Aston On Clun. A forgotten Great Western outpost.

[Tortuga]

4 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

In my experience, to the point where you can't actually do your job on occasion.

 

For instance: "We've been ordered to measure up for a safety railing" 

Response: "You can't go up there, as there's no safety railing."

The old one had been deemed as potentially unsafe, so had been removed entirely.

About a month and £5000 worth of scaffolding later, it was  safe to go up and measure up for a new safety rail.

Reminds me of the time I was involved in the following safety related conversation;

Them: ”We’re concerned you might fall into the trial hole while it’s being dug”

Me: ”Well I usually stand well back while the hole is being dug, unless I need to take a depth measurement, in which case I indicate to the driver to stop before I go near the trial hole.”

Them: ”Could you wear a safety harness and line so you don’t fall in?”

Me: ”I could, but where do you propose to anchor it?”

Them: ”To the excavator?”

Me: ”You mean the one that’s digging the trial hole?”

Them: ”Uh, yes?”

Me: ”Meaning I’ll be within the red zone of the arm while he’s digging?”

Them: ”Uh, yes? Oh. No. That won’t work will it, um…”

Me: “…”

Them: “What if we fenced the hole off and attached you to the fence?”

Me: “That would be OK if I was trained and certified to use a harness and lifeline on this site, but I’m not.”

Them: “We could get one of our guys who is to watch the excavation…? and take measurements…? and take the samples?”

Me: “I’ll go wait in my van while you figure out if you need an external contractor on site at all.”

[Winslow Boy]

6 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Reminds me of the time I was involved in the following safety related conversation;

Them: ”We’re concerned you might fall into the trial hole while it’s being dug”

Me: ”Well I usually stand well back while the hole is being dug, unless I need to take a depth measurement, in which case I indicate to the driver to stop before I go near the trial hole.”

Them: ”Could you wear a safety harness and line so you don’t fall in?”

Me: ”I could, but where do you propose to anchor it?”

Them: ”To the excavator?”

Me: ”You mean the one that’s digging the trial hole?”

Them: ”Uh, yes?”

Me: ”Meaning I’ll be within the red zone of the arm while he’s digging?”

Them: ”Uh, yes? Oh. No. That won’t work will it, um…”

Me: “…”

Them: “What if we fenced the hole off and attached you to the fence?”

Me: “That would be OK if I was trained and certified to use a harness and lifeline on this site, but I’m not.”

Them: “We could get one of our guys who is to watch the excavation…? and take measurements…? and take the samples?”

Me: “I’ll go wait in my van while you figure out if you need an external contractor on site at all.”

 

Whereas what should have been said was the following;

 

Them: Have you ever fallen into the hole being dug?

 

You: No.

 

Them: Have you ever had an incident with the excavator digging the hole?

 

You: No.

 

Them: Fine can't see any problems then go ahead.

[Mike_Walker]

11 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Thanks, for some reason the tag where I pinched it from said Blue Anchor. It's a long time since I was at Didcot, I really ought to remedy that.

Why not join us on 14 August?

[Limpley Stoker]

RIP Bernard Cribbins who immortalised digging protocol.

[aardvark]

Congratulations on page 200!

 

[Graham T]

Yes indeed 🍻

[The Stationmaster]

Just for the record the standard level Crossing Order required the gates to be normally  closed to road in accordance with Section 17 of the 1845 Railway Clauses Act (and any subsequent legislation) and to completely fence the railway being only opened for road traffic when required.  Any variation from this required an official  order from the Board of Trade - and over the years its various successors until the legislation was varied to take account of the various automatic level crossings.

 

However a variation order was still required (and, I think, still is from what the relevant chap who dealt with this stuff in the ORR said a while back) if a gated level crossing is to have the gates normally across the railway.  Unless things have changed in the case of gates which do not completely fence the railway when open to road traffic cattle guards are normally required at the crossing.

 

Gate stop/lock levers have long been required to be interlocked with protecting signals however the long established practice for (pedestrian) wicket gates is that they are not interlocked with signals although no doubt the modern safety police are taking a different view on that.  Incidentally operating the wicket gate lock lever will normally exert sufficient force to close a wicket gate if it is standing open.

