S&DJR Level-Crossings

[RailWest]

Some while ago I started to write a new web-page about the signalling arrangements at S&DJR level-crossings.

 

This page was conceived as a ‘quick job’ to fill in some time during the first pandemic ‘lock-down’, but I doubt now whether it will get finished before the end of next lock-down! Originally it was intended to be just a Register of all the crossings and their signalling styles, but ironically that is the one part not yet done, as it became apparent that a lot of background information was needed first about the general arrangement for working level-crossings and that has taken a lot of time to put together.

 

The initial version of the page is now available here https://tinyurl.com/yy3ocdqp .  There are still some gaps in the coverage and I’m not entirely satisfied with some parts of the descriptive information, but hopefully it may prove of interest while I continue to work on a later edition. Comments and corrections – and useful photographs! – are always welcome.

 

Chris

[bécasse]

Interesting Chris. 

 

A couple of comments:

 

S&DJR drawing no. 1009 would have been on linen and, like other signalling drawings, specifically intended to be updated as when required by scratching off outdated information and replacing it with current data. Sometimes the scratched-off data could be seen as "ghosts" on dyeline prints, sometimes it just disappeared, it depended on how good the draughtsman (or draughtswoman) was. It is surprising just how many times a linen drawing could be altered in this way before it needed to replaced - and I have seen patched examples. The result of this is that the information included in such a drawing, other than when it was first created, necessarily represented the current situation at each location rather than the situation that existed when the drawing was first created.

 

I suspect that crossing gate targets with the white surround date from the introduction of enamelled steel plate, rather than painted wooden, targets. I am not sure when that was and it may have been a Southern Railway introduction (paralleling signal arms), it certainly became standard SR practice.

[RailWest]

26 minutes ago, bécasse said:

S&DJR drawing no. 1009 would have been on linen and, like other signalling drawings, specifically intended to be updated as when required by scratching off outdated information and replacing it with current data. Sometimes the scratched-off data could be seen as "ghosts" on dyeline prints, sometimes it just disappeared, it depended on how good the draughtsman (or draughtswoman) was. It is surprising just how many times a linen drawing could be altered in this way before it needed to replaced - and I have seen patched examples. The result of this is that the information included in such a drawing, other than when it was first created, necessarily represented the current situation at each location rather than the situation that existed when the drawing was first created.

 

Certainly true for many signal-box diagrams etc which I have seen. Quite by chance, I've been looking recently at a curious situation where a BR-era diagram shows residual traces of something that was altered long before an earlier L&SWR version of the diagram on which no trace of the alteration appears at all !

 

However my impression is that this specific drawing 1009, given its title, was produced at a later date (for reasons unknown) specifically as a record of an historical situation, so any updating to reflect later upgrades IMHO would have negated its purpose at the time.

[PenrithBeacon]

5 minutes ago, RailWest said:

Certainly true for many signal-box diagrams etc which I have seen. Quite by chance, I've been looking recently at a curious situation where a BR-era diagram shows residual traces of something that was altered long before an earlier L&SWR version of the diagram on which no trace of the alteration appears at all !

 

However my impression is that this specific drawing 1009, given its title, was produced at a later date (for reasons unknown) specifically as a record of an historical situation, so any updating to reflect later upgrades IMHO would have negated its purpose at the time.

I have come across this situation with my research into the CLC. The explanation there is that multiple copies were made for distribution, those to the local office were subject to change while those sent to head office were kept as pristine reference copies. This might not apply the the owning companies of the S&DJR of course, but I think it probably does.

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

Certainly true for many signal-box diagrams etc which I have seen. Quite by chance, I've been looking recently at a curious situation where a BR-era diagram shows residual traces of something that was altered long before an earlier L&SWR version of the diagram on which no trace of the alteration appears at all !

 

However my impression is that this specific drawing 1009, given its title, was produced at a later date (for reasons unknown) specifically as a record of an historical situation, so any updating to reflect later upgrades IMHO would have negated its purpose at the time.

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to suggest that in the case of the District Engineer Exeter separate copies of linens were held at both Wimbledon and Exeter (the original was probably done at Wimbledon with a tracing sent to Exeter) and that they were subsequently updated quite separately with Exeter's tracing reflecting any actual alterations made on the ground while Wimbledon's would incorporate standard updates like titles but would be far more "hit and miss" in respect of alterations on the ground. If that is true for DE Exeter it is likely to be even more true for DE Glastonbury while it remained a separate organisation.

 

However, are you sure that you haven't misinterpreted the purpose of drawing 1009. Just producing a significant drawing for historical purposes seems unlikely to me, particularly given the joint ownership of the S&DJR where I always get the impression that the owners kept a very careful eye on what the other was spending as a cost against the joint receipts.

[down the sdjr]

On 31/10/2020 at 20:34, RailWest said:

The initial version of the page is now available here https://tinyurl.com/yy3ocdqp .  There are still some gaps in the coverage and I’m not entirely satisfied with some parts of the descriptive information, but hopefully it may prove of interest while I continue to work on a later edition. Comments and corrections – and useful photographs! – are always welcome.

Very interesting thank you.

I am working on a model of Henstridge and now after reading your page realise my up and down signals would have been removed long before the period i am modelling.

I have included the level crossing in the model, just 2 gates that i now know would have been padlocked up most of the time. I presume the GF would have been in the station building.

Paul.

[RailWest]

Yes, the GF was in the station building.

If you say what period you are modelling I /may/ be able to give more details about what was left of the signalling at the time.

[down the sdjr]

2 hours ago, RailWest said:

Yes, the GF was in the station building.

If you say what period you are modelling I /may/ be able to give more details about what was left of the signalling at the time.

Hi Railwest, Thats very kind of you.

Its set in 1955, rock around the clock and all that.

[RailWest]

All the stop and shunt signals were abolished in June 1952.

 

By mid-1956 the distant signal arms had been replaced by white marker lights and the gate lock had been abolished. There is circumstance evidence that this work was done in mid/late 1955.

 

After that, all that was left worked from the GF were the FPL (5) and Points (7).

[down the sdjr]

Thank you.

I assume the 2 turnouts switched from the same lever with the lock on the mainline?

So i could get away with my semiphore signals as long as the leaves on the trees are still green?

Really informative thanks Railwest.

[RailWest]

5 minutes ago, down the sdjr said:

I assume the 2 turnouts switched from the same lever with the lock on the mainline?

 

Yes