bécasse

In the old days, entry to sidings remote from a signal box was usually controlled by an adjacent ground frame, released either electrically from a box or by a key, and there would have been no fixed signals at all. Even today it is still a possible arrangement.

Looking at that photo, the (dark) blue of the tricolour flag just impinges on the name board. That blue is clearly darker than the livery blue of the loco but when you compare the difference between those two blues and between the colour of the flag and the name board, it becomes obvious that the name board and the loco livery are quite different and I would say that the name board is green rather than blue.

Excellent. Almost certainly winter 1956-57. It wouldn't have been much different - some diesels, most carriages in maroon - when Keen House opened three years later.

For much of the pre-war period ex-LSWR T9 4-4-0s (but with 6-wheel tenders), shedded at Brighton, monopolised the Brighton-Bristol-Cardiff workings between Brighton and Salisbury.

However, the two routes highlighted in that official Brighton holiday guide were both served by regular timetabled trains. Rather oddly, the Brighton-Salisbury section of the Cardiff route was the regular haunt for several years in the early 1930s of the T9 class 313 which is pictured at Hatton in one of those Warwickshire Railways links.

I agree with Mike that the full run-off siding would be needed in this case. In similar situations that I was familiar with, the sand drag in front of the buffer stop extended the full width of the permanent way and fully covered the rails (although not by too much, there was apparently a fine margin between having enough sand to help bring an errant vehicle to a stand without doing too much damage, and having too much causing the errant vehicle take off like a plane). I suspect that the example illustrated where the sand was confined closely to the rails was a special case because there was insufficient space to provide a proper run-off track, but perhaps Mike might like to confirm that this wasn't yet another example of the GWR doing things differently to everyone else.

Not very common in Southern practice, the LNER was a fairly avid user of them, calling them derailers. The photo probably dates from the 1980s or possibly the late 1970s.

In which case it would almost certainly have used the coaching stock of the company (GWR or LMSR) where the traffic originated as the use of Southern stock would have entailed a lot of ecs running. There may, though, have been occasions where an odd Southern vehicle was used to strengthen a return formation or to replace a defective carriage.

Birmingham was hardly noted as a holiday destination for those living along the South Coast either. I don't deny that such holiday trains existed but, unlike the daily through trains which were usually (but not inevitably) worked alternate days with carriage sets from one company or the other, they were commonly worked using stock from the area where the traffic originated - as is seen in the photo of a train with GWR stock. Military, and naval, trains were used to move battalions or ship's companies and much of the traffic originated on the former LSWR, notably from around Salisbury Plain (where the Bulford branch had effectively been built to facilitate such traffic) and from Portsmouth. It was normal to use non-corridor stock for such trains with the first class reserved for officers and it was equally normal to use the stock of the originating company, ie the Southern - it is these two factors which strongly suggest a military or naval purpose for the train that was depicted. The other possibility is that it depicts a special excursion, advertised or privately sponsored, from Southern territory to an event in the West Midlands.

A minor correction to an old topic. The layout would not have appeared at Central Hall in 1968 as the Model Railway Club's Easter show that year (and in 1967) was held at the New Horticultural Hall, also in Westminster. The availability of that hall was governed by flower shows and it proved impossible to stage an Easter show there in 1969 forcing the MRC to move the date to August. That proved to be one of the best shows that the MRC had put on to date (and it was the 44th) but was a financial disaster. The MRC moved back to an Easter show at Central Hall in 1970 but, with the lower hall no longer available, it was necessarily rather smaller. It is perhaps interesting to recall that, with the show open five days 10.30-21.00, somewhere between 40 and 50 thousand people paid for admission.

Given the ex-LSWR non-corridor stock and the location, in my opinion they almost certainly depict military specials. Don't forget that the British Army occupied significant tracts of former LSWR territory and that that army moved around quite often for training purposes.

The Brighton Circle's website suggests that 4mm scale locomotive name transfers have been available from Emily Street Transfers in the past but are unlikely to still be so.

