RailWest

A slightly more complex version could be seen in the down direction at Bailey Gate on the S&DJR after it became the junction for the 'cut-off' line to Broadstone, see diagram at www.trainweb.org\railwest\images\sb-diag\bailey-00.jpg . Although the diagram is for 1900, this arrangement continued after the line northwards to Blandford was doubled in 1901 and only changed to 'single arm' signals when the junction was removed in 1905 icw the opening of the new SB and junction at Corfe Mullen.

Except for the white one.....

'Catch' points are trailing, 'trap' points are facing - simples! I can confirm that the Blue Anchor example is still there and springing away every day :-) There used to be quite a few examples of that arrangement on both the Minehead and Barnstaple branches, but BA is all that is left now. The one at South Molton was even better, as it was on a loop line signalled for bi-redirectional running and so had a FPL as well as the 'slot' ! I agree with Stationmaster that the specific mention about the Clearing Point at BA is rather unusual, but his suggestion about nomenclature is as good a theory as any :-)

Easily done :-) At least there won't be a need to send a 'Letter to the Editor' of Model Rail in due course... Some years ago at RailWells there was a 4mm S&D layout on which all the signals were removable for transportation (not uncommon). Unfortunately almost all of them had been inserted the wrong way round when the layout was erected! What I found depressing was that, once the situation had been drawn to their attention, no-one seemed in the least bit bothered to get them corrected. Now, about those missing holes in the backing arm No 12........

It looks great! But I would like it even more if the ground signal No 20 was facing the correct way

>>>the editor may choose to publish an article..... Quite right too! It's well worth an appearance :-)

When I went back to the Oct 2008 issue a couple more things came to my attention <g>, tho' as I've put it back in storage now I've not got it to hand to double-check. But IIRC then in the model the signal-box had the 'HALT' suffix added to its nameboard, but that would not have happened surely until the station became unstaffed in 1938 (?) - assuming I was right in that the model was based in the 'blue' era between the wars. Also, the bargeboards on the SB were painted a light blue colour, but I've never seen any evidence for that either there or elsewhere on the S&D - more like a BR 'corporate image' style :-)

>>>October 2008 was the Railway Modeller issue..... Ah yes, that was indeed the one which I remembered, tho' clearly not well enough to to get the scale right - oops! It was a nice layout, but with a few 'historical contradictions (especially the signalling!) which caused me to send a Letter to the Editor which appeared in the next issue. I'm sure it will improve with your attention :-)

>>>This layout was featured in the Railway Modeller a few years ago... Although I do recall one layout of Masbury in the RM, I think was a club 4mm effort, so what issue of the magazine was yours in please?

Yes, No 17 *is* Highbridge.

I would suggest that Nos 11 and 12 are at Masbury Summit, looking northwards towards Bridge 69. I suspect that No 10 is the same location (and the same lineside photographer!), but looking southwards. Not sure about 8, but perhaps somewhere in roughly the same area????

I think 22 and 23 are Binegar again. 27 puzzles me, as the train is heading off across the GRW line towards the goods shed, I wonder why?

I love the one with the 'spotter' sat on the Down Main !

"Chris - I see the size of the 1933 box extension at its north end shows up well on the picture on p37 of S&D Files No. 2." I will take your word for that. not having said publication <g>, but thanks for the 'pointer'. Certainly I found that it was more obvious from the rear than the front.

From the limited info available, Templecombe No 2 Junction second signal-box (the 1880s one) was probably much the same from front to back as other Type 2 boxes, just rather more of it in timber than usual. A lot taller of course, being 3 storeys rather than the usual two! However the length certainly varied after it was extended at the north end in 1933.

"The point on the approach to the bay platform was fitted with a F.P.L. plunger & bar, while the point in the Dock Siding only had a bar." Not sure what is meant by the latter part, unless the reference is in fact to 14M, the mechanical fouling bar located on the bay road to ensure that 14 points were not reversed if there was anything at the dead-end of the Bay which would foul the shunt. This can be seen quite clearly in one of the pix. "There was also a treadle on the bay point, simply labelled 'A'." The treadle was unrelated to the point other than by the fact of where it happened to be, its function being to release the Sykes backlock on the Down Home signal once an incoming train had arrived. Saldy it seems to have escaped the photographer as far as I can tell :-(

>>>My Midsomer Mallet layout uses the Bachmann Shillingstone signalbox..... That's a shame, Brian :-) I can understand the enthusiasm for using available kits etc, but given your location firmly on the 'Bath Extension' then really its probably not the best choice. The only known SDJR Type 1 box north of Evercreech Jcn was at Evercreech New, and that was stone-to-floor with the original external bracing. Maybe the S&DRHT could persuade Bachmann to pay them a visit at MSN and produce kits of structures more appropriate to that end of the line? But I digress....Templecombe would be nice to model, but I suspect a lot of work to fit in all the sidings and the spur around to the S&DJR, as well as all the LMS rolling-stock in addition to the SR items. Going to the other extreme, I've often toyed with the idea of the 'branch' station at Chard Junction as a separate model in its own right, even a chance to dabble with GWR rolling stock :-) Sidmouth Junction perhaps?

