Jump to content
 

RailWest

Members
  • Posts

    2,064
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RailWest

  1. Sadly no clues from the Minutes, other than to refer to the decision to remove it in 1912 as it had had little use.
  2. Pylle was the first station up the Branch from Evercreech Junction to Highbridge. In 1891 it was upgraded to have two platforms and a passing-loop for passenger trains. At that time the existing old S&DJR Type 1 signal-box was re-locked (or perhaps had a new frame?) to work the layout shown in the attached diagram. Now, what puzzles me about that layout is the crossover (points 9) between the Up and Down loop lines. This is not a feature seen at other S&DJR passing-loops and it's hard to see what purpose it might have served. Any thoughts on this please? About 1/2-mile to the west of Pylle station lay the Pylle Line Works siding, which was opened in 1869 and closed in 1912. This siding was shunted by trains which ran from Pylle and then back again (see http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/sh-staff.html#pylle-staff ). I wonder therefore if it is just a coincidence (or not) that the crossover was taken out-of-use in December 1912?
  3. >>>The dock road turnout is actually separately controlled.... As was the prototype of course, but interlocking requires the crossover road to be normal before the dock road points could be set for the yard exit.
  4. Looks very nice. However I see that the signalman appears to be struggling to open the signal-box doors, so the driver of the Up train just SPADed the Up Starting anyway - time for a Form 1 maybe? Better send for the locking technician too, as the dock road points were set for a conflicting move with the crossover road ....:-)
  5. Oops - my 'typo' - J&P said 1856 - sorry ! Hopefully there will be time for some more research idc, but for the moment I was hoping that 'someone might know'.....:-)
  6. ASHCOTT (and Meare) station. Atthill implies in his book that this was one of the original SCR stations and opened in 1854. Oakley ('Somerset Arilway Stations) says that it was a later addition in 1856 (similar to Bason Bridge and Edington Road). Judge&Potts also say 1856. Cooke gives no date. Does anyone have any more information please?
  7. That was a different thing from the purpose of an Annett's Shield, which is what the photo shows. In the C/L example, I think the semaphore green aspect was blanked off completely ?
  8. It was known as an Annett's Shield after the signal engineer who designed it. Very common on the L&SWR. It's purpose was to prevent 'stray' light from behind the arm giving a false 'green' when the arm was at danger. When the SR changed from LQ to UQ arms the position of the green aspect changed to being in front of the post rather than to the side - not a problem on nice thick wooden posts, but with lattice posts or those built of 2 rails with a large gap between them the same risk of a false green existed. That was solved by fixing a rectangular plate to the post immediately behind the spectacle plate - often not noticeable in photographs unless the arm was 'off'.
  9. Sadly, I thought that was the case, but I've mislaid my copy at the moment :-(
  10. I would agree with that suggestion. Given that by the 1920s the use of the Whitaker apparatus must have been a key element in normal day-to-day S&DJR operations, it would seem strange IMHO if they were to delay fitting any longer than necessary.
  11. Incidentally, I got that photo originally as a result of a query that someone raised about those markers some years ago. Whether it was on here or elsewhere, I don't recall. If I can find the original messages sometime there may be a reference to the date...
  12. As another rough guide, the Down Starting signal (No 3) was 49 yards from the signalbox, just past the Down platform ramp end. The station end of the west crossover points A was at 179 yards, so the distance between the two was 130 Yards. The point ends were underneath the road bridge, almost in line with the Blandford side face of the bridge. So, if you allow 'xx' yards for the width of the bridge and perhaps a little bit more for the distance to the platform ramp, you might end up with a useable figure :-) Is that not anything in the late Bill Coomer's book on that part of the line?
  13. There was certainly some form of PSR north of Wincanton, as the indicators can be seen in this photo...
  14. ..and maybe you don't anyway ? :-)
  15. Can you not try a 25" OS map ? I have a copy of a 1900 40':1" plan if that would help, but it will take me some while to find the photos....
  16. Are you going to have a bay window? It's questionable as to whether or not that would be needed at a terminus, depending upon what the rationale was for it in the first place.
  17. Do not forget that, at any location where a train was entering or leaving a single-line section there would be a speed restriction for the collection and/or delivery of the tablet. On those sections of the mainline where the Whitaker apparatus was in use, that would have been 40MPH, but a lower speed would have applied on the Branches (not fitted with Whitaker) and also in cases on the main line where hand-exchange was being done for any reason. I'm not sure of the 'hand' limit, but probably 10MPH.
