RailWest

I like the idea of a "Stationary" distant - do they have some then which wander about ? :-)

>>>... train staff in shape of an Annett’s Key lock attached to the King Lever No.13.... Almost certainly then attached to the front of the lever. Once 13 was reversed and the staff (key) was withdrawn from the lock, then the lock bolt would go down into a slot in the frame quadrant to prevent the lever being replaced (well, that's one way of doing it anyway).

A. I would guess that AK = Annett's Key B. It's probably a notice board. Probably says 'STOP' or something similar. C. Correct. D. Difficult to tell, but looks like a 'D' sign (to indicate that there is a Fireman's Call Plunger provided - see Item 9.6 here https://www.railsigns.uk/sect9page1.html) E. It may be a symbol for the FCP, tho' it looks to me more like a symbol for a telephone.

Err, not exactly....the SB seen at the entrance to the Museum is actually the structure from Cogload (near Taunton). Don't let the nameplate confuse you :-)

Assuming that the 'main line' carries passenger traffic, then before you start worrying about signals you need to add some trap points :-) One at the exit from the tramway and one at the exit from the short siding behind the platform. You would not need any distant signals in the Up direction unless either (a) the next signal box up the line was less than about a mile away or (b) there was a something like a level-crossing with a ground-frame and its own protecting signals within that sort of distance.

I agree with Signal Engineer and Stationmaster. You might need also to clarify what you mean by a 'goods loop'. Are you talking about an actual running loop, where a goods train can pass another train standing on the platform road, or simply a siding which just happens to be connected to the running-line at both ends? Certainly the GWR did have quite a few of the former (think places such as Hatch, Buckfastleigh, Sandford & Banwell etc), but I would argue that the latter was more common (as at Watchet, Washford, Stogumber etc). The former tended to verge on the 'forest of signals' whereas the latter could be much simpler.

Given the relatively low level of traffic on some branch lines, it would have been quite easy to make most shunting moves out onto the main running line as required, except when a train had been accepted from the next box along.

Yealmpton was very unusual, having been laid out for the never-built extension to Modbury. At Brixham originally the engine-shed connection crossed the main line by a diamond and trailed into the run-round loop line, thereby avoiding a facing point (similar to Moretonhampstead).

16 was a backing signal - think of it as a large version of a shunt disc. You can see it under the train shed roof in the photo. The legend about normal and reversed simply describes the positions of various levers when the GF was locked.

Even more odd IMHO is the use of a backing arm for the movement over the engine release crossover - not seen that before anywhere - and the fact it survived so late. As becasse has said already, why keep any signals at all in such a layout (other than perhaps the fixed distant)? As an aside, I've seen a 1922 photo of the Down Home and Up Starting signals still in place, but 'X'd out -of-use, and the latter was one of the rare GWR examples with a lattice post.

...but that diagram shows it after it had been reduced to GF status and most of the original signals had been removed. Prior to that there had also been at least a Down Home and Up Starting, but I'm not aware of any actual diagram for the original arrangement.

>>>Can you find a prototype where there wasn't direct access from the sidings to the running line?.... Clevedon :-)

The Abingdon diagram seems to be back-to-front, so if you're going to do it that way around you will need to reverse the lever-frame numbering.

As has been said already, by the nature of single-line terminus it is almost impossible to eliminate facing points altogether, but certainly the GWR did try to reduce them where it could - look for example at the layout at Moretonhampstead. Again, although at least layout did exist where the point for the yard was facing to departing trains rather than arriving ones (eg Clevedon), this situation seems to have been even rarer. The arrangement for the Engine Shed looks odd IMHO, as it gives the impression that it is accessed from somewhere further back up the line. Not unknown, but.... as an alternative, why not rotate it clockwise by 135 degrees, so that it can be accessed by a siding which crosses the track leading to the two goods sidings and connects into the run-round loop by a point between the sidings point and the engine release crossover? In that way, an engine can come off an incoming train, reverse across onto the loop and then run straight into the shed. I've seen that sort of thing before, just can't think where at the moment !

Perhaps you should keep taking the tablets...:-)

I can do little but echo what has been said already by Brian and Mike. I first met Jonathan probably about the same time as Brian, through my involvement with the S&DRT at that time and my submission of occasional articles to the Bulletin about S&DJR signalling. We met from time to time at AGMs or on visits to Washford and more recently our paths crossed on rare occasions at other railway events. His passing will be a great loss to the S&D community, but at least his work will live on for others to study and enjoy. 7-5-5 Chris

The answer is...it depends :-) IF there was enough space between the toe of the point which connects the 2 sidings and the point in the main line, then insert just one trap there. However, judging from your plan there would not be enough room, so there would need to be one trap on each siding. IMHO single-blade traps would suffice. If you are building your own pointwork, then the two traps could be constructed within the confines of the point, otherwise they would need to be to the left of the point which leaves very little space in the shorter siding. So in that case a double-slip would be a 'space saving' idea, tho' realistically probably a complex piece of trackwork likely to be avoided by most heritage railways! On the other hand, it could provide the basis for a very short spur siding in the bottom RH corner.

You would need also to have trap points at the exist from the sidings in order to protect the main passenger-carrying line.

Yes, apparently the photo was 1964 :-)

Apologies to Tim for diverting this thread down the line about, but there may be those reading this forum who know the answer. The attached photo (attributed to Roy Denison) shows a loaded (?) passenger train at Templecombe (Upper) being propelled from the Up Branch back into Platform 3, presumably to couple-up to other train already in that platform. There have been discussions before (but I've mis-laid the reference) about occasions in the timetable when trains were combined in Platform 3, so this may be one of those instances. Can anyone add anything to this please - eg possible time of day etc ?

Had you said 'Dorchester' rather than 'Doncaster', then I might have managed to get there :-) Hope all goes well - hopefully there will be some videos from the day ?

I would disagree :-) The back of the crank can be seen at the foot of the post and the signal wire is going off to the left under the adjacent track. It is more questionable as to whether the distant arm is 'fixed' or not, as I can't see any signs of the necessary slot gear where the weight lever is - anyone got a signal diagram for the location perhaps?

>>>Edwin is indeed correct, walking in the four foot facing oncoming traffic is one of the safest places to walk, other than walking in the cess, as you can see a train coming and only have to step over one rail to get to a place of safety....... My maternal great-grandfather was a platelayer on the L&SWR. He died 'on the job' because he was 'walking the line' one Sunday morning, walking in the 4-foot of one line of double-track facing the oncoming traffic, but for some inexplicable reason he had forgotten that SLW was in force on that line and he failed to hear the whistle of the train that came up behind him :-(

It would appear that British Railways Journal No 54 (Winter 1995) had an article about Henstridge by Roger Carpenter. Might anyone perhaps have that issue and could scan the relevant pages for me please?

Looks,nice, but two points:- 1. That style of subsidiary arm is essentially a WHITE arm with narrow red stripes along the edges, not a red arm with a narrow white stripe. 2. Don't forget the associated indicator box :-)