RailWest

1 minute ago, brossard said:

I'm certainly no expert Chris and I do want to get them as right as I can.  I think I'm looking for them to be non-independent point indicators and worked directly off the turnout position.  I believe I can do that, as I said, by linking to the point motors.

 

John

I don't know enough about the GNR to know whether or not the McK&H signals are the correct type for 'point indicators'.

I've struggled to spot the 2nd trap-point to which you refer. In the absence of a track-plan, am I correct to assume that the track immediately to the left of the platform in the right foreground is a passenger line? If so, then there needs to be a trap at the exit from the siding which passes in front of the water-tower. And what is the status of the line on the extreme right please?

>>>>The red disc facing the driver means the secondary route is selected, disc side on to the driver means the primary route is selected...

That makes them sound like non-independent 'point indicators' worked directly off the points and which merely show the position of the point rather than act as a stop/go signal.

Independent shunt signals worked by their own levers in the signal-box would indicate either 'stop' or 'route is set', regardless of which route if they served more than one.

It was certainly not uncommon to have a distant signal at a station that was nothing to do with that station at all. There were two examples (at least) of that on the Minehead Branch - at the south end of Stogumber station was the Up Distant for the loop at Leigh Bridge, whilst the Down Distant for Kenstford was right opposite the middle of the platform at Watchet station (almost next to the 2-lever GF which controlled access to the sidings there). Neither of those two stations had any signals of their own at that time.

AIUI from the partial diagram, the distant underneath the Up Main Home is NOT worked from Hartlebury Jcn but the next box along, so HJ would not have a lever for it.

>>>Sequential locking is another control, under which you can't pull the home if the starter is already off (this applies to all the stop signals in sequence if there are several).  So you must clear them in the order in which the train passes them. 

There was also sometimes Rotation Locking which AIUI meant that once you had pulled (say) the Home and then put it back, it could not be pulled again until after the Starting had been pulled and replaced (and so forth if there was an Advanced Starting etc), thereby proving (in theory at least) that the train had passed onwards. Of course, if you pulled the Home only, so that the train could pull up to the Starting and then reverse back into a siding or over a crossover on the adjacent line, then because the Starting had not been used there had to be a means to release the backlock on the Home, which might have been achieved (say) by the pulling+replacing of whatever shunt signal was used to back the train out of the way.

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

.......  In very many cases - in fact probably the majority - level crossings were only protected by a single stop signal which might only be a few feet in rear of the crossing stop signal.    And of course on secondary lines level crossings worked by a Crossing Keepr might not havea ny separate protecting semaphore signals at all. 

 

And as the level crossing was not taken into account in the Clearing Point a train could be accepted under a full Line Clear towards that signal which could be at danger with the crossing gates open to road traffic.

>>>......  In very many cases - in fact probably the majority - level crossings were only protected by a single stop signal which might only be a few feet in rear of the crossing stop signal....

From what I can recall, most examples that I have seen of L&SWR/SR locking tables for such locations had the 'lock 2 back' applied.

>>>....on secondary lines level crossings worked by a Crossing Keeper might not have any separate protecting semaphore signals at all...

Indeed. Most odd in my mind, given that trains running at 'fast' speeds might pass thru' other crossings just a few miles away which had Distant and Home signals. Even more odd IMHO when the latter was found on single-track 'minor branch lines' yet the former persisted on double-track 'main lines'

As a level-crossing with its gates across the rails was not normally regarded as an obstruction of the Clearing Point, then IMHO a Warning Acceptance would neither be necessary nor appropriate as de facto the CP was not fouled and so normal Reg 4 acceptance would be feasible (assuming all other requirements had been satisfied).

Of more importance was the fact that normally not only would the stop signal immediately in rear of the gates require the gates to be locked across the road before it could be cleared, but also the next stop in rear worked from the same box also have the same requirement. Sometimes the latter had a subsidiary arm which could be lowered to permit a train to enter a platform without the need to close the gates, in some cases the locking simply did not exist anyway.