  18. Many people do - or choose to ignore them :-)
  19. Looking ahead a bit and in an attempt to simplify the discussion on signalling, I've drafted a very rough sketch - clearly not one of my best :-) Some comments for clarification and/or discussion:- Although the numbering is purely for identification, IMHO it is roughly along the usual 'typical' lines for an L&SWR-influenced installation - others may disagree? I have assumed a worked distant originally, hence lever 1, but almost certainly by the OP's period it would have been 'fixed' and then 1 would have become a spare (or perhaps re-used for something else?) 4 is the FPL I have included 9 for completeness, even tho' it might be off-scene. HP - Hand Point (local lever) To be honest, for a mid-1880s installation I doubt that there would have been any shunt signals, but I've included them any for 'interest'. If we assumed none originally, but then added later, the numbering might well have been different. It's a matter for speculation whether 3 + 6 might have been just on one push-pull lever (meaning one spare lever) and that perhaps 8 was also one half of a push-pull pair with another shunt at the loop end of that crossover. The L&SWR certainly had some 10-lever frames, but if you assumed a frame of 2 x 6-lever bays then you could have 12 levers with a couple of them being spares, so the numbering would have to be adjusted accordingly. But the provision of spare levers in early S&DJR frames, although not unknown, was uncommon - after all, spares cost money! Make of that what you will :-)
  20. >>>Having read http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/yellow.html, I think that I the ground signals would be red as I'm assuming that there have been no layout alterations..... Whether a ground signal remained red or was changed to yellow was not necessarily related to layout alterations, more just a change in "custom & practice". >>>I'm not sure if the ground signals would be Stevens 'flap' type or small semaphores... My working assumption for the type of signal would be that the original provision was the Stevens 'flap' type and that any change to the mini-arm type would have occurred only if (a) an existing needed replacement for some reason (eg damaged in an accident) or (b) a layout alteration required the signal to be moved, so the opportunity was taken to provide a new one at that time. >>>I'm trying to understand what the ground signal to the right of the slip controls... That would control ONLY movements from the loop or the sidings across onto the main line. In the original installation any train proceeding into the private siding would simply pass it 'on' as it did not apply for that route. So any shunting move which went out onto the main line, rather than use the start of the private siding as a head-shunt, would need that signal to be cleared. As to exactly where best to place it, see my previous comments and decide as you see fit :-)
  21. I've just noticed that in earlier post about making 3D mock-ups you wrote "The dimensions are from the Bachmann Shillingstone goods shed..." It's always baffled me how Bachmann managed to 'measure up' for that model, given that the original goods shed at Shillingstone was demolished at an unknown early date and replaced later by some concrete 'provender stores'. AFAIK only one photo of the original structure has come to light so far and that was only a distant background view of one gable end visible above intervening structures.
  22. As @Nick C has said, hand points are trailable. Generally speaking [#] any shunt signals for moves which pass over hand-points are not interlocked with those points (which after all have no lever in the SB anyway) so it is down to the driver/shunter to watch where they are going :-) Equally, there would usually be no ground signal to control any movement from L to R out of the private siding - in a place such as this the traffic would be so light that what went in to the siding could come back out again without fear that there would be another conflicting shunt move by another train across their path. [# There were instances where, for various reasons, signals were 'detected' through hand points and/or operation of the signal also bolted the hand-point in the required position, but that was not common in a situation such as suggested for this layout.] It would be quite common for a shunt signal in rear of a trailing point to apply to both the converging routes. So here the signal for exit from the run-round loop over the slip to the main line would also apply to the exit from the adjacent sidings. Whether the signal would be placed to the left of the loop (in the 6-foot between the loop and the platform line) or between the loop and the sidings or even over the RH of the sidings is something which appears to be vary according to the taste of the signal engineer :-) As mentioned earlier, in some instances the 'slip' connection would be worked separate from the crossover and then it could have its own ground signal for exit from the sidings (cf Shepton Mallet up sidings for example), but I don't think you would need that here.
×
×
  • Create New...