Prototype for everything corner.

[DK123GWR]

Stockton-on-Tees. No further comment.

Edited August 21, 2021 by DK123GWR

[melmerby]

Marshbrook LC

Is that even legal?

Why? Looking on Street view there seems to be no reason why a standard horizontal unit can't be used rather than the adapted traffic light.

 

Edit

Post took so long to save another apeared in between!

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by melmerby

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Marshbrook LC

Is that even legal?

Why? Looking on Street view there seems to be no reason why a standard horizontal unit can't be used rather than the adapted traffic light.

Interesting question, I found this

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/level_crossings_guidance.pdf

 

Which states (my bold):

 

2.26 Install all crossing equipment clear of the railway structure gauge and the edge of the carriageway.

 

2.285 In exceptional cases, for example where the central reservation is narrow or where, at very acute skew crossings, the duplicate primary road traffic light signal would encroach on the overhang clearance above the carriageway, a special design of the restricted width signal in accordance with the relevant Department for Transport’s drawing may be used. Using this restricted width signal requires special authorisation from the Department.

 

SImilarly in this document it refers to a narrow version subject to authorisation from the DfT, although the design is not as narrow

 

https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tal/2008/tal-1-08.pdf

 

My non-expert view is that a normal lights or even the NP 3015 version will extend into the carriageway so an extra narrow version was required, one assumes with authorisation. The pedestrian footway is marked on the other/right hand side/south side of the crossing.

 

Also note that the large rectangular structure to the left of the wigwag is a huge mirror (blue arrow) in front of the signal box. The box itself has the front windows covered over.....

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

 

My non-expert view is that a normal lights or even the NP 3015 version will extend into the carriageway so an extra narrow version was required, one assumes with authorisation. The pedestrian footway is marked on the other/right hand side/south side of the crossing.

 

 

If you look at this, the post the signal is mounted on looks to be about a metre from the marked carriageway edge:

 

The full size one the other side by the box has the post right on the carriageway edge i.e. more obstructive.

 

Edit

I notice in your picture the one next to the box has been offset, instead of being centrally placed as it was.

Edited August 21, 2021 by melmerby

[ruggedpeak]

18 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If you look at this, the post the signal is mounted on looks to be about a metre from the marked carriageway edge:

 

The full size one the other side by the box has the post right on the carriageway edge i.e. more obstructive.

 Interesting to note that the concrete bollard immediately below the lights has been removed and one of them has been left in the verge. Also note in the Google image that the footway is shown, whereas now it is on the other side. Looks to me that the crossing has been redesigned after the Google Streetview image was taken. In relation to the other side, the full size lights only extend over the revised footway, which the regs say is permissible as long as it is at least 2100mm over the footway.

 

 

Found this video from 2013, shows footway marked on both sides and bollards in place.

 

 

I reckon either the locals have 'redesigned the bollards themselves or someone either caught the bollards turning left (and probably put a claim in) and/or it was pushing traffic turning off the side road into the middle of the carriageway whilst going across the crossing, into oncoming traffic, which was not a good thing. Creating the scenario for collisions in the middle of the LC is not wise! Also looks like it had footway marked on both sides but one has been removed. Whether it is legal is still TBC!

Edited August 21, 2021 by ruggedpeak

[montyburns56]

Derby 1988 by Dave Peachey

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

Marshbrook LC

Is that even legal?

Why? Looking on Street view there seems to be no reason why a standard horizontal unit can't be used rather than the adapted traffic light.

 

 

The legality is questionable as the road sign regs don't allow any variation to the standard signal layout. However the level crossing guidelines seem to contradict this. 

In this case I think the problem is the pub building on the approach which obscures the sighting of the wigwag if the standard pattern is used. 

[WessexEclectic]

8 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Stockton-on-Tees. No further comment.

 

WTAF?.... Is it powered by compressed air or exhaust from the local council chambers?....

[DK123GWR]

8 hours ago, WessexEclectic said:

 

WTAF?.... Is it powered by compressed air or exhaust from the local council chambers?....

I haven't a clue. I'm staying in Middlesborough at the moment and my Dad took us to Stockton, refusing to tell us what we were there to do. Often, this is just in order to be annoying but I think his question 'how could I possibly describe that?' was a fair one in this case.

[2251]

13 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The legality is questionable as the road sign regs don't allow any variation to the standard signal layout. However the level crossing guidelines seem to contradict this. 

In this case I think the problem is the pub building on the approach which obscures the sighting of the wigwag if the standard pattern is used. 

 

There is a general power granted to the "relevant authority" (in England, the Secretary of State; in Wales, the Welsh Ministers; in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers) by section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to authorise "the erection or retention of a sign of another character" than that prescribed by the Regulations. 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64

 

Thus it is quite possible  (indeed, likely) that these non-standard signs were specially authorised, in which case they are legal.

 

I add that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State personally to give authorisation -- it will all be done in his name by the civil servants.

