bécasse

There were a handful of examples of "repeater" shunt dollies around the railway network but they were very, very rare. There were far more places where no shunt dolly at all was provided for a shunt from a running line to a siding or another running line and the move was authorised by hand signals from the signalman. Shunt dollies were always provided at the exit from a siding to a running line unless that exit was controlled by an immediately adjacent ground frame (not signal box).

I had known the late Adrian Swain since c1970 (even before he started ABS Models) and he was always meticulous in his researches, so if said something in the instructions or incorporated something in the kit he would have had good reason for doing so. That doesn't always mean it was right, even the best sources can mislead, but it is a reasonable presumption that if something is incorporated in one of his kits it was also incorporated in at least some of the prototype vehicles that the constructed kit is intended to portray.

I am remained of a story that came out of the OURS many years ago. Someone with contacts managed to arrange a tour of the then new Underground depot at Upminster (which I wasn't on, I should add). As part of their tour they had cross the tracks at the throat of the depot, their guide checked that no movements were due and then explained how to cross stepping from rail to rail. When they safely reached the far side, one of the learned visitors mentioned that the technique expounded by the guide was much easier than he had anticipated but questioned how they crossed when the current was on (since the rails they had trodden on included the two raised live rails). The guide replied "What do you mean, what do we when the current is on, the current is on!" Quite an interesting exposé of the fact that the voltage on LT's conductor rails, one nominally positive, the other nominally negative, floated, although apparently at that time more so in the depot than on running lines.

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

I've posted this elsewhere in the past .... but ................

 

Uckfield : 5/10/11

You were clearly unaware that some bright spark in Network Rail thought that, because two-rail electrification has long been the norm for model railways, it ought to be tried on the real railway too.

Those bits of Hither Green Sorting Sidings which received overhead "tramway" wires had been fully wired on the down side by the beginning of 1959 and on the up side by the time the Continental Freight Depot opened in 1960. Only a very limited area on the down side at the Grove Park end received the wiring but it was usual to find several E5000s sitting there with their pans up during the day. Although I lived at Hither Green this was the only time that I ever saw these locos with their pans up - and I never did see one move other than when taking the juice from the third rail. Obviously though there were plenty of occasions when they took power from the overhead and there was at least one long stretch - Mr. Angerstein's Railway at Charlton was wired overhead throughout.

One of the Southern Region MLVs (9004) was repainted into Royal Mail colours in November 1988 and a second followed very briefly in February 1989. Following a robbery in early March 1989 both were quickly repainted into NSE colours so that it wasn't obvious that they were carrying mail.

Staples can be a useful source. I have collected a considerable number in a surprisingly large range of sizes over the years, culled from magazines and advertising booklets before they are added to the "recycling" bin. They can usually be pressed in a vice to remove their inherent bends, they are robust for their size and they solder well. New unused ones can be useful too.

I wasn't certain, other than knowing that there definitely was a Swanage portion for most of the life of the train. Splitting at Wareham and adding the through portion to the branch train, even if that were a pull&push motor train, would have been the normal Southern practice for single track branches, but it is possible that it was split off at Bournemouth Central, in which case extra carriages for local traffic would almost certainly have been added.

I no longer have timetables for that period so I can't check.

That is so nice (for an enterprising reworking of another model) that I anticipate an early announcement from Graham Farish that they intend to add a 4MT to their range.

It was a gradual process. The one at Bembridge IoW was there pre-war but gone post-war, for example. In many cases, the W.H.Smith bookstall at the station served as a (small) town's newsagent - remember, W.H.Smith wasn't just a retailer but a major wholesaler/distributor.

The W.H.Smith bookstall at Bembridge drawn to 4mm scale (large grid squares are 1cm x 1cm), note the three trestle tables and a board on an easel.

Were the carriages "spare" at Bournemouth on Sundays? I believe that for most of its life "The Royal Wessex" was a three-portion train, splitting off a significant portion at Bournemouth Central for Bournemouth West (which was standard Bournemouth line practice at that period) while the remainder continued to a further split at Wareham for Swanage (2 cars) and Weymouth (3 or more cars). It seems unlikely that the Swanage and (particularly Weymouth portions were worked back to the Bournemouth area for servicing.

