Martin Shaw

Phil makes some very useful and pointed comments about Horsted Keynes and the Bluebell Railways approach to signalling. I too think the railway is over signalled, but rather more concerning is that it now has very little to do with preservation other than in it's broadest consideration. Both HK and Kingscote have a proliferation of semaphore signals which visually give the appearance of the SR, those at HK are largely power worked and could easily be replaced by colour light heads, similarly the controls at Kingscote would I suspect meet modern standards. Now these choices are ones that have to be made, and are no less the worse for being modern, Phil touched on the basic reason, I played a very small part in the development of this thinking and approach, albeit unwittingly. One Sunday the summer of 1975 I was signalman at Sheffield Park and at the end of the day I had a light engine (27) on the pit to go to shed, and another LE (488) arrived from HK and stationery at the upside water column, which too was to do pit work and then shed. A rake of coaches were parked in the down platform obscuring my view of everything. 27 was signalled off the pit, so when I heard a whistle I reversed the road. Unfortunately the whistle I heard was 488 moving up the platform and I had reversed the trailing end points under 27. Fortunately I think the only damage was a bent drive rod that we straightened next Saturday. The late Bernard Holden held a formal enquiry which quite rightly placed the blame firmly on my shoulders and I held both my hands up, I still remember it with a shudder. The interesting thing is that at the time there was virtually nothing that could easily be done or afforded that would have mitigated the situation, so nothing really was done, and nearly 50 years have elapsed before any formal indication has arisen that the signalbox at SP is life expired and completely unsuitable for the current level of operation. Despite the desirability of a replacement the last Blue News had a letter desirous of retaining the 1933 ground frame in it preservation era box. It is I suspect the one part of the Bluebell S&T empire that its engineers would be happy to see the back of. Phil also said, which is a tad disingenuos. HK had a major relocking and other alterations in the 70s to remove the vestiges of the former junction arrangements and fit it as the then northern terminus of the Bluebell Railway. When the Northern extension was first reopened additional signalling was required and these additions caused the mish mash especially as the frame then became too small. Whoever called for HK signalbox to be listed cause a major problem, the box structure needed major repairs and I belive the thinking was to rebuild it with a larger frame. As it is the L frame currently at Kingscote would have better suited HK. and a mechanical frame at Kingscote as originally planned would have suited the period ethos better. There is no doubt that Charles Hudson and his staff have engineered high quality safe installations that stand as markers for how things should be done, however as historical statements about mechanically signalled railways it's a mess. There is a major and probably insoluble dichotomy between preservation and safety, inevitably safety will overshadow anything else, despite the limitations of a 25mph light railway. On the matter of shunting into single line sections, I wonder whether the prohibition also applies to ScR tokenless blocks where a specific shunting token is applicable, although I think the regulations as originally drawn wouldn't have prevented two shunts meeting in the middle. All very interesting stuff. Martin

Having now seen a diagram for FP No 5 I realise that the distants were worked, although whether for all routes I'm not certain. None of the layout was high speed so they could be, but you would need to see the dog chart to be completely certain. Regards Martin

It all looks a bit complicated without knowledge of where it is, which is Finsbury Park. It is the No3 box down homes for the lines, from the left, Dn Goods No2, Dn Goods No 1, Dn Carriage Line, Dn Canonbury. Forward routes from there are Dn Goods, Dn Carriage Line, Dn Slow No 2, Dn Slow No 1, the distants are for Finsbury Park No 5 on those four lines. The middle two dolls can access all four routes, the left hand one the Dn goods only and the right hand one everything except the Dn Goods. Here is a link to the diagram, http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/finsbury_park_no_3.jpg I think/suspect the distant arms are fixed otherwise the slotting becomes a tangled web Regards Martin

I think we are in general agreement that of the SR locos then extant the Schools will have the highest axle loading, even though they may not be the heaviest locomotive so just for a bit of fun I have made a list of routes where the Schools were prohibited. It can be taken that the former LSWR G16 and H16 classes were generally similarly limited by weight and the SR Z class had excessive front and rear overhang on curves which also had a bearing on loading gauge acceptability. MN and rebuilt WC had some limitation, original WC could pretty much go anywhere on a main line. I don't mind answering specific queries but I'm not going to reproduce the whole document so don't even think of asking. Regards Martin Schools class route prohibitions.docx

