found is that there were a few small changes to make but more importantly some distinctions in signalling that are often confused.
More specifically, the requirement for edge protection in certain circumstances.

edge protection physically blocks rolling stock or locomotives from accidentally entering a mainline with the potential to cause serious damage and delays.
signals on the other hand provide no physical protection, relying on the driver to stop or proceed when indicated by the signal.
Two very different requirements but easy to confuse when it comes to track block signals because both have a Sh0/Sh1 signal indication.

First, we have the Gleissperrsignal (track block signal) which is used for shunting authorization and very commonly found and available as a signal model, ie. Viessmann 4517

Confusingly we also have the Gleissperrensignal which is also a track block signal (sh0/sh1) but is a visual indication of a Gleissperr (track block) which is a physical track block for flank protection.
This is currently only found as a model by Weinert, item 7226 (for code 100 track). The Weinert model also functions prototypically using a servo.

Gleissperr is one of the three types of Flankenschutz (flank protection) used - the other two types of physical flank protection are provided by turnouts.
This is either where a turnout is located prior to the mainline and can be set wrong way, or where a dedicated Flankenschutzweichen (repellant turnout) is used which is a dead end siding to provide protection on fast lines.

With this distinction in mind I realised two locations where a gleissperr is required to provide flank protection to a main line. One in my city and one in my regional branch line.
Standard home signals are shown with a colour aspect, standard track block signals are shown with a black circle, while the physical track block has a circle with a line across the track.
The Wait Signal is shown as a W. The points without mast signals are protected with Ra12 Grenzzeichen signals, shown as a red dot.
Final_plan_station.jpg

Looking at the city above, I now have edge protection on the west end of the station where the shunting loop joins onto the main line. It is also accompanied by the Wait signal.
Directly below that the pair of Freight sidings both have standard Sh0/Sh1 signals. While this isn't entirely necessary as they could be happily controlled directly under the switch master, I felt it more appropriate.
Below those there are a pair of sidings for e-lok storage and have wait signals.
The rest of the area is part of the BW and under direct control, until the lines merge into the shunting loop. The turntable is controlled with Wait signs as well.
The bottom turnout provides entry to the turntable after the maintenance facilities. As such the Wait signal is located here rather than right at the turntable because access is not given until the turnout is set and the turntable in position.

The eastern entry from the shunting loop into the station area has a standard track block signal (sh0/sh1) and a Wait sign. Edge protection is provided by the turnout and so no track block is required.

The station home signals are pretty straight forward but please ask if an explanation is necessary.
The eastern end of the station does have distant signals though, which I discovered are required with station entry signals to indicate the station exit signal so the driver knows if he will be stopping at the platform or passing through.
The western end does not have any entry signals because it is 'out of bounds' for the scene.

Final_plan_branch.jpg

No massive changes here - the main one being that the first siding just after the entrance requires edge protection. The other sidings are edge protected by the turnout.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline applor  
#44 Posted : 22 June 2018 03:47:41(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
You can google images for these signals but decided to post them here so they are part of the thread.

First, here we have the gleissperr with gleissperrensignal for each direction.

1200px-Gleissperre.jpeg

second we have the Flankenschutzweichen - which is the 'repellant turnout', providing edge protection on high speed lines.

Schutzweiche.jpg
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Alsterstreek  
#45 Posted : 19 December 2018 17:10:13(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,214
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: Minok Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Speed boards: The "Lf x family" existed already in "your" era in Germany. The indicated number x 10 equals the speed limit expressed in km/h.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Single-arm Gruppenausfahrtsignal in Emden with 20 km/h speed limit sign on mast.
97236743.jpg

Lf 4 speed board on signal mast.


I now need to re-work my signal plan now that my layout design changed a bit and I just realised the significance of this picture.

You have 3 tracks coming into a single track and yet the signal is located at the turnouts; I would expect a separate signal for each track before the turnout and that is all.

I was thinking if I should do this for my branch line area where I have 3 tracks (2 for the loop, 1 for station) coming together, Instead of 3 signals at each approach.

Though then I realise the problem is, if multiple trains are waiting to use the track, which one would go - so I do not think this is suitable for me.

It might be that we just don't see in the picture above that there is actually a separate signal for each of those tracks before the turnouts.


The trick with this photo (and any photo) as you noticed, is that we don't see the full 360 view nor know about the location and what the traffic feeding INTO the switch on the 3 lines coming from the camera position is, nor what happens around the bend past the signal.

One reason I can see there being a need for only the one signal: the signal is all about what is around the bend, where this is a branch line joining some other main line.
Imagine that behind the camera person the 3 tracks are in an industrial park coming off of loading docks, and its all clearly visible whats what - a mini switching yard even. Got forward the way the track is heading is the single exit out of this complex on to the more general rail lines - say the DB switching area or onto the main lines in general. This signal just makes sure no one exits the industrial area without it being properly coordinated with the main rail system around the bend. Behind the camera position, it might be all visual operations. The fact that there is an at grade crossing right there (gates up on the left of the photo) indicates this line is indeed a very rarely used line with the grade-crossing traffic also not being very heavy.


Is that enough "360 view" - see video?
:o)


Electric loco 120 141-7 with IC train to Köln central station departing from Emden-Außenhafen station in 2015.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.156 seconds.