bécasse

I wouldn't assume that the ground frame was locked directly by the signal box. The LNWR were very keen on the use of Annett's Keys to lock/unlock ground frames, sometimes sequentially.

Wagon loads wouldn't necessarily have had to be handled on the non-platform road. Until freight traffic on the railways died away in the mid- to late-1950s, it was commonplace for wagons to be shunted without the use of locomotives. Capstans or railway or traders' horses were once the typical "motive power", but post-WWII pinch-bars probably became the most common tool.

Tim, using Loctite to fix a flywheel is overkill. Pritt (the heavy duty version if you have a choice) will do the trick just as well, and it is much easier to get the flywheel off again if it ever becomes necessary. Push a cocktail stick into the Pritt so that the sharpened end of the stick gets a good loading of the adhesive, and then push the stick into the hole in the flywheel from the side that the motor/gear shaft will pushed into, then mount the flywheel. The Pritt will take the strain immediately but the joint will become stronger over the next few days as the Pritt dries out. Pritt isn't strong enough for gears, of course, because of the load they carry, but a flywheel is very different.

It is a combination of standard Exmouth Junction products to provide a safe base for something or someone to stand when the embankment (or cutting) isn't suitable on its own. Chris may well be right in suggesting that a fogman's hut stood on it, another possibility is that it provided a safe place for a lineman to stand while working on the electrical connections box for the distant signal.

Having seen the Buren watch that was for sale, I think that it is fairly safe to say that your grandfather's watch wasn't a railway issue one. The serial number is clearly Buren's and there is no marking to identify it as railway property which there would have been (although a railway company might well have used a manufacturer's serial number as its unique number - each railway kept a register of clocks and watches).

Definitely an "Exmouth Junction" ballast bin although it is possible that they were only produced post-WWII (effectively post-nationalisation - although the design work for the later period products seems to have started prior to nationalisation). Not only can't I find an example in Southern Nouveau but I can't find a dimensioned sketch in my contemporary notebooks - I must have measured up such a commonplace item, mustn't I?

Guards, responsible for the timekeeping of their trains, were issued with fob watches on a chain. I would have expected most, if not all, to be marked with the name of the owning company in some way plus a unique number, as guards would have been expected to hand them in with the rest of their uniform if they left the service.

Reusing the old post, literally moving the signal in fact, was much more likely in wartime when materials were short, and that possibly applies to the LQ arm too. The down distant would have had a LQ arm on that rail-built post in 1931.

I have never noted anything like it on the rest of the system and it doesn't look to me as if it is built from pre-cast concrete sections. It might have been built from pre-cast blocks and then rendered but my suspicion is that it might have been built by pouring concrete into shuttering. If it is, it is almost certainly a one-off experiment (probably LSWR rather than Southern). The granite dust which was, of course, a major constituent of LSWR/SR concrete structures originated from Meldon Quarry as a by product, so this would have been a convenient location to experiment with a poured concrete structure.

If it is 1930s LNER, I would definitely go for layout B either with two diamond crossings or with one diamond crossing plus one single slip allowing arriving branch trains access to the fast line platform. I would also add a trailing crossover at the left hand end of the layout as it would facilitate shunting a terminating branch train (even if most ran through). The other thing is that the branch should be double track in the vicinity of the station, even though it singles eventually, because the Board of Trade strongly disliked what it thought of as single line junctions. Ideally the double line would be long enough to hold a departing branch train while it was waiting for a late-running branch arrival to clear the single line, but even moving the diverging point off the single line back a couple of lengths would give the right impression.

And Mornsell is how it was pronounced half-a-century ago by the odd person that I met that had actually worked with the man in their (relatively) youthful years. Not that many people did actually get to meet him as he was one of the old school and kept himself very much to himself and his immediate deputies. Bulleid, apparently, was a total contrast and mixed regularly and happily with the staff, even though it took them some time to realise that even the opinions of the most junior were valued by the new boss.

It is most likely to a Saturday afternoon, unless the photographer was a Reverend gentleman (when a Monday would be more likely). It is easy to forget that, almost until the end of the steam era, most people who could afford to photograph trains worked a five and a half day week and only had a fortnight off each year. Although Saturday timetables were often not dissimilar to those that applied Mondays to Fridays, locomotive and carriage set working was often quite different.

The physical locking was probably remarkably simple. Lever 4, the FPL on point 5 (and originally point 6 as well) would have acted as a direction lever, facilitating movements in the down direction when normal and in the up direction when reversed. Once lever 1 became the FPL on point 6 it would effectively had mirrored the actions of lever 4 in this respect. Adjacent levers 2 and 3 and also 9 and 10 mutually lock against each other, another very simple locking action - and, of course, 7PULL and 7PUSH mutually lock against each other without needing any actual locking to do so.

The Southern used concrete posts (without any relieving holes) for "simple" signals during the mid-1920s. It seems to have decided fairly quickly that these weren't entirely satisfactory and posts built from old rails were in use for both new works and replacements by the end of the 1920s, initially with LQ arms. UQ arms were used from the mid-1930s. With a lot of analysis of photographs, particularly of new works with known dates, it should be possible to tighten up on these dates. Ironically, most "Southern" rail-post signals actually date from the mid-1950s!

It wasn't at all unusual (and may even have been normal practice) for LE workings not to be included in the WTT. There is also the possibility that the 5.30Q working replaced the 4.45 when required - usually, but not universally, there would have been a column note in the WTT to that effect for the 4.45 ("Does not run when 5.30 Q Bailey Gate to Templecombe runs").