4 hours ago, Wheatley said:

"between 30 January and 15 March 2024"

 

Check with ASLEF first ;-)

ASLEF only choose which dates to strike, it is the UK government which effectively forces ASLEF to call strikes at the English-based rail companies as has been aptly demonstrated by the settlements agreed with the Scottish and Welsh devolved governments.

The Tilbury-Gravesend passenger ferry was a long established statutory ferry which the LT&SR purchased, it was still part of the Sealink empire when I worked for them 1969-83 albeit rarely mentioned as such. The opening of the Dartford Tunnel and the slow run down of the classic Tilbury Docks had had a considerable effect on its profitably, the former car ferry (which wasn't statutory) had been discontinued when the Tunnel opened, but the statutory nature of the passenger ferry meant that discontinuation wasn't an option for that. I left Sealink prior to privatisation but it, and the obligation to operate it, would have been included in the package sold to Sea Containers.

I suspect that most 58' rebuilt sets that appeared in "BR" green were in reality in malachite revarnished with BR lettering substituted for the earlier Southern lettering as part of the revarnishing process. Many will have been repainted BR red - and withdrawn in BR red - and at least one set in BR red was lined (I don't know which one, the set number wasn't visible in the photo I saw).

Yes, they were darker, but not much darker, than the Southern building colour green, with gold lettering. Pre-war they often had trestle tables out front, covered with a cloth (also possibly dark green), with piles of books on them.

I suspect that the biggest problem is that the 58-footer rebuilds used the bodies from middle two vehicles in LSWR four sets and that the two outer vehicles were brakes with large brake compartments that bore no resemblance to the new brake compartments in the 58-footers. Thus you would be faced with a considerable amount of scratch building with no assistance forthcoming from the Hornby models. IIRC (and I haven't checked) the 48-foot brakes could work together without one or both of the intermediate compartment carriages (albeit with a considerable loss of passenger accommodation) but that the 48-foot compartment carriages couldn't work solus, they had to form part of a set with brakes at both ends. The LSWR (and the other two SR constituents) were significant innovators in respect off fixed set operation.

12 hours ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

 

Are you referring to this photo?: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lyme_regis/index23.shtml

 

If so, those are compartment coaches. They are likely to be the ex-LSWR Maunsell 58ft rebuilds (which were lengthened from 48ft in 1935-36) because Maunsell recognised that the branch line stock needed strengthening (as touched on by Nearholmer i.e. lack of stock). Hornby produced RTR versions of the Maunsell rebuilds, which you can read about here (with specific reference to Lyme Regis some of the way down): https://uk.Hornby.com/community/blog-and-news/engine-shed/stop-press-sr-58-maunsell-rebuilt-ex-lswr-48-coaches

Those carriages aren't the Maunsell 58' rebuilds (on new under frames) but 48' originals. The normal Lyme Regis branch set did become one of the 58' rebuild sets once they became available, possibly only a few months after the photo was taken. The 58' rebuilds by the way usually used all compartment 48' originals with a new 10' guards compartment added at the outer ends of the two carriages in each set. These new guard's compartments were quite distinctive and enable the rebuilds to be readily identified in photos, they didn't offer much accommodation for luggage or prams, though, and so a 4-w U-van was often attached to the train.

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The only snag with this (and my suggestion of forcibly acquiring running powers) is that with joint ownership of the SDJR which directly linked LSWR and Midland owned metals would the MR see it worth the trouble and expense?

The "prize" offered by the M&SWJcR at that time was effective direct access (by continuing over the Sprat & Winkle) to the ever growing port of Southampton. Military traffic grew too in time but that growth probably wouldn't have been foreseen at the period when the MR & LSWR would have been likely to take over an ailing MSWJcR in the absence of Sam Fay. Indeed, my guess would be that the S&DJR would have become the poor relation of the two joint lines. In practice, of course, Sam Fay did run the M&SWJcR for a sufficient length of time to turn it into an effective and productive link between the MR and LSWR and it served them, and during the Great War the country, well without the expenditure of management effort that would have been required if it were a joint line.

Had the MR and LSWR jointly purchased the M&SWJcR (on the assumption that Sam Fay hadn't taken on the management of the line), they would have acquired that railway's running powers over the relevant part of the Banbury & Cheltenham, such as they were.

