Martin Shaw
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Martin Shaw
-
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
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I think by the the Dec 1st date of the publication all of the King class had either been withdrawn or were limited to services that wouldn't or couldn't access the SR as it stood at the time, that is Padd - Wolverhampton.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
-
1
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
-
You all need to try "Grandtully".
Martin
-
18 hours ago, aardvark said:
Would anyone care to comment as to what the white object is in the foreground at 1:35?
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-
1
-
2
-
-
I've found a snippet on utube taken in 1959, worth a watch.
link
-
8
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:
I had wondered that, but if that were the case I expected to see 12 just requiring 3 & 10 and 13 just requiring 10 (matching the actual interlocking).
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
-
2
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:
I have a question for the signalling experts though. Why does 7 require 4 and 10 require 7?
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
-
2
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
Gary
I've got the Wagstaffe diagram for The Dyke dated circa 1922, I'll dig it out tomorrow.
Regards
Martin
-
1
-
-
Mike
Bit of a sweeping generalisation that inevitably leaves it open to contradiction and I did pick something of an arbitrary date, but you will realise I was talking about the SR which in my days around there during the 70s was largely bereft of white bands. There were inevitably variations when furriners got involved. I would imagine that the introduction of a UK wide set of signalling standards would have brought the Southern in line with lesser railways, anyone care to put a date to that. In any case it wouldn't apply to the OP set as it is in 1936.
Gary
Which protoype are you basing your plan on?
Regards
Martin
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Matloughe said:
I wondered if there would be some sort of audible warning for when a train came onto the diagram apart from "TES" being sent from the previous box.
More than likely that TES would be the only indication of a train approaching. TC's are extremely unlikely. If operationally some need had been demonstrated a treadle might have been used, but even that's a rare occurrence.
1 hour ago, Matloughe said:Would the combined FPL+Point lever not bee in use by the LBSCR/SR at this time - doesn't bother me if not just my research suggested one lever would be suitable for this job - by making #9 & #5 switch together as a crossover does that mean #9 would gain a FPL as well?
This matter cropped up on another thread, maybe Hayling Island, so I did some research. The LBSC did occasionally fit EFPL's but I could only find a handful off instances across the whole of the LBSC, so I think separate FPL's would be the correct approach. You do not need an FPL on facing points not traversed by pasenger trains.
1 hour ago, Matloughe said:If there is no advanced starter would both #15 & #16 need to be released by the adjacent box? It would preclude shunting out of either platform road unless a shunt signal/disc is provided whereas the Advanced Starter would allow shunting but conversely needs the outer home to protect it.
In a word, no. The interlinking of block controls and starting signal locks is a relatively modern thing and many starting signals remained free to pull at anytime long into the BR era, indeed often to closing of the line. Any effort to provide this would initially have been on most important lines first. There is also the method of control of the single line that affects this. Typically TS&T makes it economically difficult. You can have an advanced starter without an outer home , the only impact is that it restricts the acceptance of trains. IF the timetable is such that this is a problem then the railway would have looked at the situation from a completely difficult perspective anyway. I think it unlikely that a single track railway in Brighton territory in 1936 would have been overly busy.
Regards
Martin
PS A white band on a starting signal lever was an LMS creation and wasn't found south of the river until perhaps the 80s.
-
2
-
-
Gary
For a single line terminus in 1936, essentially as installed by the LBSCR, you have provided a level of sophistication that might have applied some time in the BR era.
There would be no track circuits.
The outer home and advanced starter are very unlikely
Points 5 & 6 would have separate FPL levers, as you currently have them it implies motor points.
Points 5 & 9 should work as a crossover on one lever
Points 11A & 11B are reversed, the A end is nearest to the box but in 1936 that terminology wasn't used so just plain 11 points.
Signals 13 & 14 aren't likely.
Points 9 need a signal protecting them from the loop, could well be a yellow arm as suggested above and therefore 10 is probably redundant.
Calling on arm is unlikely
The distant signal may well have worked originally but the SR could equally well have "fixed" it
This may at first seem harsh but by your own suggestion it is over signalled and allowing for the fact that it is yours to do as you please I would suggest that my thoughts are nearer what might have existed.
Kind regards
Martin
-
3
-
1
-
-
The Bo'ness van was in seasonal use until relatively recently. The boiler inspector condemned the boiler controls, principally in that there was no pre-ignition purge of the combustion chamber and the general age of the electrical components, it was also all 110v DC and therefore difficult to renew bits individually. A scheme to re-engineer said electrics to AC control was considered but the cost was significant and four weekends use a year to pre heat Santa trains didn't justify the expenditure.
Regards
Martin
-
2
-
-
Chris
The only pics I've seen show the single column but obviously this isn't definitive.
Martin
-
1
-
-
Here you are, I found it however there are no dimensions but someone in the past has helpfully added pencil notes, height 5' 0", width 1' 4", depth 1' 3", weight 3cwt 2 qrs or 178kg if you prefer. Note that the illustration is not exactly the pattern that the Brighton used which had the bell/staff selector on the rh dial, but otherwise the same. The block telephone was an option again which the Brighton didn't use AFAIK.
Martin
-
1
-
-
Nick
Most if not all single line Brighton branches would have been equipped with ETS instruments that they retained until closure and it isn't quite as high a mileage as you might imagine. Horsted Keynes - Culver Junction, Three Bridges - Ashurst Junction, Redgate Mill Junction - Polegate, Peasmarsh Junction - Christ's Hospital, Deptford Wharf branch and as Becasse mentioned West Croydon - Mitcham Junction. There will be others that don't immediately come to mind. Somewhere I have an RSCo catalogue pre 1923 that has a diagram of an ETS instrument and may well have dimensions. I'll find it and scan or phot it.
Regards
martin
-
1
-
1
-
-
Jim is quite correct. In 1968 six BGs 80915/18/22/25/42/51 were converted to class 499 numbered 68201-6. By 1975 they were stored before further departmental use. Initially they were maroon and then blue/grey. I can remember the Golden Arrow in the days of class 71 haulage and that certainly had a luggage van of some sort in it as well as Pullmans and green Mk1s.
Regards
Martin
-
1
-
-
There was in today's paper an obituary for Mr O'Rahilly. If your under 50 the name might well not mean anything but if your an oldie, like me, he was the man who founded Radio Caroline in 1964 and so changed the sound of pop music radio in Britain. In my opinion nothing since has sounded so good and despite the BBC having had 53 years to catch up, they still haven't, and as for commercial radio! Either way RIP Ronan and thank you.
-
2
-
5
-
1
-
-
I looked up Haresnape which is about the best reference I've seen to sorting out colours of things. The blue livery was applied from 1949 to express passenger locos of 7P power classification, 8P didn't then exist, and wheel size seems irrelevant. This included Princess Royal and Duchess. Gresley A1,A3,A4,A10 & W1, King, Merchant Navy. Obviously enough not all of these were painted blue and there will have been the odd interloper as mentioned above that shouldn't have had it.
I've just noticed something odd, Haresnape makes reference to both A1 and A10, now the A10 was a reclassification of the remaining A1s that hadn't been converted to A3 in 1945 so that Thompson's rebuild of Great Northern could be an A1. It seems it was intended that it should also be blue, in fact the RCTS shows it in blue from Jan 50 until Aug 52.
Regards
Martin
Simple Signalling/Section Question - Single Track Line
in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure
Posted · Edited by Martin Shaw
spelling
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