Looking at one of the aerial photos above, it seems that the non-fouling capacity of the platform was five U-vans (or Cavells as they were known to the staff), or four with a pilot loco attached. Anything more, attaching a loco for example, would foul the adjacent platform but not (within reason of course) the throat and so could be allowed, but normally only briefly. Does the BTF film "Terminus" provide any insight?

But that isn't the way that it is done, and even if the signal was back in rear of the points the diverging route signal arm would be a small "subsidiary route" one. In practice, that signal would be back beyond the tunnel with a track circuit locking the facing point lock on the point.

I have taken the liberty of adding some dimensions to your photo of the fixed distant signal. These are based on the LMSR standard but, so far as I can see and certainly within modelling limitations, these are the same for the LNER.

Looking at photos of 377S, and, although it had only been allocated that number in 1947, it retained it (rather than DS377) until at least 1954, it would appear that the numbers and letters, including "BRIGHTON WORKS", were all the same size and had a distinct shine. That suggests that they were "gold" rather than yellow, and yellow probably wouldn't have stood out sufficiently against the Brighton "yellow" paint scheme anyway. The originals were almost certainly sign written by hand.

That's incredibly useful - and answers the question of how the "green" spectacle was treated (no glass, no filler sheet). Thanks.

Or the Railway Magazine whose archive goes back to the nineteenth century.

Bognor Regis-Portsmouth Harbour was 12 and Littlehampton-Portsmouth & Southsea (LL) was 13. As is suggested above, I suspect that Bognor-Portsmouth was only possible in that direction although the Littlehampton-Portsmouth code certainly applied in both directions. I also suspect, despite the lack of a specific mention in the listings, that westbound trains from either branch terminating at Portsmouth & Southsea (LL) carried 13 and those going through to the Harbour 12.

Pre-1951 magazines are out of copyright, for published items it lasts for 70 years from the date of first publication.

Once the Southern Region was eventually persuaded to introduce AWS (it dragged its heels because of the considerable extent of double-yellow running on the Region), the magnets spread like wildfire. I can't actually remember now whether the 1930s Brighton line c/l signals got them or whether it was decided to defer until the ~1984 resignalling (I suspect not), but otherwise, by the late 1970s, if a line had c/l signals it had magnets. Furthermore, few Southern suburban termini received c/l signals before the mid-1970s, Bromley North in late 1961 may well have been the first (and an interesting semi-automatic installation at that) but after that little happened before the "big box" schemes and they had magnets from the start.

I have an Alan Gibson Workshop LMS straight tubular post signal that I intend some day to build as an LNE fixed distant. However, apart from knowing that LMS and LNE tubular post signals were siblings of a sort, and certainly closer siblings than the GW ones, I lack the knowledge to enlighten me on exactly what the differences are, particularly as I don't think that I have any detail drawings of the LNE version. Given your detailed knowledge of the real things, and your attempt to "easternise" the Ratio kit, it would be extremely helpful if you could point out what the principal differences are. (I am aware that tubular post fixed distants were comparatively rare as, being fixed, the pre-group or early-LNE wood post versions tended to survive well.)

Quite a remarkable track layout! However one simple thing that you have wrong is the platform numbering. The Southern had a standard practice for numbering platforms at terminal stations and that was that, looking from the concourse (or buffer stops if you like), platform 1 was always at the extreme left hand, the other platform numbers following in sequence. The principle was even followed at stations like London Bridge and Portsmouth & Southsea which had a mix of terminal and through platforms, and the Southern Railway renumbered the platforms at stations which hadn't previously conformed to the principle in the pre-grouping era.

Wonderful what some paint and weathering can do. All semblance to a dodgy London maisonette conversion has disappeared and miraculously it now looks just like the typically GNR "backyard" building that it actually was.

I agree that it is German and the loco looks as if it may be an 86, in which case it is standard gauge (and could be almost anywhere in a large country with, then, a large number of single track lines). I wonder whether the first vehicle is a "bogie bolster" conveying a portable hut for use at some works site.