[BDP 7] Overhead Railway Signal Box

[Jefry Been]

Welcome to My Overhead Railway Signal Box

• Overhead signal boxes were widely used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the era when railways relied on mechanical and manual signaling systems.
• They often featured a combination of mechanical lever frames and electric or pneumatic systems to manage signals and track points efficiently
   

• This signal box is built from 3,028 parts and includes everything needed to manage train traffic, ensuring safe and efficient train movements.
• It features a team of 5 minifigures who are responsible for communication and coordination between trains, stations, and other signal boxes in the area.

• Positioned above the tracks, this structure provides operators with a clear, panoramic view of the rail yard or track layout.
• This design allows operators to directly observe train positions, track points, and signals, ensuring smooth operations.

• Inside, you'll find a fully equipped space, including:
  • Mechanical levers for controlling signals and track points.
  • Modern computers for advanced operations.
  • A cozy kitchen with a coffee machine to keep the staff energized.
  • A toilet on the ground floor for convenience.

Final Words

• This signal box combines historical charm with practical functionality, capturing the essence of railway operations in its golden age.
• I hope you enjoy this creation and can appreciate the attention to detail that went into every part of this build!

You can support this MOC with your vote, if you like it. Thanks everyone in advance)

https://www.bricklink.com/v3/designer-program/series-7/2504/Overhead-Railway-Signal-Box

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12 by Jefry Been

[Feuer Zug]

Great work on this rare piece. I love all the details you crammed in. Supported.

[Phil B]

I love the build, but have some concerns on the track geometry. Doesn't feel like it would fit with any standard track setups, given the spacing between tracks. Have you considered this?

[Jefry Been]

2 hours ago, Phil B said:

I love the build, but have some concerns on the track geometry. Doesn't feel like it would fit with any standard track setups, given the spacing between tracks. Have you considered this?

Hi! Thanks for comment! 

I don't really understand what do you mean. There are no curve rails on the MOC, the straight ones are two studs from each other - that is okay for 6wide city trains.

3 hours ago, Feuer Zug said:

Great work on this rare piece. I love all the details you crammed in. Supported.

Huge thanks for support! Appreciated)

[Phil B]

49 minutes ago, Jefry Been said:

Hi! Thanks for comment! 

I don't really understand what do you mean. There are no curve rails on the MOC, the straight ones are two studs from each other - that is okay for 6wide city trains.

LEGO RC train geometry dictates a 16 stud distance between track centerlines. That corresponds to an 8 stud gap between 2 track pieces. Your MOC has this on the two left tracks, but only 2 studs between the parallel tracks under the bridge. A two-stud gap is hard to get with standard (non-flex-track) LEGO track pieces, unless it is a completely independent track circle.

[Jefry Been]

58 minutes ago, Phil B said:

LEGO RC train geometry dictates a 16 stud distance between track centerlines. That corresponds to an 8 stud gap between 2 track pieces. Your MOC has this on the two left tracks, but only 2 studs between the parallel tracks under the bridge. A two-stud gap is hard to get with standard (non-flex-track) LEGO track pieces, unless it is a completely independent track circle.

hmm, to be honest I didn't think about that. I figured that the trains would easily pass in parallel. Well yeah I should have made one track there!

[Phil B]

14 minutes ago, Jefry Been said:

hmm, to be honest I didn't think about that. I figured that the trains would easily pass in parallel. Well yeah I should have made one track there!

Also, the left-most track (furthest from the building) is 3 studs from the edge of the plate. If you want compatibility with the MILS standard, that should be 4 studs, so everything should shift 1 stud over to the right.

Still ... great looking build. If you can find a way to accommodate for the track alignments, this would be a slam-dunk.

