RailWest

I would agree with Donw regarding the Home signal. On a more general point, I do feel that one has to distinguish between what one may politely call the more eccentric Light Railways (eg the likes of the Bishops Castle etc), where just about anything anywhere seemed to suffice for signalling purposes, and those which were in effect a simplified version of 'normal' railway signalling (eg the Callington line, the ND&CJLR, the Lyme Regis branch etc etc). In the case of the latter, then - whilst noting the comments from Stationmaster in post No 88 - I would suggest that the equivalent philosophy should be applied to the Starting signal as to the Home, namely that it should be more-or-less at the toe of the first facing point encountered by a passenger train leaving the platform.

>>>These points are fitted with Annett's serrated bar lock, and have a rod detector on the Home signal. These points are thrown over by a train passing over them in a trailing direct, but these have to be replaced by hand before the Home signal can be pulled off...... That sounds to me like the Annett's design illustrated in Fig 221B of Raynar Wilson's "Mechanical Railway Signalling" (reprinted 2nd edition)and reputedly designed for the Basingstoke & Alton Light Railway (including locking bar <g>), tho' I have never found a picture of an actual example of that design so far. This would be roughly the same period as the Oxton installation. I wonder how extensively it may have been used in the UK? I have never heard of "Edward's Economical lock and bar" before though, and I wonder why they would use a different style of economic FPL at different stations?

>>>It can be 'hairy' opening the gates when drivers try to race to get across first.... By 'drivers' I assume you mean car rather than locomotive ! :-):-)

>>>The one on the Dean Forest railway has gates but no signals so someone has to open the gates across the road.... I can't recall now the precise details at Lydney Town, but it was 'usual' for level-crossing gates to have a red target and/or lamp which faced along the track when the gates were across the rails. These served as 'stop' signals. The Abbotsbury Branch, when first opened, had three manned signal-boxes (and block instruments IIRC), yet was only a single OES section, so one can not assume too much by the presence (or absence) of signals. Has anyone perhaps got WTT or similar for the area with details of the block working on the line?

>>>I checked all my books on light railways and branchlines and couldn’t find any lockbars installed...... Then, with respect, I think you need to augment your library :-) >>>So it seemed – like Chris wrote - to be more common to use 2 levers: 1 for point + trap and 1 for FPL.... Errr...the number of levers used is unrelated to whether lock-bars existed or not, but simply whether the FPLs were 'economic' or not. Noting your latest proposals, whilst appreciating that - as always - there are exceptions to such things (eg Ashburton again), I would suggest that that the two signals should be worked from the same GF. You might like to follow the Callington example - work both signals from the GF by the platform (make it 4 levers), with a key from that GF being used to unlock the other GF. That then gives you interlocking between the two signals and all the points.

>>>Here is nice little installation on the PD&SWJR. http://www.trainweb....gf/b-alston.jpg... That is a modern BR(W) installation on a non-Light Railway line, but not a bad example nonetheless for the proposed GF No 2 >>>If this website belonged to Railwest of this locale: thank you sir, it is exceedingly good. It does :-) Thank you for those kind words on my modest scribblings. As regards locking bars and 'lever alongside points', my view on the matter (from the various instances with which I am familiar) is that at GFs which are normally un-manned and usually locked by some means (eg key on staff etc) then lock bars were not provided, presumably because the points were being operated by someone close enough to see that there was no train stood over the points at the time.

IMHO:- 1. The signals would be wire runs on pulleys all the way to the lever tails, no cranks. 2. I would suggest that you need to incorporate the lock bars for each FPL, so ideally the rods need to drive the lock bars, and the lock bars drive the lock plungers, rather than directly.

One other factor to consider about Home signals is that, subject of course to there being the necessary interlocking and detection - one can't always assume such things (eg Ashburton!), they would provide assurance that the facing point ahead was set and locked for the correct road. If there was no Starting signal, and a train tried to leave the loop when the road was not properly set, then the resulting accident might be less dramatic than with a mis-set facing point!

>>>This combination – 2 ground frames + 1 lever frame at the platform could be found i. e. at the Culm Valley at Uffculme..... AFAIK there was just the one stop signal at Uffculme, in the Down direction, which IMHO was provided because of poor early sighting of the level-crossing in that direction, so I'm not sure that is a relevant example. In contrast the Lynton & Barnstaple, which was a 'proper' railway with its own Act of Parliament rather than 'Light', was built without starting signals at the intermediate station passing-loops, yet was required with electric train tablet working from the start! Just proving that there is probably an example for everything, somewhere.....:-)

>>>Or, declare yourself a tramway, and not bother with any trapping..... But the Weymouth Quay line was a tramway and that had traps (but no FPLs), :-)

Some random observations:- 1. Light Railways are almost a case of "make it up to suit yourself as long it is roughly OK" :-) I wouldn't try to adhere to the practices of any particular mainline railway company other than just to get the general principle, tho' frankly there is so little in your layout that requires much more than 'home' and 'starter' signals anyway. 2. Col Stephens did use electric train tablet on some of his lines (eg the ND&CJLR) - not sure if he had any electric key token sections - but I would agree with Stationmaster in that train staff & ticket + telephone would be more likely. 3. Facing Point Locks would probably be 'economic' types (same lever as the point). 4. I would suggest the 'signal box' at Wanford is in the wrong place - far more likely to be somewhere nearer the station alongside the loop, so that (a) the porter/signalman did not have too far to walk and (b) reduce the length of point rodding required.

