Jump to content

The Stationmaster

RMweb Gold
  • Posts

    39,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    157

The Stationmaster last won the day on January 6

The Stationmaster had the most liked content!

About The Stationmaster

Profile Information

  • Interests
    A long and catholic interest in railways but especially operations and signalling and not put off by over 40 years in or associated with the industry in Britain and abroad. Also enjoy photography, some DIY, gardening and travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

The Stationmaster's Achievements

120.4k

Reputation

  1. I thought it was later, more like 1964/65 on the WR. In any event the colour reference in the General Appendix was not altered to yellow until 1968 and even after that there were still white painted cut-outs around.
  2. The mineral lines on this layout either come to a trap point or come into a siding so there is no reason at all why a train cannot approach on them while there is a passenger train standing in the platform - thus there is no direct comparison with the situation at Bodmin (irrespective of gradients). And of course in any case on a single line at a terminus, especially on GWR Block Regulations, you did not need a quarter mile Clearing Point in advance of the Home Signal unless it was an additional Home Signal (i.e = an outer Home Signal) provided for acceptance purposes. At Bodmin assistance in the rear was permitted for trains coming up the 1 in 40 from Boscarne Jcn so there would be no problem getting away (depending on the load) if a train was stopped at the Home Signal. The branch Home Signal at Bodmin was 240 yards from the signal box so, in view of the very steep rising gradient there might in any case have been a modified Clearing point for the the branch. without the Signal Box foot notes/Special instri uctions we simply don't know what might or might not have been permitted as an exception from the standard Regulations.
  3. You signal boxlocation would reduce the need for a Shunt Ahead subsidiary because any shunt move out onto the single line would start from somewhere fairly close to the signal box. So even if there area fair number of shunts the subsidiary signal might not have been considered necessary in a real world equivalent of your layout. And contrary to what we might think the GWR didn't spend good money on signals which it didn't think were essential
  4. Well done sir - congratulations. But do you know which is right and which is wrong and in what context?
  5. Neither, and ideally it should have an oil feeder on the shelf - I do believe ModelU have just released one .
  6. Nice pic to chose Neal. At least it hasn't got a speedo but it won't help in any other way I'm afraid
  7. But sure;luy an earluy appearance of a Manor class member in South Devon would be justifiable
  8. No - and that's got a couple of things no 'Manor' ever had so it's not a comparable photo
  9. Checking while I still have the book (as I've advertised it for sale). they ER Classification 8/4, ER Route Availability Group 4, and were allowed over almost all of the then surviving branch lines in ex GE territory in the November 1961 published book. as already noted I don't think they were allowed to wander too far once their foibles and unreliability was understood but I actually saw half the class in traffic including, I'm fairly sure, at least one of them in Acton Yard in their early days.
  10. Nice pic although I see the firebox door flap is not there but there appears tp be a slot in which it would fit (and it was on the CADs after the cab interior was sorted). And the 'deliberate mistake' (for some versions) is now well visible but it was going to be very difficult to do both versions correctly so it was left that way. However nobody has noticed it yet and they'll need to know quite a bit about certain details on GWR engines realise what it is - this week's RMweb quiz?
  11. Good idea that. As far as the GWR was concerned there are at least four dates which related to the grouping that I have traced so far. Two are in respect of grouping legislation and the other two are dates on which the actual grouping of companies into the GWR took place - one each in 1922 and 1923. Back to buckeyes.
  12. Letter N was at one time used for inter-regional trains to the North Eastern Region. apart from trip freights - which used what amounted to a route identifier or particular pattern of service (methodology here varied very much according to Regional practice and interpretation) freights were normally numbered in eithera. daily or weekly pattern of ascending numbers from the lowest number at teh start of the day - rather like the system used for Class 1 passenger trains) but sometimes groups of numbers were used for services over a particular route or running inter-Regionally. Again practice varied by many freights used the same number on every day they were booked to run during a week but the WR/LMR came across a problem with this on oil trains because if a train was heavily delayed you might end up with two e.g. 6m58s around at the both going to the same place but carrying different grades of product - which led to a rather embarrassing situation at Albion oil terminal in the West Midlands on one occasion when two days worth trains arrived in the wrong order carrying different product from each other. That resulted in that train being given several different numbers over the course of a week.
  13. The desert sand wore particularly badly although the golden ochre didn't seem to me to be much worse wearing that the dreadfully dreary maroon colour. As for comparisons between the two designs it id s perga haps telling that when the BRB M&EE carried a comparative costing and reliability study of the Brush Type against the D10XX it somehow failed to examine the situation and statistics at the only depot on BR which had both types on its maintenance allocation. It was suggested to me by a WR Divisional Locomotive Engineer (who had been an arrival from outside industry in the early years of dieselisation - from a company which built diesel electric locos) that reason Canton was not chosen for the study was because the D10XX were achieving far better availability and reliabillity figures than the Brush Type 4 and that its maintenance costs per loco were lower for the diesel hydraulic.
  14. In many respects it is a can of worms. The shaping of the 'points; on wooden arms was changed at some time - probably pre-1910 if not earlier - and in any case the wooden centre pivot arms appear not to have have come to a point (although maybe that was changed at some time too?). The two types of pressed steel arm appear to have differed from each other at the end of the point and it is possible that the design was also changed at some time on the second type of pressed steel arm (which had the turned over rim) in order to improve resistance to corrosion? Best answer is to check whichever orignal Reading drawings still remain.
×
×
  • Create New...