RailWest

AIUI you are now looking at Blaenavon (Low Level) GWR again then?

The locking table tells us that the backing signal 22 required points 9 reverse. Similarly No 23 also required 9 reverse.

I don't know what the gradient is there, but if it's downhill going to the left then I would suggest that the 'balanced points' were to protect the single-line from any runaways for the 'mineral line' platform road, as there would be no wrong-road signalled movement - unless, of course, a train coming in on the mineral line platform  from the RH end over-ran and SPADed signal 22.

I doubt that they would have provided a double-slip unless the traffic really demanded it  - complicated to install and maintain and it would need a FPL for LH-bound trains. Maybe a single-slip at best, to allow LEs to run back between the shed and the passenger platform, but the other part of a double-slip - go between the lower line and the upper line - would have no use at all.

AIUI 'balanced points' is simply another term for points which are not worked from a signal-box or ground, but essentially are sprung-loaded or otherwise biased to normally lie in one direction, but could be pushed over when trailed. In the location indicated, almost certainly a set of spring-loaded trailing catch points that can be trailed shut by a train running from L to R, but otherwise lie 'open' to prevent wrong-direction movements from the upper platfrom line back onto the LH single line.

I wonder if the OP has been influenced by the GWR Blaenavon, where the upper platform line appears to have been goods-only and passenger traffic used the lower platform only?

Approaching from the right, you signal for routes into either platform. There is then a signal at the LH end of the upper platform, but nothing equivalent at the LH end of the lower platform.

Oh dear....I would really like to come and see this, but it clashes with the WSR 'Spring Event' and other things too :-(
Mind you, knowing my 'luck', I won't get to any of the events after all !

A quick skim of the web produces a few pix of Blaenavon HL with some signals in view. If you couple those with an old 25" OS map, you might get some clues. I'm sure there is a L&NWR Society, so you could ask them and/or ask the Signalling Record Society to pass your query to their relevant Corresponding Member.

Have you asked the SRS Archivist ?

I would agree that traffic would have gone on a Down goods, which probably continued on towards Glastonbury etc afterwards - I doubt it warranted a special trip from Evercreech Jcn and back, but who knows, where was the loaded traffic destined for?

Knowing the tendency of railwaymen to do the jib by simplest/easiest safe method possible, I would guess that they left the main train in the Up loop at Pylle, went to the Lime Siding, propelled back to Pylle, came to a stand at 2, then the signalman reversed 8 and hand-signalled them back into the Up loop. Simples all round :-)

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The requirement for the engine to be at the West Pennard end coming and going implies that lime siding traffic was worked in an ordinary down goods train from Evercreech Junction.

 

Prior to 1891, either the whole train worked to the lime siding and back, or there was a front brake van and the lime wagons were marshalled at the front. In any case, on return to Pylle, the train must have gone on to West Pennard, as there appears to be no instruction permitting it to be propelled all the way back to Evercreech Junction. After 1891, the returning portion of the train would run right line into the up loop - points 8 normal and home signal 2 off, then set back onto the down loop via the crossover points 9, then couple up to the remaining portion of the train, ready for right-away to West Pennard. 

 

So the crossover points 9 avoided having to run wrong line into the down loop, a move for which there was no signalling.

 

This does all beg the question why the lime siding GF wasn't simply released by the Pylle - West Pennard staff, tablet, token (whatever) and shunted by the train in section, since the train had inevitably to go on to West Pennard anyway!

I think you've got your Up and Down confused!

24 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

Was the full length loop the one put in when the second platform was added or was that the shorter version, which served the passenger platforms adequately, with the additonal length added when the siding was put in, to allow for longer goods trains. Alternatively could it have been that the added loop allowed both goods and passenger trains to be held there, while a train in the other direction passed. From the sound of it, it proved to be an unnecessary bit of pointwork.

AFAIK the passing-loop and Down platform were concurrent additions in the 1891 alterations, but sadly I don't have a copy of MT6/566/3 for reference.

As regards the part which I have emboldened, I don't understand that :-(

Sadly no clues from the Minutes, other than to refer to the decision to remove it in 1912 as it had had little use.

Pylle was the first station up the Branch from Evercreech Junction to Highbridge. In 1891 it was upgraded to have two platforms and a passing-loop for passenger trains. At that time the existing old S&DJR Type 1 signal-box was re-locked (or perhaps had a new frame?) to work the layout shown in the attached diagram.

Now, what puzzles me about that layout is the crossover (points 9) between the Up and Down loop lines. This is not a feature seen at other S&DJR passing-loops and it's hard to see what purpose it might have served. Any thoughts on this please?

