RailWest

Firstly, it is quite likely that the Down Sidings were effectively out-of-use for some years before the points were removed, given that apparently both coal and stone traffic from them had ceased by the late 1930s. On the other hand, it has been said that they were used to hold (empty?) wagons for the Emborough works and also for New Rock Colliery, as the latter's sidings at Chilcompton did not have the capacity. Indeed, it is said there was a proposal to retain a length of track of the S&DJR after 1966 from Bath to Moorewood specifically for New Rock, who would otherwise have to seek alternative loading facilities (but instead they closed down). I have been pointed to a better scan of the Toop photo here It is possible to enlarge this much more clearer to the extent that no point is discernable in the down line nor any rodding leading across to it, but the shortening of the perspective is a little confusing. In the background can be seen disc 14, for moves back over the east crossover. This is where it gets confusing.....according to George Pryer disc 11, for moves back INTO the Down siding, was in the 6-foot, and as clearly it is not there then one might assume that it has been removed, However, all the available signal diagrams for Moorewood (1914, 1930 and early BR) show that signal to be on the outside of the track and there is no known record of it being moved, in which case one would expect any view of it to be blocked by the train anyway.

In the meantime, I've written a bit more on this subject.... www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/sigmisc.html#catch

There were instances on the S&DJR where, on rising gradients on double-track lines, trailing spring-loaded catch-points were provided some distance in rear of the relevant Home signal. Known examples existed at Midsomer Norton and Moorewood on the Down line, and Masbury and Winsor Hill on the Up line. There are several photographs which show the one at Winsor Hill and (at least) one for each of those at Midsomer Norton and Masbury, but does anyone know of photos for the Moorewood example please?

No, that was the Up siding for Emborough Quarries.

In Mac Hawkin's "Somerset & Dorset Then and Now" plate 53 shows 44561 on a Down train passing Moorewood signal-box in a photo credited to RE Toop and dated 20-May-1961. The caption states that by that date the connection to the Down sidings had been removed, yet the official date from Weekly Notice P/EW46 for the removal of that connection was 9-Dec-1964 (quoted also by RA Cooke). Is the photo wrongly dated or - given that the site of the sidings is not visible in the photo anyway - is it simply a case that the caption is incorrect? I suspect the latter.

>>>>...EXCEPT where was either a further ("Advanced") Starting signal before leaving the area or a distant arm for the next box below the starter. In that case it would be 3-aspect G/Y/R, only capable of showing G if the advanced starter/ lower distant arm was off..... However, I think you will find that the two C/L Starting signals at Portishead were R/G only. Stationmaster might know more....:-)

I see no customers - were the tanker drivers on strike on those days ? :-):-)

It was usually the case with most economic FPL mechanisms of which I am aware that the point was bolted in either position. Pulling/replacing the lever withdrew the lock plunger, moves the point blades, and re-inserted the lock plunger.

Many years ago now a group of us went on an officially-sanctioned visit to the (then relatively new) Bristol power box. During the course of our 'guided tour' of the operating floor we asked if we could take photographs, but permission was refused (politely) on the grounds of 'security concerns' . Admittedly this was at the time of the occasional IRA bombings on the UK mainland. We were then taken downstairs into the relay room, at which point our guide was called away for something, so he went off and just left us there. Apart from the fact that any of us could, had we been so inclined, removed the (unlocked) covers from any of the relays and 'fiddled' with the contacts (not that we would have ever done such a thing, of course), we were bemused to notice that there was a door (fire exit? loading/unloading entrance?) standing wide open with direct access out to the public area near the platforms, thru' which any passing ne'er-do-well could have hurled the odd rucksack bomb or two.....

>>>Contributory factors to the ignorance of signalling include the Private notice on the box door and the rule book requirement that it be observed. .... So relatively few outsiders got to see operation practices in real life.... Quite true. A few years ago I was in the box on a heritage railway on a 'Behind the Scenes' day when visitors were encouraged. A chap came in, looked around - obviously somewhat puzzled - and eventually said "I know this is a signal-box and that it controls the station, but what are all the big levers for ?" I think his prior 'experience' of signalling had been confined to photos of the insides of power boxes :-(

Picking up on an earlier comment, I am reminded of one well-known and well-regarded layout seen on the exhibition circuit some years ago. It was based on a prototype that had been a junction station with two signal-boxes, one at each end, but at some stage those had been replaced by one central box and the actual junction remodelled. Unfortunately....the group building it had used the track layout from one era and the signalling from the other :-( As a result there were signals on the layout which served absolutely no function at all because they were incompatible with the points layout.