If you go to Blue Anchor station you will often see instances where, if a Down train arrives early and/or the Up train is late, then the gates are closed against the road, the Down Inner Home (3) is held 'on', the Down train rolls into the the platform and stops, whereupon the gates are opened to road traffic again. This apparent 'unnecessary' closing of the gates puzzles/annoys some car drivers who are not aware that, out of sight around the corner towards Taunton, is the Down Home (2) which can not be cleared to admit a train into the platform unless the gates are shut.

On 04/08/2022 at 12:15, Wheatley said:

Yes, sorry that was an oversimplification. Very common (universal ?) on pre-grouping Scottish railways, certainly the CR, G&SWR, and NBR used them, not sure about the GNoSR and HR but I'd be surprised if they didn't. Used by the LSWR and S&DJR in England but I've no idea about any others. 

 

I need to build 4 for my 4mm G&SWR/CR empire and I'm not looking forward to it. LMS discs are so much easier ! 

But slightly different in design (as was most Stevens stuff depending if it came from the London or Glasgow works).

In a way, this is not a new(ish) situation. Not long ago I came across the situation (in the 1960s) of a level-crossing with gates immediately next to a signal-box on a busy main line, but NOT interlocked with the signalling in anyway. The explanation apparently was the simple fact that this was an 'occupation' crossing and therefore it was the responsibility of the road user rather than the railway to use the crossing safely :-)

29 minutes ago, iands said:

Even, if you so desire to model one, an UQ arm with a LQ co-acting arm on the same post. 

Is there a prototype for that ???? :-)

22 hours ago, RailWest said:

I can't think of any off-hand, but that's not to say that they did not exist.

 

Actually, I have now thought of one :-)

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/_4789840_orig.jpg

This was the Up Home (No 40) at Barnstaple Junction 'A' box. Note that the lower arm was shorter than usual in order to clear the adjacent building. Ironically it replaced an earlier L&SWR RH lattice bracket signal of about the same height which did not have a lower co-acting arm! I suspect that, with the nature of the local traffic, having simply a banner repeater somewhere in the rear would not have been much use for drivers of trains which were 'waiting time' at the platform.

23 minutes ago, 45655 said:

 Is anyone aware of a prototype for a rail built co-acting signal post? Both Bluebell and Swanage have new build examples but I’m not aware of any on the ‘big railway’.

 

I can't think of any off-hand, but that's not to say that they did not exist.

However I would suggest that, by the time that the SR were (a) using rail-built posts and (b) replacing old wood or lattice posts with co-acting arms, then there was probably a tendancy (and certainly a few examples) where the signal was replaced as a single arm on a 'normal' height post with a banner repeater provided some distance in rear.

Yes, there was a knurled knob on each side of the wooden 'tombstone' cover...

...but no, I've not counted the number of notches in the 'knurl' !! :-)

>>> Access into the upper goods yard is really awkward because of the facing connection to the Up main.....

Thanks and understand, however that is how the real Yeovil Town had the sidings. It will also give me some shunting to do as relief from grandson just going round and round.

Not entirely. On the prototype, only the dock siding had a facing entry off the single line. The rest of the goods yard could be accessed only from the Hendford Siding via a slip connection across the single-line.

>>>does this photo of the West Moors frame taken from the Crossing Wheel end help with identifying the frame.....

Only to confirm what was known already, namely that it was of the Stevens & Sons pattern. We would need to see the end-plate just above the floor to read the actual maker's name.

>>>>At the same time the signalling centre will also send a signal to deactivate the TPWS units, and change the blue light from steady to flashing....

But AIUI after a pre-determined period of time (allowing for the train to depart) the TPWS automatically reverts to 'armed' and the blue light goes back to steady.

Ought there not perhaps to be another main stop signal (as the section signal) on the Down Martock in advance of crossover 11, assuming that there will be occasions when you will be shunting in/out of the Down Siding and the engine yard? Also, without such a signal, shunt 15 is then controlling access into the block section ahead....

