Nutford

Ah - may have solved that one...

Well - I did wonder something like that Wheatley, but they seem to be located right next to the tracks presumably for a purpose.... but now I am thinking the distance from the rails would make sense if that was to load things ONTO wagons rather than unload. Ash? Sawdust?... something kept loose presumably... maybe steel offcuts indeed.... which could account for the (previous) existence of a grab crane.... In fact if there any pic sleuths out there with knowledge of this kind of stuff, how about this from the same pic.... Thought I had this sussed, A-frame on the end of a gantry crane. Except the way I'm looking at it the crane would just run along the yard, and not over the rail track. Odd to say the least. Or am I viewing it wrong? Could do with somebody from photo-recon lol!

This is a pic of a goods siding at Ripon, as it was in 1930. To put it into context, the yard at the top of the pic is a timber yard, to the right a steel fabricators. I had initially thought just coal or mineral bins, but then started to think that they are too far from the track for that. And probably too low. Yet near enough to the track to imply loading/unloading to wagons. There seems to be some sort of base next to them and perhaps associated with them, which I did wonder might originally have been the base for some sort of grab or crane - not there in the pic, obviously. But still struggling to think what for. Any ideas? Thanks guys.

Luckily my maths was better than my Latin. Which isn't saying much....

Well with many thanks to John at Walsworth, who very kindly sent me the photo below. QED, as I used to have to put on the end of solved maths questions - whatever it meant...

Yep - I agree. But - I've just noticed some of the blurb from 'The Engineer' addresses the issue of tanks: 'Two water tanks, each of 7 gallons, are built into the framing'. Not a water tank then. 'the car carries 15 gallons of water and 20 gallons of petrol' Whatever that tank is on Sandy's model, if it was 6'6 long and 20" diameter, (which it would roughly scale out at from the pic I think) the capacity would be about 17 gallons. So maybe it is indeed the 20 gallon petrol tank....

Just to add to the above; the NER diagram of the 1912 larger cars shows the petrol tank to be under a corner table; and it's stated the smaller car had a 20 gallon petrol tank. It would anyway be odd for the smaller car to have a much larger petrol tank, so wondering if yours is a water tank? Attached another photo. Superficially this seems from the location of the box under the underframe to be the other side of 3711/23711, so ruling out any large tank; but it's also possible I guess that it's the same side and the box has been moved....

Sandy - going back to the NER petrol car - very much looking forward to some more pics! But a query; your model has a very prominent petrol ? tank on one side. This isn't shown on the plans in 'The Engineer' of the time. Nor in the NER Diagram no.190. The classic photo of the car is from the 'other' side, and although you can't see the tank under the frame I'm not sure it would be visible anyway. The NER diagram is simplified and may simply omit it, but the one from The Engineer is more detailed and appears to purport to show a cross-section down the vehicle, when it would certainly be visible. There is a clearer pic of the later 1912 car, which is to a different albeit broadly similar design, but certainly does not have any large under-frame tank. Do you have a reference/pic for this tank, as I'm also intending to model it.

Thanks guys. Yep, all that makes sense. Trouble with signals - especially NER signals! - is when you look at it and think 'yes, that makes logical sense if that signal is for xyz' - I immediately assume it therefore can't be for that and must be for something daft! But my layout will be fully computer-controlled, including the signals, and although I'm not bothered about the finer points of modelling detail, since I have photos of them, and where they were, I feel I have to make reasonable effort to make them at least look basically like the ones that were 'there', and perhaps more to the point look as if they are doing whatever it was they were supposed to do!

Hi - couple of quick signalling questions (proving how little I know about signals!) 1) Back in the day of the LNER, how were semaphore distant signals set for junctions? Modern practice I believe has the distant at 'on' if the train is diverging (regardless of whether the relevant stop signals are on or off), plus of course if staying on the mainline and a stop signal was ahead. Is that essentially how it was back in the 1930s? 2) In the picture below, you will see a signal to the left of the bridge. This (I believe 99%) controlled access from the branch line to Masham onto the main line - though can't have been very visible behind the footbridge! What I am unsure of is the subsidiary signal. My GUESS is this was a shunting signal and controlled a movement into the coal yard. This could only be used by driving a train engine-first down into the siding/headshunt, then reversing onto the coal drops. So to access them from the branch necessitated a short distance of 'wrong line' working. The map shows what I mean (hopefully). If so, would this from the front just be a smaller ordinary signal, or something different? I do have a signal diagram for Melmerby, but the signals there seem to have been changed almost daily judging from photos - rare to get two photos showing the same arrangement - so not useful here I'm afraid. Thanks in advance for any advice....

The 4 and the 32..... right... ah there they are! Should have gone to Specsavers... Thanks guys.

Ah yes - I was thinking the signal plan showed just the single lever number for that signal so how could that work; but it isn't the proper signal plan, just some notes made some time later by an ex-signalman, so there may well have been a second lever to work the other arm

Ah. So obvious when you put it like that! And have the added advantage of knowing what you're talking about! Though that raises another question; did one lever work both signals? Fine as an 'either/or', but how did you set both to 'stop' if there was a train in the platform?

Indeed Andy, I think we may have our answer. Many thanks Beast - if I can call you that when you've just helped me out lol!

Yep, good point Andy. The other reason in favour of this argument is if that ISN'T for the goods line, then where IS there a main signal (ie. not a ground signal) to control access to the main-line. .. But have now read Beast's post, which answers that....