bécasse

Gas masks apart (and I am actually surprised that more of the horses haven't got nose bags as it was an obvious way to keep them quiet while loading up), there are few clues to narrow down the date particularly as it is difficult to see in detail much of the clothing being worn. The lack of any motor vehicles suggests that it predates the end of the Great War when significant numbers of war surplus vehicles became available cheaply (and there was a shortage of horses), while the number of fit young-ish men standing around suggests that it isn't during the war itself. On the other hand, photographs of relatively mundane subjects such as this were relatively rare before the very final years of Victoria's reign, thus I would suggest that there is a rather better than evens chance that it dates from the Edwardian era, and there is nothing in what I can see of the clothing being worn to contradict that. A search of old trade directories for the two business names visible might narrow the date further although such firms often stayed in business for decades in those days.

Definitely BR days, the erstwhile LMS "reflective" running-in board would have been yellow with black lettering prior to nationalisation but has clearly been repainted LMR red with white lettering.

The Bodmin area saw two "interesting" passenger train crossing movements, at least in its later years, both at locations without crossing loops. Firstly the 4.43pm afternoon school train from Wadebridge to Bodmin General crossed the 4.35pm Bodmin Road to Padstow train at Boscarne Junction. I do know how that was done, the school train took the Bodmin North line and stopped clear of the junction until the other train had passed en route to Wadebridge, it then reversed back out on to the single line and reversed again to continue to Bodmin General. Secondly in the early evening at Bodmin General, the 6.15pm Bodmin Road to Padstow (WR) train (Bodmin General 6.25-6.35) crossed the 6.12pm Wadebridge to Bodmin Road (SR) train (Bodmin General 6.33-6.43) and I am not certain how that was done. The most likely scenario is that the two trains swapped locos with a further swap at Bodmin General occurring later in the evening. The timings are from summer 1963 and probably varied by a few minutes in other years.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that Stratford had habitually painted cab roofs white when preparing steam locomotives for Royal Train workings so doing the same for D5578 was only a continuation of a long(?) tradition. Oddly, it can be quite difficult to pick out the white roofs of steam locos in photos because the human eye assumes that is merely a trick of the light, and, of course, the roofs didn't stay white for long once the loco concerned returned to normal traffic.

The 1960 "change" was the near-universal introduction of the white-painted stencil signs which had, prior to that date, only generally appeared on former LNER routes. Prior to 1960, each of the "big four" had their own method of indicating permanent speed restrictions and then only exceptionally, normally relying on drivers' route knowledge (which, with few items of motive power equipped with speedometers, was at least realistic). The Southern's (very rare) permanent speed restriction signs were probably the most interesting, being very similar to the "T" termination of temporary speed restriction sign but actually displaying a back-lit cut-out "∆".

Actually, there would have been marginally less carpentry involved in the MR-style fencing with diagonal palings. Upright palings, as favoured by most railway companies, have to be finished with a ^ top in order to minimise the entry of rain along the grain and, in order to do so, two or three saw cuts are required, whereas diagonal palings are cut orthogonally, requiring only a single saw cut. Furthermore, except at either end of a run of fencing, diagonal palings are longer (by a √2:1 ratio) than upright ones and thus less palings (and their saw cuts) in total are required except in very short fencing runs.

The normal arrangement, at least in later years, was for both points of a crossover to be worked by the same lever although there could be situations where the layout on the ground, the interlocking requirements and/or the modus operandi of traffic working made separate levers desirable. In pregrouping times, working crossovers using two separate levers was more common, even near universal for some companies, the LNWR for example.

I am fairly certain that Slaters' fencing (4A10) goes the other way, but the real answer is that the actual MR fencing sometimes sloped one way and sometimes the other as a search of relevant photos will show. I don't know whether there was any significance in the direction of slope but it may well have been erected on site and thus the direction of slope merely reflected the foreman-of-the-day's instructions.

Half-a-century ago, Triang clerestory "GW" carriages provided an excellent base for modelling LBSC bogie stock, the low-arc roof being replicated using white plastikard rolled to shape.

The green Mk2 FKs on the Southern were all(?) loose vehicles although by the time they appeared the Southern's rigid coaching set arrangements were rapidly breaking down anyway as individual vehicles within sets were withdrawn because they needed un-authorised minor repairs. The Mk2 FKs certainly appeared in Bournemouth line trains since I remember riding in one with its then-novel opening door arrangement, however the main use of loose 1st class vehicles tended to be in Southampton Docks boat trains ("Ocean Liner Express") which were still running at the time and whose formation was generally made up to match the requirements of the day - hence it would not have been unusual to see one of those boat trains with several of the new Mk2 FKs in it, although another might well have had none. The same could apply to certain (horse)race trains, although there the need for significant 1st class accommodation was often met by placing antimacassars, carpets and ("for use of passengers travelling FIRST CLASS") window labels in 2nd class stock.

The nearer of the two visible painted numbers has the final figure obscured by the cab door handrail, but the final figure of the far one certainly seems to be a "2" and not a "1". Which rather begs the question of whether the marker light positions were the same on each end of the two locos. There is a Dick Riley photo of the up Newhaven boat train at Cooksbridge in 1954 which shows the lower marker light position on what is claimed to be 20002; although the painted number isn't visible, I knew Dick Riley and his photographic records were normally impeccable, he would have known which loco was booked for the train and they were used so intensively that swapping them over at short notice wasn't possible.