 

I believe Berwig might have been a block post manned by a Signalman as I understand that it was at one time the limit of passenger train working on the Minera branch (but the gates were probably hand swung, and not worked by a gate wheel, who ever controlled them).  So worked like the gates at Staverton Crossing on the former Ashburton branch (which is controlled by a ground frame).

 

(Past Level Crossings Asst BR WR)

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Just for the record the standard level Crossing Order required the gates to be normally  closed to road in accordance with Section 17 of the 1845 Railway Clauses Act

 

Good. I modelled the gates on our club layout closed to the road and have been resisting the suggestion they be made to work. I can now argue that I will only give thought to the idea of making the open when there is a actually a working model of road traffic to cross the line.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

the long established practice for (pedestrian) wicket gates is that they are not interlocked with signals although no doubt the modern safety police are taking a different view on that

Quite possibly, but if so, in response to a number of accidents involving idiots who don’t understand that (a) trains can’t swerve; (b) they can’t stop in a short distance; and (c) they can really hurt/main/kill. 
A consequence of point (a) is that passing trains can be close together, and peering around the back of the one you just got off to see if something is coming in the other direction on a double-track line is about as dangerous as stepping out into the four-foot to have a look.

Unfortunately, a sensible approach of “don’t be an idiot” has been replaced by “I am an ambulance-chaser lawyer, can I help you sue some organisation so that no one has to take personal blame?” which is why we get such nonsense.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Good. I modelled the gates on our club layout closed to the road and have been resisting the suggestion they be made to work. I can now argue that I will only give thought to the idea of making the open when there is a actually a working model of road traffic to cross the line.

I hope none of them are avid followers of this area of the forum, then!

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/228-radio-control/

[MrWolf]

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

Congratulations on page 200!

 

 

Thanks, it came up really fast! 

[MrWolf]

7 hours ago, Regularity said:

I hope none of them are avid followers of this area of the forum, then!

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/228-radio-control/

 

Hmm, I'm not sure how radio control is going to sit with the boobytraps I suspect the memsahib has installed around the place since we had that burglary.

[MrWolf]

In the true style of what @NHY 581refers to as "molluscesque progress" I have the centre of the crossing boards completed.

I extended them right through the crossing boards for the signal box, which seemed to make sense. There will be a gap between the outer ramp boards of the road crossing and that for the signalman and a short length of fence between it and the pedestrian crossing.

 

The reason for stopping work on the village buildings and getting busy with the crossing is that there's deliberately not a lot of room around it and getting the crossing built is the key to putting the road in, the last bit of baseboard level scenery and then installation of buildings, telephone poles, trees and a whole lot of other things that have been lurking in boxes.

[Siberian Snooper]

 

I have a query, can the facing point lock cover be swung open? From the angle of the photo, i can't tell whether, or not the board crossing covers the end of it.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Siberian Snooper

[MrWolf]

On 03/08/2022 at 08:07, Siberian Snooper said:

 

I have a query, can the facing point lock cover be swung open? From the angle of the photo, i can't tell whether, or not the board crossing covers the end of it.

 

 

 

Well spotted. Due to a lack of room, the foot crossing for the signal box is hard up against the FPL cover, when I installed it I did a little prototype checking and found that in such cases, the ramp at the board end is omitted.

 

 

The only part of the FPL cover that opens is the horizontal section, the ramps being fixed down at both ends.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by MrWolf

[MrWolf]

Having had a discussion on period appropriate motorcycles over on the Little Muddle thread, I've dug out the old DG Autocraft kit for a 1920s-1930s motorcycle combo.

I'd started cleaning off the castings and that's about as far as I'd got.

 

 

This kit dates back decades and whilst it's very basic, it does fill a definite gap in the market.

So what do you get? 

Three castings that comprise the bike, sidecar chassis and body.

Two castings of the rider and passenger.

 

Firstly the bike, looks wise, the saddle type fuel tank suggests 1927/8 or later, the type of forks make it pre 1948. Of course such machines were still plodding around well into the 1960s.