Edited August 22, 2021 by 2251

[montyburns56]

31450 Great Yarmouth 1990 by Mister C

 

 

[rodent279]

On 22/08/2021 at 19:37, montyburns56 said:

31450 Great Yarmouth 1990 by Mister C

 

 

Still with us, 31108 at Butterley*. Those aluminium window frames really didn't do anything to improve their looks did they?

*Actually, it was 31133/D5551, not 31108. WNXX doesn't format properly on my phone, and 31450 looked like it was previously 5526.

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by rodent279

[melmerby]

51 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Still with us, 31108 at Butterley. Those aluminium window frames really didn't do anything to improve their looks did they?

IMHO Not the best lookers to start with, in later times the all over yellow front didn't help.

Edited August 22, 2021 by melmerby

[newbryford]

On 21/08/2021 at 19:53, montyburns56 said:

Derby 1988 by Dave Peachey

 

 

 

Heading to/from Hamburg IVA88.

[russ p]

On 21/08/2021 at 19:53, montyburns56 said:

Derby 1988 by Dave Peachey

 

 

 

When this country used to build decent locos and trains and not import horrible plastic sh1te 

[Steven B]

12 hours ago, russ p said:

 

When this country used to build decent locos and trains and not import horrible plastic sh1te 

 

Did any designs that went to IVA88 result in export orders?

 

I struggle to understand why a modern British designed and built loco or unit would be any different from what's being imported (either ready built or as flat-pack)? The world's moved on from the steam, steel and decent upholstery we used to build the British Empire with.

 

British built locos and units included Class 17s, and Pacers. Neither were much to write home about. We also managed to build trains that were insulated with asbestos and had problems with doors not closing, or opening whilst the train was moving.

 

Steven B

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, Steven B said:

 

Did any designs that went to IVA88 result in export orders?

 

I struggle to understand why a modern British designed and built loco or unit would be any different from what's being imported (either ready built or as flat-pack)? The world's moved on from the steam, steel and decent upholstery we used to build the British Empire with.

 

British built locos and units included Class 17s, and Pacers. Neither were much to write home about. We also managed to build trains that were insulated with asbestos and had problems with doors not closing, or opening whilst the train was moving.

 

Steven B

Indeed. We've built our fair share of plastic s***e.

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

Did any designs that went to IVA88 result in export orders?

 

I struggle to understand why a modern British designed and built loco or unit would be any different from what's being imported (either ready built or as flat-pack)? The world's moved on from the steam, steel and decent upholstery we used to build the British Empire with.

 

British built locos and units included Class 17s, and Pacers. Neither were much to write home about. We also managed to build trains that were insulated with asbestos and had problems with doors not closing, or opening whilst the train was moving.

 

Steven B

IMHO the UK railway industry really got itself lost after the war.

We carried on as before, everyone else changed. The US was well in front on introducing diesel traction.

We had one or two bright spots. The Deltic was pretty good but the engine was far too complicated.

[Mol_PMB]

 

 

Back on topic (and don't forget that most of our modern sh1te plastic is built in the UK too - Newport,  Newton Aycliffe, Litchurch Lane etc)

 

We've had a pair of 20s elephant-fashion, but here's a pair coupled cab-to-cab:

Again, from the wonderful resource of Ernie of Flickr.

[montyburns56]

"The maroon set of coaches were to be used in the film The Dresser starring Tom Courtney and Albert Finney . Scenes were shot at York Station and 46229 and 5407 were the locos used."

 

York station 1984 by George Woods

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

One of the Derby based excursion sets survived in maroon until surprisingly late. Is this it, or was this an early heritage re-paint? 

[Wickham Green too]

Of course the US was well in front - they had the wells ( oil ) ..... and we were broke.

[Wickham Green too]

10 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

One of the Derby based excursion sets survived in maroon until surprisingly late. Is this it, or was this an early heritage re-paint? 

There's some sort of non-standard marking below the windows - and no signs of numbers in the normal place ....... so I doubt it's Derby's set.

[russ p]

4 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

 

 

Back on topic (and don't forget that most of our modern sh1te plastic is built in the UK too - Newport,  Newton Aycliffe, Litchurch Lane etc)

 

We've had a pair of 20s elephant-fashion, but here's a pair coupled cab-to-cab:

Again, from the wonderful resource of Ernie of Flickr.

 

Screwed together in most cases over here

The Derby built stuff as at least evolved from the BREL stuff to a degree and to be fair aren't actually that bad except for the seating 

 

[russ p]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

There's some sort of non-standard marking below the windows - and no signs of numbers in the normal place ....... so I doubt it's Derby's set.

 

Is that the so called Cheryl and beryl set that was used on something to do with Sellafield and upset BNFL as the thought it could be mistaken for Chernobyl !!

One thing though that train is being shunted unfitted as the Vac pipe is off on the loco