Fay, of course, persuaded the GWR to double that section and allow the M&SWJcR's trains to serve intermediate stations, apparently by threatening to build a by-pass line as had been done earlier south of Marlborough. I don't doubt that the putative new joint owners would have done the same but could well have called the GWR's bluff and actually built the by-pass line. It shouldn't be forgotten that the M&SWJcR route was important to the military and that the LSWR, doubtless because of its own military connections, maintained an excellent relationship with the Board of Trade, thus easing the passage of any Act required for a new line.

58 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Despite its name, the MSWJR was independent rather than under joint ownership. It was very poor, though, and it leaned on its three bigger neighbours for support, and played them off against each other. Perhaps it would have fitted better into the Southern, but I can't see it being given to the LMS, granting them access to Southampton.

The MSWJcR's "problem" was Sam Fay who had made too good a job of running it before he moved to the GCR. If it hadn't been for him, the line, which was useful to the MR and LSWR (and even more useful to the military authorities), would almost certainly have become a parallel joint line to the S&DJR, whether it would have shared management with the S&DJR or have had a separate (but same partners) joint management team put in place is a moot point.

Another interesting grouping apparent "mis-allocation" was the Cambrian Railways which, prior to the state control of the Great War and after, had very definitely been under the wing of the LNWR (influenced by but not owned by it) and yet was grouped into the GWR and not the LMSR.

The station was Western Region, and so were the painting gang, at that period, therefore any repaint that involved a sign with a "regional" mention (which would previously have been LMSR/S&DJR at Bath Green Park) would now read some version of RAILWAY EXECUTIVE/BRITISH RAILWAYS/BRITISH RAILWAYS (W)/WESTERN REGION/W R with probably a lot depending on exactly what the sign had previously said and what space was available.

With the infrastructure under WR control it was maintained by WR engineering staff (or their contractors) so any repainting or resigning would have been done to WR standards - just look at all those ex-SR stations in the West Country that acquired a chocolate & cream colour scheme during the same period.

Operational control basically covered the provision and operation of locomotives and rolling stock and the minutiae of the timetable. I am not quite sure about Bath Green Park itself but the S&D was part of the Southern Operating Area (which is what appeared on WTTs), not part of the Southern Region, they were two separate entities.

In early Trinity term 1966 the OURS made arrangements with the Bristol Division of the WR for one or two members at a time to have a brake van trip over the Strood and Nailsworth ex-MR branches which were about to close. My turn came on Friday 27 May which turned out to be the day on which the final scheduled train ran.

When I arrived at Stroud ex-GW station and found the Area ops man as instructed, I was informed by him that the Division had made a mistake and issued a cab pass instead of a brake van permit but had, of course, failed to roster an accompanying Inspector. However, he had had a word with the driver who was quite happy to have a passenger riding with him and so I was driven over to the ex-MR station where D9500 was already waiting with a long assembled train of empty wagons plus one loaded with scrap metal and a brake van on each end.

The driver was very chatty and seemed genuinely pleased to have an interested passenger but I remember being surprised at how cramped the cab was despite looking roomy from outside. We ran round at Dudbridge and then proceeded up to Nailsworth (where only the goods sidings remained), dropping off the loaded wagon at a single-siding scrap yard en route. Yet more empty wagons were picked up at Nailsworth making for quite a hefty train which D9500 seemed to have no problems in handling and after clearing the branch at Stonehouse we had quite a spirited run up the Bristol main line towards Gloucester until a howling noise behind us indicated that a wagon axle box was running hot, causing a more cautious pace to be adopted.

D9500 was almost two years old at that time and the driver seemed quite enthusiastic about his steed which he had also driven on the various remaining goods branches in the Forest of Dean, certainly I didn't hear a single word of criticism. I realise now that there cannot have been many other non-railwaymen enthusiasts who rode in the cab of one of the class while undertaking their originally-intended duties on BR.

Their was a somewhat amusing epilogue, two or three weeks later the OURS secretary told me that he had some money for me, "in view of the error made in issuing the permit" Bristol Division had refunded the fee that I had paid for the trip!

A quick search of the Railway Magazine archive produced a reference to British mixed traffic engines in 1897.

Surely the infrastructure, but not the operational responsibility, at Bath Green Park passed to the Western Region in 1950.