I think he did :-) I don't know the area, but I wonder if there was something which crossed the railway at that location (such as an aerial ropeway or similar) and there were some form of barriers worked/bolted by 16 which prevented it being used when trains were passing underneath. If it had been just a narrow path with gates, then I would have expected the gates to be drawn as such.

I've looked at the SRS diagram for Cannock Road Jcn and can't find that at all ! Is there perhaps more than one box of the same name at Wolverhampton ?

I'm not sure I understand your first point what do you mean by "the lack of a double slip off the up line"? As regards GSs, usually engines were banned.

1. Yes. 2. Yes, it is a double slip, but the LH ends only are worked by 13, the RH ends are worked by a local hand-lever. When the signalman pulls 13 then the traps in both sidings are shut, enabling a train to exit from either siding onto the Up Main. With 13 reversed, when a train shunts INTO the sidings then which siding it goes to will depend upon the use of hand-lever. Equally, when 13 is normal, then an engine can come back out of the spur into either siding, depending upon the use of the hand-lever. 3. And, just in case you are wondering :-) , ground signal 12 applies to both sidings.

I was assuming that the OP meant a single-slip where the GS road had access to the exit crossover and also the spur, whereas the back siding only had access to the exit road and needed its own trap - which would have seemed rather odd, but I have come across at least one example of such. However a double-slip would seem more sensible and - it would appear - that was indeed the case there.

I thought about that, but....if the one at the station end was accessed by a single slip, then surely it would not have been possible to move a wagon from the GS road to the siding behind it or vice-versa, only by going out towards the main line?

Probably not a siding at all, just a very short trap-road rather than just having trap-points on their own. Curious tho' that they bothered with a single-line slip at the station end rather than just having plain traps on both the sidings.

Indeed, I have come across examples where the same signal is shown in two different places on the same map, simply because there has been a partial revision of part of the map after the signal had moved from its old location in the unrevised section to a new location in the revised section! Not every signal is marked anyway, and of course it is not always possible to tell if a signal is on the LHS of the line for traffic going in one direction or actually RHS for traffic going the other way.

3000 / 7 = 428.6 :-)

There is certainly a thread somewhere here on RMWeb by someone who is modelling Easton.

>>> Has anyone modelled Thornbury Midland Railway station.... IIRC I saw a 4mm model at an exhibition many years ago now. No doubt a Google search may turn up something....

Not having the Swift book to hand, but.... Are you sure that the lever-frames were actually ground-frames (ie a non-block post) or simply uncovered ground-level frames (common for the L&NWR)? Given the provision of signals, I would suspect at least one of those frames was actually a block-post therefore.

>>>Would there be a limit of shunt sign on the main line?.. Unlikely IMHO. The purpose of a LoS was to limit wrong-direction movements, which by definition do not exist on a bi-directional single-line. (Ignore what you may see on some heritage lines :-) ) The signalman would authorise the driver to shunt into the single-section only as far as was necessary, and as the driver would not have the staff/tablet in his possession at that time anyway then he could not proceed to go all the way to the next block post.

Like so many things S&T, 'it varies' between railway companies, different periods etc etc. >>>With Penicuik does the signal box lever 13 have a Annette's key box fixed to it or is it a separate box on the shelf behind the levers, because I cannot find a picture of a lever in a signal box with a key box on it. I doubt the former, as how then would the 'instrument' lock the lever? I would suggest that you assume the latter. >>>Ground frame levers have the key box fitted.... Some do, others have it attached to the interlocking tray. >>>Would lever 13 be a ground frame release and be painted blue over brown? There was no 13 at Penicuik :-) Do you mean 1? Again, the answer might vary depending upon whether pre- or post-Grouping. >>>A king lever is a lever which is released by another box.... Not necessarily so. Certainly the one at Aberfeldy was not.