About 1/2-mile to the west of Pylle station lay the Pylle Line Works siding, which was opened in 1869 and closed in 1912. This siding was shunted by trains which ran from Pylle and then back again (see http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/sh-staff.html#pylle-staff ). I wonder therefore if it is just a coincidence (or not) that the crossover was taken out-of-use in December 1912?

1 hour ago, roundhouse said:

 

>>>The dock road turnout is actually separately controlled....

As was the prototype of course, but interlocking requires the crossover road to be normal before the dock road points could be set for the yard exit.

Looks very nice. However I see that the signalman appears to be struggling to open the signal-box doors, so the driver of the Up train just SPADed the Up Starting anyway - time for a Form 1 maybe?

Better send for the locking technician too, as the dock road points were set for a conflicting move with the crossover road ....:-)

Oops - my 'typo' - J&P said 1856 - sorry !

Hopefully  there will be time for some more research idc, but for the moment I was hoping that 'someone might know'.....:-)

ASHCOTT (and Meare) station.

Atthill implies in his book that this was one of the original SCR stations and opened in 1854. Oakley ('Somerset Arilway Stations) says that it was a later addition in 1856 (similar to Bason Bridge and Edington Road). Judge&Potts also say 1856. Cooke gives no date.

Does anyone have any more information please?

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Thank you - should have gone to . . .

Now I look properly I can see that the shield is fixed to the post not the arm.

I wonder if it’s the same Annett as in GF release instruments.

Yes, a plate in place of the green glass.

Paul.

Yes

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Usually in conjunction with a colour light head for Y (YY) G at the fringes of a colourlight area.  The Southern were particularly fond of that fringing arrangement.

Perhaps that part is yet to come.

Paul.

That was a different thing from the purpose of an Annett's Shield, which is what the photo shows. In the C/L example, I think the semaphore green aspect was blanked off completely ?

1 hour ago, Donw said:

Nice work Jon, I wonder why they needed the shade over the green.

 

Don

It was known as an Annett's Shield after the signal engineer who designed it. Very common on the L&SWR. It's purpose was to prevent 'stray' light from behind the arm giving a false 'green' when the arm was at danger.

When the SR changed from LQ to UQ arms the position of the green aspect changed to being in front of the post rather than to the side  - not a problem on nice thick wooden posts, but with lattice posts or those built of 2 rails with a large gap between them the same risk of a false green existed. That was solved by fixing a rectangular plate to the post immediately behind the spectacle plate - often not noticeable in photographs unless the arm was 'off'.

12 hours ago, Combe Martin said:

 

No, Bill Coomers books only contain rudimentary station layout diagrams with no dimensions at all.  

Sadly, I thought that was the case, but I've mislaid my copy at the moment :-(

21 hours ago, Ian M. said:

Unsure but prob. upon entry into service or soon thereafter. ....

I would agree with that suggestion. Given that by the 1920s the use of the Whitaker apparatus must have been a key element in normal day-to-day S&DJR operations, it would seem strange IMHO if they were to delay fitting any longer than necessary.

36 minutes ago, tingleytim said:

Presumably Combe Martin will be in touch with Blandford Forum Railway Club whose model of Bailey Gate must be well advanced by now.  Their website used to have many pictures recording progress but their Bailey Gate page seems to omit them at the moment. 

I'd forgotten about that ... :-)

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

The board on the right with its back to the photographer would have had a [ T ] indication indicating the terminal point of the PSR on that road. Southern Railway PSR indicators were rare beasts, usually only installed where there was nothing else to help a driver identify his position, clearly here there is a signal but presumably the other end of the PSR wasn't so obvious.

 

The standard top limit on the Southern Railway for steam traction was 85 mph but a lower overall limit may well have applied over the whole S&D, the introduction page to Southern-produced WTTs would have stated it whatever it was.

Incidentally, I got that photo originally as a result of a query that someone raised about those markers some years ago. Whether it was on here or elsewhere, I don't recall. If I can find the original messages sometime there may be a reference to the date...

Sorry, no info on the date.

As another rough guide, the Down Starting signal (No 3) was 49 yards from the signalbox, just past the Down platform ramp end. The station end of the west crossover points A was at 179 yards, so the distance between the two was 130 Yards.

The point ends were underneath the road bridge, almost in line with the Blandford side face of the bridge. So, if you allow 'xx' yards for the width of the bridge and perhaps a little bit more for the distance to the platform ramp, you might end up with a useable figure :-)

Is that not anything in the late Bill Coomer's book on that part of the line?