Even more curious that it appears to have a slot on it.......

Well, there were certainly still many red/black for the relief line signals in Newton Abbot West when I visited it c.1969. In fact, looking at the picture which I took, there seemed to be more black than red on each lever!

>>>In fact at one time, not all that long ago, on the Western if the lever was red above black it indicated that it worked a Relief Line stop (running) signal (and yellow above black that it worked a Relief Line Distant Signal)....... As an aside, and naming no names in order not to embarrass them <g>, but recently I came across a signalling display based on a GWR prototype which included a number of levers painted red/black in just that fashion. The problem was that the relevant signals on the prototype were not 'relief' line signals, but 'goods' line signals and therefore should have been red with a broad black band around the middle....except for the fact that an accompanying photo showed quite clearly that in the BR(W) period depicted by the display the levers were plain red anyway! However, we have still not heard from the OP yet as to which company/period he is modelling....

A good question.... When you say that it also works the ground signal, then I'm assuming that you are talking about an old-fashioned non-independent 'point indicator'? Otherwise, what is the context please? How do you prove that the trap-point has closed properly before the signal is cleared? A point lever would normally be black. AFAIK levers for points with indicators were also simply painted black, rather than red+black. But what railway company and period is your layout?

>>>Another method of FPL is one where you need a key on the token to unlock the FPL lever and reverse it before reversing the turnout.... That is simply a variation in how the FPL lever is controlled, unrelated to the actual mechanism at the FPL itself. However, in such cases. it tended to be the practice that NO lock-bar would be provided at the point because the person working the GF would be stood very close to the point and therefore could see whether or not the train was stood over it. >>> In some places, a locking bar actuated by the train wheels to operate FPL..... AIUI it was the case on the 'Mumbles Railway' that trains leaving a passing-loop depressed a fouling bar in order to unlock the facing point so that it could be trailed. I wonder if similar was used elsewhere?

As it happens, I'm looking at Winsor Hill at the moment. That too was something of a neglected location, tho' perhaps to a slightly lesser degree than Shoscombe. Certainly not a lot of photographs, and sadly almost nothing when it was in its heyday. Much the same too could be said about Moorewood.

I would agree that it has very little coverage, tho' I have certainly seen at least one other picture of it in use. As to why it was neglected - no idea, other than perhaps it proved difficult to reach and held little of interest for most photographers? I've walked in that area a few times in recent years and found it almost impossible to work out even where it was, let alone see any remains :-( On the other hand, Shoscombe viaduct has now been converted into a house!

..and the weedkiller that you could use actually worked !

What about aerial photographs? Anything for the period?

I'm glad you found my drawing useful :-) Given that it is now (almost) 40 year old <gulp> and was based on an earlier drawing from George Pryer (long before he did his 'books'), then it may well be the case that the siding information is incorrect in parts. Any accurate corrections supported by the appropriate evidence are always useful, especially as I am in the process - intermittently - of updating my web-page on Bailey Gate anyway. I also have somewhere now IIRC the information about the distances of all the points and signals from the signal-box.

All the S&DRT Archives are now at the Somerset Heritage Centre http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ under ref A/CWO. The Bailey Gate 1955 plan is listed at Ref A\CWO/5/1/284.

If 1955, does it show the Unigate siding (points 14 etc)? I suspect 71H will want that detail. You might want to ask about the copyright anyway, 'cos I know that certainly with the signal diagrams obtained from BR(S) there was permission granted for publication and copying for research etc (somewhere I think I still have a copy of the BR letter!), so the same might apply with other BR material. Sadly the person who would certainly know is no longer with us :-(

In which case then, what is 'wrong' in your view with (say) the 1954 1:2500 OS map please?

With all due respect to Bill Coomer, whilst his book is indeed nice - I have a copy on my shelf - I would treat some it was a certain amount of circumspection. For example, I'm very puzzled by the apparent first-hand contemporary reports of the double-track to Blandford being opened in 1904 (IIRC), when in fact that took place in 1901. Clearly there is some contradiction/confusion, but it was not challenged/explained in the text. Likewise I feel that Bill placed slightly too much reliance on the accuracy of OS maps without considering the effect of partial updates. As regards the track plan, for what period exactly are you seeking such plans and what are the discrepancies which you have found? With some clarity about the 'issues', it might then be possible to answer them.