5BarVT

New holes with tightly fitting bolts, probably not. Depending how often you separate and rejoin the bolt holes will wear. I think you will be glad you added them in due course. :-) Paul.

Agreed. Takes a while to get used to it but then becomes natural! Paul.

Like your wiring philosophy - mainly because it’s the same as mine! Clean at the front, dirty at the back and try and keep them separate as much as possible. Like you, I have one set of boards where (due to the supports) it’s not quite so easy, but it happens to be close to the control box so the ‘clean’ wiring will be separated along rather than across the board. Paul.

Prompted by the above, I’ve been into NLS maps. Yes, the distances between the boxes on the triangle mean that requiring all signals clear at both boxes (Clipstone E plus Clipstone S or N (or is it W?)) before clearing the relevant lower distant on 5 is quite possible. Further explanation of slotting required! Lever 44 will prove 40, 42, 43 reverse using mechanical locking in the box. At the bottom of the post are three balance levers, one for the stop arm exactly as normal. This is operated by the lever in Clipstone E and clears the stop arm. A second operated by lever 44 at Edwinstowe isn’t connected to anything. In between the two is a third (with the balance weight stuck out in the opposite direction) connected to the distant arm and has a plate that passes across the other two. That plate prevents the distant arm moving until both of the other balance levers are off. It’s working as a mechanical .AND. gate - both levers (one in Clipstone E and 44 in Edwinstowe) must be pulled before the distant arm will respond. Paul.

Almost, but not quite! All stop signals need to be off before the distant can be cleared - for 44 that means 43, 42 and 40. But pulling lever 44 won’t actually clear the distant unless the stop arm above it is also off (but only that stop arm). Going the other way, when the all the stop signals are off at the next box (depending on the routing as it is a splitting distant) the the distant lever can be cleared, but the arm won’t move until 5 is off. 1 requires 2, 3 and 5 off. I’m wondering whether I’m correct about the ‘next two boxes’ for 5 - it may be that the company concerned just used that symbol for any form of slotting and it’s just referring to 5 and one other box. (In the practice with which I was trained, slotting of lower distants was assumed because there was a stop arm shown, the symbol was only used where it wouldn’t otherwise be apparent - usually stop arms shared by two boxes.) Paul.

That symbol indicates slotting - operation by more than one signalbox. The lower one is operated by lever 44 in the box for which you have the diagram and the next box along (further to the left). The upper one is operated by the next two boxes to the right. It will be because the boxes are close together and there is insufficient braking distance, so both of the relevant boxes need all of their stop signals cleared before the distant can come off. Only one arm, but more gubbins at the bottom of the post. Paul.

Top’n’tail loco? Paul.

Used by the Harwich boat train I recall, where the same diesel loco ran round and took the return working back. All other passenger were either electric or DMU. Paul.

Glad you got it sorted. Mr Random really wasn’t your friend this time, was he! Paul.

Would like to have attended the York show to see Wentworth, but I’m expected elsewhere. Family comes first. Paul.

Not come across a verynear before. I rather like it. Paul.

The last incarnation of the GWR locking frame built at Reading signal works. Obvious to signal engineers (particularly WR) and meaningless to almost anybody else !! Paul.

With my user name, I can do nothing but approve, having walked past it on many an occasion. Paul.

No, the stage before that - creating the potholes for someone else to fill in later. Paul.

Do you have to arrange for the hire car to be returned when you get a changed turn at short notice? Or do Control do Road vehicles too? Paul.

Assuming your not using a live frame on one side, or having front axle only for one side, don’t you need a further cut in the PCBs? Paul.

Back in the early 80s, sand traffic was routed off the ECML onto the GN/GE route between Doncaster and Peterborough because leaking sand was causing too much delay on the main line. (Got into the clamp lock point mechanisms and ground them away til they failed.) Paul.

No help here, but those sound like the problems i have had, so thanks for the heads up on where to go looking. Paul.

More thinking aloud then! Really off the wall (and I’d want some input from other engineers and operators to confirm I’m not raving . . .) operate the loop trap off the FPL lever, just leaving three ends on the point lever. Or, more conventional, operate the siding traps off a separate lever and probably the single hand point too. (Risk management - don’t want a guard/shunter forgetting and either running through traps after just swinging the hand points, or dropping off on mis set hand points after just operating the traps.) i.e. for modelling purposes, an extra lever on the GF. Paul.

Electric token M’head to Bourne End. That released the GF at Bourne End which in turn released the staff for Bourne End to Marlow. With the train shut in to the Marlow section the token could be handed back and another train run down to Bourne End. That used to be the peak operation, off peak one train down to Marlow and all the way back. Paul.

First one I’ve seen with the branding on. Is it just the end cars with all the others still white? Paul.

Technically, yes. With a trained signalman (in those days) and not too far from the box, no problem. But with a guard, even if they had more practice back in those days, I’m less sure. The GF would be right on top of the points, so not a desperately long run, but still not convinced. I’m currently about 48 1/2 years ago reading the Oxford Techs fault book: Radley GF O.O.O. Guard instructed in use of ground frame. . . . But as well as keeping the signalling as simple as possible, the pway should also be the minimum required. Is there a need to both sand sidings to be accessed from the running line? Making the slip two single ends (or a Barry slip if you must), saves one of the traps. A bit more simplification could get it down to one trap. Empties in the exchange road. ES&T Propel fulls down onto empties, shunt out to 2nd siding, shunt fulls to exchange, back onto empties and take away. Likewise, the BR train - down into loop, run round and brake into platform (never shunt with a brake, spills the tea, spoils the fire) collect fulls into platform with brake, empties into exchange siding, back onto train in platform and away. Obviously, not all achieved in one session. And I’m pleased that your shunting timetable doesn’t start until the passenger is back down at Berwick. Paul.

Some may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment! Paul.

As far as I know NSKT was a BR invention, and not that early. Shut in ground frames with an intermediate instrument were about earlier I think, but my assumption is that there would have been a signalman at each end. This century we did something clever at Stranraer to permit staff working most of the time but token working when two trains needed to be down there at the same time - that did require the box to be staffed for one shift a week. Thinking ‘out loud’, I could envisage a staff released by one lever at Berwick (for the EMU) (could be a mechanical release) interlocked with a separate lever for the shut in staff (released electrically). Each reverse to release the staff and requiring staff in to be normalised. The clever bit is allowing the release lever for the ‘shut in’ staff to be normalised if the staff was locked in at the Cuckmere end. From the guards point of view, this arrangement is very similar to a normal shut in GF, except that the staff is received from the signaller at Berwick and returned there later, but the GF operation is no different. Having seen examples of clever stuff that SR engineers did, this seems well within the sort of things they might have tried. Paul.

There is a ZN218.6 and a ZN218.4.2 and they are not the same (to do with whether the extra 2 outputs are logic level or not (‘12V’?). So I would imagine that the RoS is similar. I haven’t managed to get all the lights to work on my SPCs and I suspect this might be something to do with it. Paul.