Jump to content
 

5BarVT

RMweb Gold
  • Posts

    3,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 5BarVT

  1. 5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

    Observant readers may notice that EST&T now have a loco, but close inspection will reveal that it isn’t really a very appropriate one. I went to the shop to look at both 48DS and 88DS, and when I encountered the famous (to railway enthusiasts of a certain age) ‘Shunter 20’, it sort of leapt off the shelf into my hand. There really is no credible excuse for it being in Sussex, since it spent all its time at Reading, and as someone wrote in another thread “….. went nowhere, and lived under a bridge.”, but it was a loco I saw several times.

     

    IMG_0133.jpeg.f0f4df7839e684eea7cff30ff932a9ad.jpeg

    With my user name, I can do nothing but approve, having walked past it on many an occasion.

    Paul.

    • Round of applause 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

    Yep, that’s as I remember it, but not all the wagons were the same, there were many variations on a theme, and they leaked sand wherever they went!

     

    2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

    These days Network Rail have a premium track access charge for 'dirty wagons' that leak payload!

    Back in the early 80s, sand traffic was routed off the ECML onto the GN/GE route between Doncaster and Peterborough because leaking sand was causing too much delay on the main line.  (Got into the clamp lock point mechanisms and ground them away til they failed.)

    Paul.

    • Informative/Useful 5
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  3. 2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

    More to the point though, this is a tiny model railway, built using off-the shelf track, to fit particular size baseboard modules, and all the points are fixed down now, so it is what it is.

    More thinking aloud then!

    Really off the wall (and I’d want some input from other engineers and operators to confirm I’m not raving . . .) operate the loop trap off the FPL lever, just leaving three ends on the point lever.

    Or, more conventional, operate the siding traps off a separate lever and probably the single hand point too.  (Risk management - don’t want a guard/shunter forgetting and either running through traps after just swinging the hand points, or dropping off on mis set hand points after just operating the traps.)

    i.e. for modelling purposes, an extra lever on the GF.
    Paul.

    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  4. 22 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

    The closure of the Bourne End - High Wycombe line in 1970 led to the line from Maidenhead to Bourne end being worked by some sort of tablet/token in the 70s, which was placed by the crew into a cabinet at Bourne End to allow the points to be changed to reverse round to Marlow.  That also changed the point at the throat of Bourne End to allow two trains on the branch, one locked into the Bourne-End Marlow section, the other then able to run up from Maidenhead into the other platform at Bourne End.   The driver would take a tablet/token at Maidenhead released from Slough panel box.

    Electric token M’head to Bourne End.  That released the GF at Bourne End which in turn released the staff for Bourne End to Marlow.  With the train shut in to the Marlow section the token could be handed back and another train run down to Bourne End.

    That used to be the peak operation, off peak one train down to Marlow and all the way back.

    Paul.

    • Agree 1
    • Informative/Useful 3
  5. 15 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

    That diagram looks much better. The left-end formation could be worked from a single lever as a crossover, with the switch on the left and the three on the right working together.

    Technically, yes.

    With a trained signalman (in those days) and not too far from the box, no problem.

    But with a guard, even if they had more practice back in those days, I’m less sure.  The GF would be right on top of the points, so not a desperately long run, but still not convinced.

     

    I’m currently about 48 1/2 years ago reading the Oxford Techs fault book:

    Radley GF O.O.O.

    Guard instructed in use of ground frame. . . .

     

    But as well as keeping the signalling as simple as possible, the pway should also be the minimum required.

    Is there a need to both sand sidings to be accessed from the running line? Making the slip two single ends (or a Barry slip if you must), saves one of the traps.  A bit more simplification could get it down to one trap.

    Empties in the exchange road.  ES&T Propel fulls down onto empties, shunt out to 2nd siding, shunt fulls to exchange, back onto empties and take away.

    Likewise, the BR train - down into loop, run round and brake into platform (never shunt with a brake, spills the tea, spoils the fire) collect fulls into platform with brake, empties into exchange siding, back onto train in platform and away.  Obviously, not all achieved in one session.

     

    And I’m pleased that your shunting timetable doesn’t start until the passenger is back down at Berwick.

     

    Paul.

     

    • Like 3
    • Informative/Useful 2
  6. 19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

    Ah, yes.

     

    Had that been invented in c1935, or perhaps had it been used in Britain? I’ll have to see whether I can find out.

    As far as I know NSKT was a BR invention, and not that early.

    Shut in ground frames with an intermediate instrument were about earlier I think, but my assumption is that there would have been a signalman at each end.

    This century we did something clever at Stranraer to permit staff working most of the time but token working when two trains needed to be down there at the same time - that did require the box to be staffed for one shift a week.

     

    Thinking ‘out loud’, I could envisage a staff released by one lever at Berwick (for the EMU) (could be a mechanical release) interlocked with a separate lever for the shut in staff (released electrically).  Each reverse to release the staff and requiring staff in to be normalised.  The clever bit is allowing the release lever for the ‘shut in’ staff to be normalised if the staff was locked in at the Cuckmere end.

     

    From the guards point of view, this arrangement is very similar to a normal shut in GF, except that the staff is received from the signaller at Berwick and returned there later, but the GF operation is no different.

     

    Having seen examples of clever stuff that SR engineers did, this seems well within the sort of things they might have tried.

     

    Paul.

    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  7. 10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

    They also suggested that I should have used their own-brand RoS218.4.2 decoder (which appear to be a rebranded DCC Concepts Zen Black DCD-ZN218.6) but still haven't confirmed what the decoder settings should be to activate all the lighting functions. I'm still pursuing this with them.

    There is a ZN218.6 and a ZN218.4.2 and they are not the same (to do with whether the extra 2 outputs are logic level or not (‘12V’?). So I would imagine that the RoS is similar.  I haven’t managed to get all the lights to work on my SPCs and I suspect this might be something to do with it.

    Paul.

    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Friendly/supportive 1
  8. It was an Irn Bru advert mounted on the wall of (I think) Caledonian Chambers (part of Central Station) facing up Renfield St. in my time, it was a large clock with blue hands and orange numerals (and some Irn Bru advertising).  Very useful if you were running down Renfield St a bit tight for a train!

    Internet searches reveal previous incarnations of the advert, but I haven’t found one of the clock.

    After privatisation it was taken down, because (allegedly) no-one knew who could authorise it to remain. (I suspect the wall was ScotRail in Caley Chambers and the roof beneath it was whoever owned Central Hotel.). Strangely, it seemed no bother to find out the ownership to effect a new electronic advertising sign in its place . . .

    Paul.

    • Thanks 1
    • Informative/Useful 3
  9. On 14/03/2024 at 23:27, Peter Kazmierczak said:

    I've tried to do it so it looked like the LMS overpainted the "Midland"  bit of the lettering. What'd you think?

    Nicely done.  I rather like it.

    Paul.

  10. 13 hours ago, RailWest said:

    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'.

    Thank you - should have gone to . . .

    Now I look properly I can see that the shield is fixed to the post not the arm.

    I wonder if it’s the same Annett as in GF release instruments.

    12 hours ago, RailWest said:

    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 ?

    Yes, a plate in place of the green glass.

    Paul.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...