An interesting and unusual choice of location, tho' my personal preference would have to do the eastern approach to the tunnel so as to include Honiton Incline signal-box and its siding for a little bit of extra 'interest'. But at least it's the right line......:-)

Err....what date please ????

"I would have thought that a FPL would have locked in both positions to provide locking just in case the route had been set wrongly by the signalman" if the 'wrong' route was set, then the locking would prevent the 'right' signal being cleared anyway. If the choice was between a full-size running arm for the main route, and a ground signal for the divergence into the siding, then I would suggest that it is unlikely that any good driver (of a passenger train) would still go ahead regardless :-) Admittedly if the point WAS bolted by the FPL anyway, it would mitigate in the event that the points also were not properly closed to the route, but then one would also expect the detection to have prevented the disc from clearing, so I would suggest that we are rather taking things to extremes.

"My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory". Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock"." In its simplest terms, the 'requirement' is that points must be secured for passenger movements in the facing direction. In practice, for ease of operation, this is usually achieved by use of a FPL. If passenger movements do not pass over one of the two routes from the point, then /ipso facto/ the rule only applies to the one route used by passenger movements, NOT both - if there are no passenger moves over the other route, then obviously the rule can not apply there. Consequently there is NO exception, as there no applicability of the rule for which an exception would be required - if you see what I mean :-) [Please excuse the CAPITALS - I'm not shouting, it's just that for some reason I can never get the formatting to work :-( ]

Well, I like a good argument on semantics as much as the next man, but even I am struggling here to understand exactly where the perceived problem lies. Godders says "I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written" - OK, fair enough. If you look back to Mike's original post, then he wrote - and I quote verbatim: "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification." The Bigbee Line then posts a picture of a point on a line which (used to) have a passenger service and that has a FPL. I fail to see how that is in any way inconsistent with what Mike wrote originally, nor are any of his subsequent comments IMHO inconsistent either. The fact that FPLs may or may not be used on goods lines does not negate the requirement on passenger lines.

Without wishing to get into an argument on pedantics (is that a valid verb?), I fail to see how Mike's comment is at all inconsistent. "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working...." Well, the line IS used by passenger trains and the point IS 'fitted' with a FPL. In the course of "normal working" any passenger train does NOT pass over the diverging route. Mike said nothing to the effect that the FPL had to be effective for BOTH positions of the point. If you look back thru' various other threads on layout signalling,you will find many references to the FACT that - certainly on older installations - FPLs did not always lock a point for a non-passenger route. That is precisely why many locking charts often carried the annotation '1-hole stretcher' or similar. I am sure that Mike can quote some specific examples! As to the reason - well, I would /suggest/ economy in installation and maintenance. Bolting for 1 route only requires less interlocking to be applied to the lever-frame and therefore less to maintain. Likewise, if you only cut 1 slot in the stretcher bar then there is only one to maintain and ensure that it does not get out of tolerance, not two. You may also have a saving on detection.

Godders - The Bigbee Line was indeed correct in what he said. The point IS fitted with an FPL - it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route. The "avoiding lines" at Taunton after the 1930s alteration were nominally Goods Lines - and signalled with the usual GWR ringed arms as such - but were fitted with FPLs on the facing points so that the lines could be pressed into service for passenger use for diversions, avoiding the need for clipping and padlocking etc. I have come across instances also of FPLs on some points in sidings - the carriage sidings at Ilfracombe spring to mind. In such cases it tends to be only the points at their entrance or exit, not everywhere, and the rationale for this is unclear - perhaps the cost was deemed to outweigh the operational inconvenience in the event of accidental derailment while shunting? Like most things in signalling, if you look closely enough you will find the odd exception - one well-known GWR location was Ashburton, which survived right until closure of passenger services in BR days without ever having had any FPLs, despite Down trains passing over two facing points.

I recall years ago a certain person (who lurks somewhere here on RMweb IIRC) who built a circular 4mm layout based on Whitchurch Halt on the Bristol & North Somerset Railway - just the single track and the halt plus the scenery.