Jump to content

iands

Members
  • Content Count

    1,556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,312 Excellent

About iands

Profile Information

  • Location
    YO8 post code, in the Lower Derwent Valley.
  • Interests
    Anything railways, with a slight bias towards infrastructure. A passing interest in other transport modes such as aircraft and shipping. Still a licensed Radio Amateur, but not done much in this field for a few years. Oh, and of course the family!

Recent Profile Visitors

673 profile views
  1. I did something similar when Flying Scotsman came back into traffic after its long lay-off for repairs etc. This was on the ECML just south of Ryther at a footbridge on Brackenhill Lane. Can't believe that was back on 25/2/2016 - five years ago!
  2. 1. By the 1960s concrete cable troughing was becoming more prevalent, but usually as a result of a resignalling scheme. As you are using colourlight signals on your layout, you can claim that cable troughing is being/has been installed for this resignalling scheme, and at the same time the resignalling scheme did away with existing pole routes. 2. Depends on what you want to do. As I say, concrete cable troughing is becoming more widely used. Many cable routes were buried, indicated by specific square concrete blocks placed above the cables (to a depth so they were flush with the f
  3. Finally a refurbed loco with the old NRN antenna removed - but why keep the "ground-plane" ?
  4. Many thanks for sharing your photos and memories with the rest of us Jamie. Most enjoyable.
  5. Hi Rich, I have both these publications, both are a very interesting read and a valuable record and reference source and I'm sure you will enjoy them. Once again, apologies to Peter for "thread wander".
  6. H Rich, I'm certain that the 'box pictured in the lower photo is the original Waterworks signal box, and not Leeman Road 'box. In the upper photo is the second Waterworks signal box. The train in the upper photo travelling towards Scarborough is going over Waterworks crossing. There is an interesting photo in the NERA publication Signalling Centres in the North East: No.1 York which shows both signal boxes either side of the Scarborough lines with a derailed loco on its side between both 'boxes. Quite remarkable that neither signal box suffered any damage as a result of the derail
  7. Interesting 2nd photo of Rhyl No.2 'box (with Bahamas in foreground). The 'box looks to be out-of-use, but is that a fire escape up the end wall?
  8. Hi Jamie, In the last photo of today's photos, I think the brightly painted 66 is actually heading north.
  9. As ever Mike, many thanks for providing clarity on the distinction between Regulations and Rules/Instructions.
  10. Indeed. I'm not sure how often the coach formations were changed, given that the service operated on a secondary main line. Would they be "captive" fixed-length rakes that operated the same service day-in, day-out, for months at a time with all coaches receiving the same maintenance inspections/repairs at the same time, or were the formations cobbled together on a weekly, or even daily, basis as stock became available? I suspect that if the latter, this would have more potential to "get it wrong" in terms of the stopping point if the number of coaches changed on a regular basis. I guess this l
  11. Thanks Mike. Reading various SAs again (on the Limit of Shunt site), I did notice an increase in the number of bogie coaches from 3 to 7 had occurred at some point in time, but unable to say when. Out of curiosity, I also had a quick look at The Railways Archive site, primarily to see if there was reference to any Regulations concerning the propelling of Passenger trains, particularly on NER territory. Couldn't find any Regs, but interestingly there was reference to an accident at Guisborough on 15th February 1900 which unfortunately resulted in 1 fatality and 6 injured. Alas there
  12. Another interesting point. Doing a bit more digging, it seems that the propelling moves on the branch have been authorised under NER Regulations as far back to at least 13th November 1911, so until the change in operation (introduction of DMUs?) and accompanying "resignalling" during the early 1960s, the evidence suggests the "propelling" method of operation on the branch was in use for at least 50 years. It would be interesting to see what, if any, BoT thoughts were on this type of operation. Time for yet more digging I think.
  13. Now that the RMweb collective has provided an answer to the original post, in doing so it has brought to light an interesting, and different, way of operating a short branch off a "main" line. Both passenger and freight being authorised "propelling" moves on and off the branch. Would be interesting to model that and see what reactions the nay-sayers would raise. If anyone is interested, on the Limit of Shunt website can be found the various Sectional Appendices - just search "Guisborough Station" to see what comes up.
  14. I might have found an answer. I looked back a bit earlier to a 1947 Sectional Appendix, and found the following statement, according to (c), it is a Stop Board: "GUISBOROUGH. PROPELLING OF PASSENGER TRAINS :—A marker board Is provided for the guidance of Drivers with the word SEVEN painted on it, and is situated near the Platform Starting signal. Passenger trains may be propelled between Guisborough Signal Box and Guisborough Station provided that :— The Guard rides in the leading vehicle, which must be one In which he has access to the automatic brake. The speed does n
  15. Another interesting point regarding possible OES. One problem I have is trying to fit 1950s/60s photos and SAs with an early 1900s track layout. Obviously much had changed in the intervening years. I have aske a question of someone I know involved with the NERA, so he may be able to help with some info.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.