RailWest

Yes

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 ?

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'.

Sadly, I thought that was the case, but I've mislaid my copy at the moment :-(

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.

I'd forgotten about that ... :-)

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...

Sorry, no info on the date.

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?

There was certainly some form of PSR north of Wincanton, as the indicators can be seen in this photo...

..and maybe you don't anyway ? :-)

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....

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.

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.

Many people do - or choose to ignore them :-)

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 :-)

>>>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 :-)

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.

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.

Except in some rare circumstances, 'yardage' of signals and points was measured from the centre-line of the signal-box/lever-frame. Somebody on RMWeb - I forget who - was working on a model S&DJR BLT based on Wells (Priory Road) without the GWR connecting lines. Actually the plan works quite well for BLT purposes IMHO if you look at it like that, albeit a bit more complex than it might have been as a 'pure' terminus. Most of the signalling information in Harman's splendid book came from this book (2018 revised edition) :-) Sadly some transcription errors crept into the final work, but such things happen in a 2-volume work of that sheer size.....

Two comments here:- 1. Very little (ie nowt) is known about the earliest signalling at Burnham, but let's just say that the place became the S&DJR equivalent of Ashburton (GWR) in terms of minimalist signalling. Even the crossover almost in front of the box was worked by hand-levers! The box was worked by a porter-signalman who had very little to do other than to pull off the Up Home for an arrival and the Down Starting for a departure - inbetween that he simply pulled over the lever to unlock all the points and left the guard or shunter to work them all by hand. 2. The original SB at Bridgwater was on the Up side about 1/2 way between the level-crossing and the end of the platform (as shown in that excellent 7mm scale model of the station which appeared in the Rly Modeller some while ago). The precise original signalling again is unknown, but probably the gates were worked by a crossing-keeper from the adjacent house and maybe bolted from the SB. At some unknown early date (1905-10 ??) the first SB was closed and replaced by the one at LC with a new ground-level 'knee' frame. More here... www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/bw-branch.html

It is only necessary to work from the SB as a pair the facing point off the running line and the two RH ends of the slip which act as the trap-points from the run-round loop and the sidings. The two LH ends of the slip, which merely control whether trains coming off the main line or out of the private siding go into either run-round loop or the sidings can be controlled by a hand-point. There were examples where the latter 'slip' part was also controlled from the SB as well, perhaps even with its own ground signal for coming out of the siding, but the traffic needs probably would not have justified the extra cost of the signalling. Keep it simple and cheap !

I couldn't see any gate :-( I would agree about padlocking. For yellow shunts please see my notes at www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/yellow.html Based on examples elsewhere on the S&DJR, I doubt they would have made the dummy work for the route into the private siding anyway, the driver would just ignore it or get a hand-signal. I take your point about the location of the Down Home, but I'm not sure that they would be too bothered by having to Block Back? In any case, clearing the dummy would allow the engine to proceed out "as far as the line was clear" towards the DAS, so it might well have passed the DH and they would need to BB anyway. Also, moving the DH in then gives scope to have the Up Advanced within the scenic bit without it looking too cramped - it all depends really on what the distance would be between the two in terms of the length of train.

Maybe, for a start :-) What period are we talking about please for the model? Some random thoughts: provide an Up Advanced Starting move the Down Home closer to the facing point provide a shunt signal FROM loop over release crossover onto plaftorm road? would they have upgraded to a 'yellow' shunt anyway , for that and/or the one by double-slip? Down Distant signal - admittedly off-scene - probably worked originally, but 'fixed' later. if the 'industry' is a private siding, the some sort of boundary gate would be provided, tho' probably not bolted from the SB as the siding does not feed directly onto the main line.

IMHO position of the SB is OK, but more likely to be close to/at/on the end of the platform ramp - for a quiet place like a BLT it might be manned by a porter-signalman, so why make him walk too far from the station office if not necessary? Most tablet exchanges would take place while the train was in the platform anyway. The less distance to the engine release crossover, the more likely to bring that within the limit for working from the SB rather than a local GF. Main criterion really is good visibility and location to control the working of the station.