11 hours ago, Steve Smith said:

 

 

Verwood also had a Ground Frame.  It was housed in a corrugated tin shed that was almost certainly unique to Verwood.  Colour photos show it to have had a greenish hue, which would be an option if it was considered to be in the station environs and hadn't already been given a coat of bitumen.  It was off the end of the down platform, and every down train would have required a visit to the hut to work the points at the West Moors end.  I actually suspect two visits, as the bobby would need to reset everything after tablets had been exchanged, and the train had been signalled out of the loop from the box. 

This was built the old-fashioned way a couple of years ago.   Slaters styrene sheet was used, and the corrugations are a tad over scale in 4mm scale, a deficiency shared with the lamp hut, weighbridge hut and canopy roof.   The door of the hut was open in all the photos that I have, so I modelled the framing on the inside, and what it's crying out for is a Ground Frame. 

We don't know exactly which type it had, but Midsomer Norton had some RSC frames that the friendly and helpful S&T people let me measure and photograph last year.   This is the result - the start of another tiny sciatica project! 

Allowing for a mass of assumptions....:-)

Given that the basic layout at Verwood seems to have been original, then a GF would probably have been provided at the same time as the SB. As we know from photo evidence that the frame in the SB bore the Stevens & Son name, probably the GF was the same. It was only in later years, after the Stevens patent lapsed, that the L&SWR bought frames from other contractors and I would guess that Verwood had one long before 1898. Of course, there is always the chance that the original GF had to be replaced for some reason...

On 02/07/2022 at 13:30, RailWest said:

West Moors in BR days had the SR style of plates (painted ovals), /probably/ a replacement set done i/c/w the war-time alterations, but one would need to check the SR's order books to confirm that.

Well now, it would appear that a complete new set of plates matching the WWII arrangements were ordered on 4th June 1940, so given the 1943 opening date of the new WD sidings, then the work much have been in planning for some while. Interestingly all 23 levers were in use, No 23 being - rather as I suspected - used for the Gate Stops, so I wonder when and why they dispensed with that?

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The Distance Diagrams give geographical, not historical, information. 

 

For the Midland Railway itself, there is John Gough's Chronology. That's not a work I have, so I can't say if it covers joint lines.

That's what I assumed. I shall to have investigate further...

Thanks for that :-)

However, it would appear now that the specific entry that I was seeking - the opening date for Corfe Mullen Junction itself as quoted by Tony Cooke - was in 'updates page 37', whatever that is...

I am told that Volume 4 of this publication, which I do not have, covers the S&DJR.

I wondered if anyone had a copy and if so could provide me with a copy of the page(s) covering Corfe Mullen Junction please?

Bailey Gate station also would be a welcome addition, but not essential :-)

Thanks !

13 minutes ago, Steve Smith said:

I can now see that what I took to be two token instruments, is just the one Tyers No.6 instrument - so perhaps the other one was at the right hand end?   Have sent you a PM with the photo and will now look through all my other photos again.

That's got rid of that red-herring then :-)

Have a look at pix of the front or door end and see if you can spot the 'tombstone' shape thru' the windows at the W/Moors end.....

>>> it looks like there were two tablet devices at the left-hand end, but they do look different....

Hmm.... given that both 'short' sections were worked by Tyer's No 6 ETT instruments, they ought to look the same. What have you got by way of photos  to suggest otherwise ????

I am familiar with the image of the LH end of the frame, where the machine for F/bridge can be seen quite clearly. The one for W/Moors ought to be similar.....

>>>There were two short section tablets, plus the long section token, so I'm thinking three machines.......

No :-)

As Verwood was not a block/tablet post for the 'long section' it would not have a long section METS instrument, those would exist only at Fordingbridge and West Moors. There was of course the 'switch mechanism' on the floor at the RH end which held a METS when Verwood was 'in' or two x tablets when it was 'out'.

It was common for ETT/ETS/EKT machines to put one each at their respective ends of the box, but it was not unknown to have them together at one end or the other. I suspect it all depended upon available space (not much in an early Type 1 box!) and (sometimes) how the boxes were extended to hold the ETT machines when upgrading from TS&T working.