[witchy]

Trixbrix sells 2 stud gap switches. The 7 stud gap between the outer track and the middle track looks like a more inconvenient thing to accommodate, but not impossible. And it looks incredibly easy to move that track over by 1 stud to align it with the standard gaps if desired. The track isn't at MILS height to begin with, so someone wanting to use it in a MILS-based layout would have to build an adapter anyway, or alter the build to raise the track level. And if one is doing that, one might as well shift the track over and move the build's location relative to the modules too.

Personally I find slavish adherence to The Standard Grid aesthetically unsatisfying. An 8-stud gap is too wide to make visually appealing double tracks or rail yards (and wasteful of space in the latter case), and a bit too narrow for station platforms for 8-wide trains (that in practice require at least 10 studs of clearance). With trains and buildings that are made with beautiful, realistic detail, willingly restricting oneself to toylike track geometries with R40 on the 90-degree grid is just immense waste of potential. The non-standard track spacing is a bit more challenging to work with, but also elevates these designs above the Lego-designed train sets. Studgate station would not look as good with an 8 stud gap between the tracks. The old train engine shed is an example where the 8 stud gap actually works and looks good, but not every pair of tracks can have the wall of an engine shed between them. I think focusing too much on accommodating the simplest track alignments would detract from the appeal quite severely. This design, the way it is, looks stunning precisely because it uses a tighter spacing for the inner tracks, instead of making a giant empty space between them or cutting the inner tracks down to a single one.

That being said, spacings of 4 studs and 8 studs would be more practical. 4 stud gaps can be easily achieved with both dedicated switches, and with various combinations of R104 pieces, and the extra space would reduce the risk of wider trains hitting each other (in particular, nominally 8-wide steam locomotives whose rod and valve assemblies can often reach quite far to the sides) and look almost as nice and sharp as the 2 stud gap.

Edited February 13 by witchy

[Jefry Been]

10 hours ago, witchy said:

Trixbrix sells 2 stud gap switches. The 7 stud gap between the outer track and the middle track looks like a more inconvenient thing to accommodate, but not impossible. And it looks incredibly easy to move that track over by 1 stud to align it with the standard gaps if desired. The track isn't at MILS height to begin with, so someone wanting to use it in a MILS-based layout would have to build an adapter anyway, or alter the build to raise the track level. And if one is doing that, one might as well shift the track over and move the build's location relative to the modules too.

Personally I find slavish adherence to The Standard Grid aesthetically unsatisfying. An 8-stud gap is too wide to make visually appealing double tracks or rail yards (and wasteful of space in the latter case), and a bit too narrow for station platforms for 8-wide trains (that in practice require at least 10 studs of clearance). With trains and buildings that are made with beautiful, realistic detail, willingly restricting oneself to toylike track geometries with R40 on the 90-degree grid is just immense waste of potential. The non-standard track spacing is a bit more challenging to work with, but also elevates these designs above the Lego-designed train sets. Studgate station would not look as good with an 8 stud gap between the tracks. The old train engine shed is an example where the 8 stud gap actually works and looks good, but not every pair of tracks can have the wall of an engine shed between them. I think focusing too much on accommodating the simplest track alignments would detract from the appeal quite severely. This design, the way it is, looks stunning precisely because it uses a tighter spacing for the inner tracks, instead of making a giant empty space between them or cutting the inner tracks down to a single one.

That being said, spacings of 4 studs and 8 studs would be more practical. 4 stud gaps can be easily achieved with both dedicated switches, and with various combinations of R104 pieces, and the extra space would reduce the risk of wider trains hitting each other (in particular, nominally 8-wide steam locomotives whose rod and valve assemblies can often reach quite far to the sides) and look almost as nice and sharp as the 2 stud gap.

Thank you very much for the detailed comment. In fact, it is worth either leaving it as it is or simply putting one path under the building's canopy.

In any case, this format will not suit everyone. Someone adheres to the standard width between the rails, someone has the railway track raised by several plates with the immitation of sand embankment, etc. I think that the modification of the tracks here will be for many who buy this set in case of my success))

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

I missed this artwork...I like this revisited and modernized version of the signal box designed by Reinhard Ben Beneke.