What needs attention apart from the removal of flash and moulding lines are:

* Reshape the saddle to a flat top, as is it looks like a bicycle seat.

* Make a rear mudguard stay/lifting handle from wire.

* The number plate/ rear light is just a blob, needs replacing.

* A front number plate needs making, these were a legal requirement until the early 70s.

There's plenty of other things that could be done if you are OCD enough!

 

The sidecar is typical 1930s, I might just put a Brooklands style fly screen on it.

 

The politest thing I can say of the figures is that they are very much of their time....

Back in the thirties, pretty much the only motorcyclists who wore pudding basin helmets were racing riders and that persisted well into the fifties.

[brumtb]

35 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Having had a discussion on period appropriate motorcycles over on the Little Muddle thread, I've dug out the old DG Autocraft kit for a 1920s-1930s motorcycle combo.

I'd started cleaning off the castings and that's about as far as I'd got.

 

 

This kit dates back decades and whilst it's very basic, it does fill a definite gap in the market.

So what do you get? 

Three castings that comprise the bike, sidecar chassis and body.

Two castings of the rider and passenger.

 

Firstly the bike, looks wise, the saddle type fuel tank suggests 1927/8 or later, the type of forks make it pre 1948. Of course such machines were still plodding around well into the 1960s.

What needs attention apart from the removal of flash and moulding lines are:

* Reshape the saddle to a flat top, as is it looks like a bicycle seat.

* Make a rear mudguard stay/lifting handle from wire.

* The number plate/ rear light is just a blob, needs replacing.

* A front number plate needs making, these were a legal requirement until the early 70s.

There's plenty of other things that could be done if you are OCD enough!

 

The sidecar is typical 1930s, I might just put a Brooklands style fly screen on it.

 

The politest thing I can say of the figures is that they are very much of their time....

Back in the thirties, pretty much the only motorcyclists who wore pudding basin helmets were racing riders and that persisted well into the fifties.

 

That takes me back, although mine were Velocettes.

Tony

[Graham T]

Perhaps you and Miss RRH should go and get yourselves scanned by Modelu?

[MrWolf]

17 minutes ago, brumtb said:

That takes me back, although mine were Velocettes.

Tony

 

That, along with The Sunbeam were always considered to be "gentleman's motorcycles".

Kudos 

 

There's a few improvements that can be made to the sidecar chassis, I've scribed some grips into the step and a tuck n roll upholstery into the seat. It will be visible when painted is why!

 

 

[JustinDean]

21 minutes ago, Graham T said:

Perhaps you and Miss RRH should go and get yourselves scanned by Modelu?

I’ve been pestering Alan (Modelu) to get on scanning some classic bikes for at least a year now!

There’s a definite lack of decent motorcycles for us modellers. 
 

Jay

[NHY 581]

A few years ago now I had that very same conversation, Jay. I  offered to put Alan in contact with friends of mine who have a  number of 1950s/60s motorcycles, including a number of 'everyday' models rather than exotica............

 

I sense it's not on the list of priorities.....despite the obvious gap in the market. 

 

 

Rob. 

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, Graham T said:

Perhaps you and Miss RRH should go and get yourselves scanned by Modelu?

 

I think that you are well aware that would get very silly very quickly! 🤪

[Graham T]

I see what you did there 🙂

 

Now getting flashes of "Kill Bill" for some reason...

[MrWolf]

12 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

A few years ago now I had that very same conversation, Jay. I  offered to put Alan in contact with friends of mine who have a  number of 1950s/60s motorcycles, including a number of 'everyday' models rather than exotica............

 

I sense it's not on the list of priorities.....despite the obvious gap in the market. 

 

 

Rob. 

 

As we've seen with the link to WD models on the Little Muddle thread, it's far from impossible. I'd buy some just to make up for a separate diorama.

[MrWolf]

1 minute ago, Graham T said:

I see what you did there 🙂

 

Now getting flashes of "Kill Bill" for some reason...

 

She did mention something about an empowering character.