Jump to content

RailWest

Members
  • Content Count

    1,582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

799 Good

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.railwest.org.uk

Profile Information

  • Location
    West Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you are assuming that the signals and points at/near the tunnel are controlled from the signal-box at the station, then the lower distant arm that you propose is irrelevant as it would be applying to the next box along the line to the right (not the one at the stateion) and assuming that it was quite close.
  2. If anything, I would suggest a trap-point leading to a substantial sand-drag, to avoid the risk of anything running away down the incline, derailing on the trap ,but then being carried forward by its momentum and fouling the main line.
  3. It seems to to me that all traffic in/out of your 'incline' line will have to travel some distance wrong road' into a tunnel. I'm not sure of any prototype examples on which to base the signalling :-(
  4. Unless it is really essential for your model, the crossover should be trailing not facing. A long stretch of wrong-road running seems unlikely, it would have been more likely IMHO that the crossover would have been next to the point leading to the incline. And will that junction be controlled from a signal-box at the station - and where, as it is not marked on your plan?
  5. >>>The home bracket signal that controlled the departure from the halt plus trains coming from Moorswater could it be replaced by two individual signals ? That bracket controlled only trains departing from the platform line. For the later layout then I would say that two signals side by side would have been very unlikely indeed, as would one post with the two arms one above the other. I'm sure you could modify a kit bracket to suit.
  6. Incidentally IIRC the 'office' marked on the plan for the weigh-bridge in the road is the decaying building which was still there when I lasted walked past it (probably in 2019).
  7. >>> It almost reads like the shunt token is the driver’s authority to pass the section signal at danger for the purpose of a shunt, but I find it hard to believe that is how the arrangement works.... That was exactly how it worked, the driver took possession of it as his authority to shunt into the section.
  8. >>>I see that no signal appears to be provided at all for the yard exit,.... Err....that is what No 11 is for :-)
  9. It was certainly the case with the 1967 WR installations of TB that shunt signals could read into the section, but were released by the block, as was the case for instance with Nos 4 and 6 at Templecombe.
  10. Hmmm...I got the impression that pannier actually wobbled as it passed over the ramp?
  11. Look at this image also http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/richmond/richmond_branch/index2.shtml . I think you will find that this was merely a form of 'gate signal' to tell the driver of an approaching train whether the gates were closed across the road or open. The board was probably red on both sides. At right angles to the track, and probably showing a red light = gates open. Parallel to the track, and possibly showing a green light - it's hard to tell = gates closed. Given that in your image it is showing 'stop' despite the gate being across the road would sugge
  12. I'm afraid that I know nothing more about the proposed station at CD other than that apparently one was proposed for there, and clearly it would have to be somewhere between the south portal of the tunnel and the north end of Tucking Mill viaduct. After that - apply 'modeller's licence' :-)
  13. Ironically, many year ago I toyed with an idea based on the planned doubling as far as Combe Down tunnel, except that my model would have been based on the planned Combe Down station rather than Midford itself. However I did give some thought as to what might happen at Midford as a result. I see no reason why the goods yard should not continue in existence in order to serve its original purpose. A short-ish headshunt would enable you to 'shut in' a train to shunt while other Down trains passed by. The more important question perhaps is how the access to the yard would be controlled
  14. Sorry, but I don't know the date of that plan (yet). EDIT - apparently 1903. However I do know that this photo was taken in Oct 1881 and shows the older Wind Street Jcn signal-box, replaced by a GWR one circa-1898 :-)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.