Actually Mr Bradley only mentioned the bridge at Ford, river Adur was my addition which as Siberian Snooper has pointed out was wrong, it should be river Arun. Thanks for the correction. Martin

I think by the the Dec 1st date of the publication all of the King class had either been withdrawn or were limited to services that wouldn't or couldn't access the SR as it stood at the time, that is Padd - Wolverhampton. I may be wrong on this so don't quote me. I don't think Exeter was a boundary for SR services but in particular you have to be aware of what restriction a stretch of line imposes, it can be weight (axleload) or loading gauge or a combination. In the case of ex GWR locos width over the cylinders is a more critical factor than axle loading, something modern like a Schools will have a very high axle load but for obvious reasons isn't going to be troubled by platforms or bridges. In that respect a D15 is heavier than a T9 but lighter than a Schools and the D15s would probably have been okay however according to Bradley they were barred from the Brighton to Bournemouth, Cardiff and Plymouth services by the restrictions on the river Adur bridge at Ford. In the 1930s there were a couple at Salisbury and they got as far as Exeter, I can find no reference to them further west. The GWR heavy goods engines 28xx and 47xx were permitted west of Exeter by the SR route, the Manors not so, presumably width over cylinders again. I hope that answers your queries. Regards Martin

Ok Jack, I'm feeling generous so I have dug out the SR locomotive restriction book for Dec 62. Meldon viaduct itself wasn't particularly more onerous in restriction terms than other places on the route so this is based on the limits for Okehampton to Devonport Junction. Where Meldon has a specific influence I'll mention it. No locos coupled together are permitted to cross Meldon viaduct. Classes barred between Okehampton and Devonport Junction, W, K, G16, H16, MN, N15, S15, V, Clan, Brit, DoG, 9F, 15xx, 16xx, County, Castle, Grange, Manor, Black 5, B1, LMS & SR diesels, Metrovick Co-Bo, NB Warships. Max speed whole route 40mph. 8F and WD 2-8-0 Only permitted when SR/WR diversion arrangements in force and 5mph over Meldon viaduct, Std 5, Hall, 61xx 10mph over Meldon viaduct, Deltics A number of former GWR classes needed footsteps cut back and some local speed restrictions, 22xx, 43xx, 57xx, 45xx, 51xx, 61xx, 81xx. The Deltic seems wholly unlikely but that's the railways for you, basically if it existed in Dec 62 and it's not mentioned above then it was allowed between Okehampton and Plymouth without restriction other than overall line speed. That's it, a Happy New Year to you all when it arrives. Best wishes Martin

You all need to try "Grandtully". Martin

Yes, it's signal 5 on the diagram, typical and common in Scotland, Stevens flap ground signal. They were often painted white to help prevent staff tripping over them in the dark. Regards Martin

I've found a snippet on utube taken in 1959, worth a watch. link

You have to be a bit careful here, you shouldn't assume that the pulls are necessarily an accurate representation of how the interlocking is put together, for example with all levers normal to pull 12 you have to pull 3,4,7,10 in that order even though the actual locking is between 10 and 12. I think it likely that 6 locks 9 and of course the other way round and normal practice should be to return levers to normal so 5 as a pull between 4 and 6 ought not to happen. It will almost certainly be a 5 1/4" pitch Stevens frame so a shunt signal pull between isn't too much of an issue anyway. Regards Martin

It marginally simplifies the interlocking although I'm not entirely sure the pulls 12 and 13 on the diagram are 100% accurate, 12 should be 3,4,7,10 and 13 similarly 4,7,10. This assumes that 10 requires 7 and 7 requires 4 is actually correct. Regards Martin

There is also The Teign Valley Line by Peter Kay, published by Wild Swan. It is I think OOP but if you can get a sensibly priced copy it's very good. Regards Martin

Monkey At the time of the 1948 trials 33 was in LNER garter blue but with British Railways painted on the tender. She had also been renumbered 60033 by then. I have a feeling you might not be lucky with a factory model so adorned. Regards Martin

Gary I've got the Wagstaffe diagram for The Dyke dated circa 1922, I'll dig it out tomorrow. Regards Martin