The colors, the details, the interior...they are all wonderful. 

Great work...Supported!

[zephyr1934]

On 2/13/2025 at 1:19 PM, Jefry Been said:

I don't really understand what do you mean. There are no curve rails on the MOC, the straight ones are two studs from each other - that is okay for 6wide city trains.

It's got lots of great detailing in it and some clever build techniques, it's a neat MOC.

The main issue is that with anything except 8 studs between tracks that curves and switches become difficult. So as a stand alone model that only exists on one baseplate there's no problem, but if someone incorporated it into their layout it would not be simple plug and play, that's all. The second issue is if someone builds 8+ wide the track spacing might not be good for their trains. These two issues might decrease some folks interest in buying the model. If it doesn't get picked up this round, converting it to work with the common rail spacing might increase its chances in a future round.

 

[Jefry Been]

On 2/16/2025 at 2:37 AM, LEGO Train 12 Volts said:

I missed this artwork...I like this revisited and modernized version of the signal box designed by Reinhard Ben Beneke.

The colors, the details, the interior...they are all wonderful. 

Great work...Supported!

Thanks! Originaly I was inspired by LEGO 148 Station from 1975. 

 

8 hours ago, zephyr1934 said:

It's got lots of great detailing in it and some clever build techniques, it's a neat MOC.

The main issue is that with anything except 8 studs between tracks that curves and switches become difficult. So as a stand alone model that only exists on one baseplate there's no problem, but if someone incorporated it into their layout it would not be simple plug and play, that's all. The second issue is if someone builds 8+ wide the track spacing might not be good for their trains. These two issues might decrease some folks interest in buying the model. If it doesn't get picked up this round, converting it to work with the common rail spacing might increase its chances in a future round.

 

Thanks for comment! I think it will be difficult to please everyone who has a railway layout so that this Signal Booth matches exactly. I think it will not be a problem to adjust the width/number of tracks to personal taste.

P.S. I agree with all the comments anyway) 

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

7 hours ago, Jefry Been said:

Thanks! Originaly I was inspired by LEGO 148 Station from 1975. 

Oh yeah ...I love this set; it was my first train station when I was 6 years old

[zephyr1934]

10 hours ago, LEGO Train 12 Volts said:

Oh yeah ...I love this set; it was my first train station when I was 6 years old

I too have a fondness of the old days when it was difficult to get through the doors. I'm not joking about the fondness, but as I look back at the sets from the time, the 1x2x3 door next to the proto-minifigs is kind of funny. But from the perspective of a kid with an imagination it worked.

 

19 hours ago, Jefry Been said:

Thanks! Originaly I was inspired by LEGO 148 Station from 1975. 

Oh, you've got the scale completely wrong then (grin)

[GoHabsGo]

I hope that it will be selected.

After Brickcross and the old engine shed, it will be perfect !

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

16 hours ago, zephyr1934 said:

I too have a fondness of the old days when it was difficult to get through the doors. I'm not joking about the fondness, but as I look back at the sets from the time, the 1x2x3 door next to the proto-minifigs is kind of funny. But from the perspective of a kid with an imagination it worked.

 

Hi Benn,

I was having a similar thought to yours when I looked at this vintage set yesterday: as a child this station seemed immense to me now I see all the disproportion compared to the old minifigures ...but the architecture of this station has always had a strong fascination for me ...even today I like it very much. 

I think it all depends on the bridge structure with that larger hall at the end

Emanuele

[Jefry Been]

On 2/18/2025 at 12:08 AM, zephyr1934 said:

Oh, you've got the scale completely wrong then (grin)

I was inspired, not copied, ha-ha)) But you are right, the doors should be twice smaller

21 hours ago, GoHabsGo said:

I hope that it will be selected.

After Brickcross and the old engine shed, it will be perfect !

Well, totaly agree) Thanks!