1) I have used them on exhibition layouts with no problems at all. It is advisable to apply a minuscule amount of silicon paste to the gearing. 2) They will operate quite happily on lower voltages than 12 volts and, of course, they are only powered very briefly, so you can use a "series four-pack" of 1,5 volt AA batteries. Just remember to keep some spare ones around.

The short "neck" is an almost certain indication that the sidings were shunted (to reorder wagons) in between trains, a horse (probably borrowed from a trader) or even humans (with pinch bars) providing the motive power. This was hardly unusual and would have been a common arrangement (although usually without that "neck") even in country goods yards on the British mainland. Just a trifle difficult to replicate in model form, of course.

It was quite common Brighton practice to have splitting stop signals well in advance of the facing points to which they applied without having any means of "holding the route", be it a dolly at the divergence or an extra long locking bar. A quick perusal of Wallis' photographs will produce numerous examples. The homes at Hayling in their original position would have fallen well within this practice, particularly if my surmise that the two FPLs were originally on the same lever is correct. I still think that it was extremely unlikely that shunt 7PULL was provided before Southern days. Wallis routinely photographed unusual equipment on the Brighton and I can't think of a single photo of his which shows a PULL/PUSH lever on that system. Once Wimbledon took the reins, of course, such a lever would have been the standard response to meeting a need in a frame which had no spares.

On the Southern, and possibly elsewhere, at terminal stations where the line continued on beyond the end of the platform to buffer stops, the (buffer stop) end of the platform was taken as being the effective clearance point, not least because the driver would be expecting to stop at that point anyway. This would have been the case at Hayling Island. In practice it is unlikely that any vehicles would be present between this point and the buffer stops (certainly at Hayling Island), but there would have been no certainty as to the lay of the release points which were typically hand-worked (and biased to the loop anyway at Hayling Island).

Some more issues with the signalling at South Hayling/Hayling Island: 1) The signal box dated from the early years of the 20th century when what had been a loco shed siding was replaced by the bay platform (and an extended main platform), prior to that there had just been a home and a starter worked, I suspect, from a ground frame. 2) The LB&SCR seems to have always(?) used 4-wheel stock on the branch and the locking bars for the two facing points would, in consequence, have been short. Once the Southern started to use bogie stock (as it did quite quickly) the locking bars would have had to be lengthened. This explains the separate third bar (because the layout didn't allow the inner locking bar to be lengthened per se but the third bar provides the same functionality) and is almost certainly the reason why the outer FPL was altered so as to be worked by lever 1. 3) The homes and the advanced starting signal were all renewed onto a new steel bracket signal by the Southern Region, probably in the late 1950s. I think that they may have been moved out slightly at the same time. 4) The loco release point at the country end of the platform was biased (in much the same way as catch points) to the run round loop and wasn't normally worked. A lever was provided so that it could be held in the other position towards the platform if required (again much as with catch points). 5) The whole layout was on a slight down grade toward the buffer stops. When the daily mixed train (there wasn't normally a separate freight working) arrived the train stopped short of the platform and the wagons were uncoupled from the train, held on the guard's brake. The passenger part of the train then continued into the main platform (2). The siding points were then reversed and the guard released his hand brake allowing the wagons (and van) to roll gently into the siding, being stopped once clear by reapplication of the guard's hand brake. The loco then ran round and shunted the passenger vehicles into the bay. Leaving the passenger vehicles there, the loco then started shunting the freight, first placing the van in the main passenger platform and then building up the wagons for departure against it. Finally, the passenger vehicles were shunted again, this time on to the wagons and van in the main platform so that the mixed train was ready for departure back to Havant. If, for any reason (wind, snow, etc), the initial gravity shunt proved impractical, the arriving mixed train entered the main platform in its entirety and was run round, the wagons and van then being shunted to the sidings before the passenger vehicles could be shunted to the bay. The gravity shunt saved timed and effort, of course, and does seem to have been officially sanctioned. 6) An interesting feature of the line is that it was always worked by staff and ticket, although the use of tickets would have been unusual.

The signalling has been changed at some time. I would expect both FPLs to have been worked originally by lever 4 (not an unusual arrangement anywhere in southern England - but potentially a pig to work) with lever 1 spare (nominally for the fixed distant). I would also expect that lever 7 (then a commonplace normal/reverse lever) would have worked the required dolly at the exit from the sidings (ie 7 PUSH) and there would have been no dolly at the throat, movements being flagged instead; Saxby's are very unlikely to have installed a PULL/PUSH lever but it would have been a standard Southern Railway solution in the circumstances where an extra dolly was required. From the style of the orthography on the locking chart, I would be inclined to say that both changes date from early in the Southern Railway era. The use of lever 1 for one of the FPLs may well date from the installation of the lifting bar shown in the photo (I agree with The Stationmaster, it definitely seems to be a lifting bar and therefore linked with one or other of the FPLs) as trying to work three lifting bars from one lever would definitely have been a lifting bar too far. Incidentally, although the diagram doesn't show it, the lever frame was mounted orthogonally to the tracks with the bobby facing towards Havant. Lever 3 wasn't normally used (as trains from Havant always ran into platform 2 and the shunt used the dolly) and was "collared".

And that must surely be a set of main line carriage sidings behind, noting the roof boarded stock.

Ironically, I had only written this a few hours before I came across a photo of a three-stacker (in the current issue of Railway Bylines). The discs are, incidentally, quite significantly overlapped with only the top one fully visible.

My recollection, and I could be wrong, is that the standard LMS disc signal only came as a single or a double, and that if there were more signalled routes than two the ex-LNWR design with miniature arms (which in theory could be stacked as high as needed) was used instead - as at Heaton Norris.