The Signalling Record Society have a signalling diagram for Hunstanton although I don't know for what date. https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/lner/E80.gif See the next post for how to find the page - I'm sorry about the blocked link, I did check that it worked but, as Flying Pig says, it seems to work once you have displayed it once so I got mislead!

There was (at least) one in the UK, installed during WWII at Northallerton, although the "crossing" angle and height difference differed from the one pictured.

The last phase I 4-CEP in service unrefurbished was 7106 (until July 1983), the last phase II unit 7175 (until May 1983) and the last 4-BEP reformed to 4-CEP was 7205 (until June 1983). Two phase-II 4-BEPs, 7018 and 7021, remained in service unrefurbished until September 1983.

I think that the simple answer is that the Ds were condemned because the Brighton-built Fairburn 2-6-4Ts that effectively replaced them were more versatile and not because their mechanical condition merited withdrawal. Presumably 31159, when withdrawn in November 1951, was still in excellent condition so far as steam raising was concerned and therefore the perfect candidate when a need for a stationary boiler arose at its parent shed. I think that it had been overhauled (and renumbered) in 1949 and so its boiler would still have been "in ticket" in 1959 particularly as the demands on a "stationary boiler" weren't that great, and, as you say, it does seem to have been cared for - it's regular fireman was probably a restricted duties man (eyesight quite possibly) who may well have regarded it as "his pet".

The RM article states that, as built in 1926, the building had neither mains water nor mains electricity. Checking with IWSR sources confirms that it remained oil lit until BR closure in 1966 but by then a ½" pipe supplied mains water. It is inconceivable that the SR would have installed earth closets in 1926, so there must have been a well with a (presumably hand) pump filling tanks in the roof space, thus providing a daily chore for the early turn porter-signalman. With an hourly passenger train service crossing at the station, but no goods facilities located there, the daily routine would have divided into regular half-hourly periods of relative activity and non-activity, providing plenty of scope for undertaking other tasks such as pumping. No wonder it was a regular winner of the Island's best-kept station seat.

Here is a copy of an Edwardian postcard view of the level crossing and keeper's cottage at Cavendish. It seems as if ivy could save you some work!

Here is an attached pdf of a set of drawings for a GER 1865-style crossing keeper's house which have been sitting in my files for several decades. The drawings aren't mine but there is no note of their origin and I can't now remember where they came from, so apologies to the copyright holder. It should be noted that these crossing keeper's houses were noticeably smaller than the remaining 1865-style buildings. GER"1865"CrossingKeeper'sHouse.pdf I am most grateful to Robock for subsequently identifying that these drawings are by Roger Farrant (I wonder if he is still with us?) and appeared in the September 1972 issue of Model Railways.

I couldn't find any photos either which might have suggested that it was pebble-dashed at any stage of its life and it certainly survived into the preservation era as plain brickwork. The article author does say that the drawing was "resurrected" long after he had measured up the building so his contemporary notes may have been illegible or misleading - I sometimes have the same problem with mine! Looking at the style of the brickwork, I rather wonder whether the porch was added as an ARP (mainly to preserve blackout, which was taken very seriously in the IoW, the island having been subject to a naval blackout throughout WWI) and so dates from just before WWII.

One oddity of the building at Havenstreet, to be borne in mind if using it as a base for a model of a typical small SR station of the mid-1920s, is that it was built too low. The architect's drawings used a datum of rail-level, as was (is?) commonplace with railway buildings, but the builder assumed, when laying the foundations, that the datum was ground level. I suspect that the latter was probably at least a foot and possibly 18" lower. It didn't matter that much - it didn't lead to flooding, for example - but I believe that some difficulties were experienced in laying out the point-rodding, and it cost the SR's clerk of works his job for failing to spot the error until too late.

I don't remember seeing any BR passenger stock (or NPCS) with painted numbers at the same physical end of the vehicle although I suppose that there may have been the odd vehicle where there was only one practical position available. However, given the observation that Swindon were very slow (by perhaps two years) to implement the RH end position instruction, I do just wonder whether it got misinterpreted somehow and that resulted in both painted numbers being applied at one physical end of passenger stock. There were, of course, quite a number of examples of wagon stock having different numbers applied on each side, one suspects because a stack of number plates for a rake of new wagons was applied in the same order on each side of the rake and the number painter of course just replicated what it said on the plates! It took TOPS implementation in the early 1970s to finally sort that one out.

I was able to answer my own question once I realised that the newly expanded Railway Modeller online archive includes an excellent word search facility (which even covers advertisements). The drawing and accompanying text appeared on pages 348 and 349 of the July 1999 issue - so actually only a little over twenty years ago rather than thirty.

Approximately thirty years ago the Railway Modeller published an excellent front and side elevation drawing, in colour, of Havenstreet station building in the Isle of Wight as built by the Southern Railway in 1926. Neither a quick search through my own large stack of back numbers nor a trawl of the internet were successful in finding details of which issue the drawing appeared in. Does anyone happen to know?

Exmouth Junction concrete works was rebuilt and enlarged in the late 1920s and I don't think that platform/platform-facing panels were produced there before the rebuilding was completed. There were quite a few Southern Railway platforms on the mainland that were cast in place in the same manner as the island platform at Havenstreet and the same method had been used by the LSWR since at least the turn of the century since the platforms on the Basingstoke & Alton Light Railway were built that way. Note incidentally that the design of the Exmouth Junction platform components were changed at about the time of nationalisation but probably just before. I suspect that the purpose was to reduce the amount of steel reinforcing (in short supply at the time) used in their manufacture.

A real rogues' gallery there!