Jump to content
RMweb
 

iands

RMweb Premium
  • Posts

    2,278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iands

  1. I know a lot of photos were "lost" a while ago when RMweb were having difficulties and changed 'server provider', but I hadn't realised that a number of my threads had also disappeared ('Gilberdyke', 'East London Line', etc.). However, not to worry, this thread gives me an opportunity to re-post some Gilberdyke photos again. Some were taken a couple of years or so before the Gilberdyke-Ferriby resignalling scheme started and culminated with the resignalling commissioning and the demise of the semaphores and the mechanical 'boxes. Here's the first batch: With a 158 in the Down platform (towards Hull) Gilberdyke G45 signal is 'off', with Oxmardyke's distant (O9) still 'on'. With Gilberdyke station platforms visible through the bridge (the Down platform is on the left), the signal protection the junction (the lines coming in from Goole on the right), Gilberdyke's G46, with Oxmardyke's distant O9R below. Gilberdyke's Up platform 'Starters'. G7 on the left (for the route towards Goole), and G13 on the left for the route towards Selby. I'm glad I made the effort to photo these signals when I did (and as many of the others in the area) because they are all gone now. More to follow when I get them sorted.
  2. York A1 60121 Silurian down ecs 1953 JVol2075 - the chap walking along the side of the tender is quite possibly a wheeltapper. I remember as a trainee at York back in the late 70s seeing a couple of them at work. Always fascinated me, walking along, nonchalantly swinging the hammer, and striking the wheel/tyre tread, listening for the wrong sound. Another lost skill of a bygone age.
  3. It might have been the Tramway that went along Osborne Road - looking at the 25"/mile map on the NLS site.
  4. I take it that those two signals on the left that we can see the back of, in what appears now to be the fence line, are a couple of redundant hump shunt/Toton type signals? Sorry I don't know the area, only guessing.
  5. As mentioned back in February, went on one of the steel works tours yesterday. A thoroughly enjoyable, and interesting, day out. If anyone is thinking about it, and if there are any spaces left for this years programme, I recommend the tour, very impressive. You get to see parts of the steel works not visible from passing on a train or a car. One or two photos, in no specific order;
  6. or even a "flyover of bridges" or a "span of bridges".* *Also just made up by me.
  7. Hi Rob, I think you posted same photo on 19th April. Still a good 'in though.
  8. Ah, Bill Boddy. Another former boss of mine when I was at Doncaster. No doubt you you knew a fair few others from York?
  9. Re Tunnels with a low profile top and something different above, does Stansted count?
  10. As I stated previously, I wasn't involved with the Sandy project personally, so I can't comment on the finer points of the details. As to the 'burying of infrastructure, whether it should, or should not, be the case, is a matter of opinion for us 'outsiders' (i.e. those not involved with the project). As for 'relatively straightforward' I did add "and I use that term loosely". It would be 'relatively straightforward' to reinstate because crucially the signalling interlocking is still intact. I wouldn't disagree that a lot of weaselly words are used to justify a convenient solution in lots of things, and not just on the railways. And I would not say that I agree with the rules/procedures/regulations that allows this approach to occur. All the photo shows is an 'option' that has clearly been deemed acceptable (under said rules/procedures/regulations), especially for a relatively small budget project for extending a platform. I'm sure the 'industry' would be pleased to hear suggestions on how to rectify these flawed rules/procedures/regulations. Please also bear in mind that you are communicating with a career S&T engineer (retired).
  11. Going out in the dead of night and installing a buffer stop on a running line would, in my opinion (and no doubt many others), constitute vandalism. I know what you are getting at, but 'Network Change' is a very complex issue.
  12. Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the 'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.
  13. I suspect it was a lot more than just ripping up a length of track. Although I wasn't involved with the project, I assume the platform extension work was funded by the TOC and/or DfT, which would only be sufficient to cover the cost of the build itself. To rip out the track would involve the 'Network Change Process' which requires an awful lot of funding, quite possibly 4 or 5 times the actual build cost, not least because all the necessary associated signalling works that would be required (circuit correlation, redesign, implementation works, testing, documents update etc., etc.), and the impact that all this would have had on timescales. The DfT in particular (from my experience) never quite seemed to have a grasp on these realities when trying to push through these so called 'quick fix' projects.
  14. On Thursday I mentioned Sandy and how NR didn't remove a section of track before they built the platform extension. Managed to dig out a photo.
  15. I remember Roger, nice bloke. He became my boss for a while in Intercity S&T HQ at York during the O4Q merry-go-round.
  16. There is a paragraph in the March 1930 LNER Magazine about workers finding a trout swimming round in the tender of No. 657 (Q5 0-8-0) at Stooperdale boiler shops. Also a photo of said trout once it had been caught. 15oz and 13 & 3/4 inches long apparently.
  17. Some photos of mine whilst on official business, hope they are of some use. Although a swing bridge not a Bow String bridge, the photos show Longitudinal way beams (on the moving part of the bridge) and the transition to ballasted track: Somerleyton. (Apologies for the quality of the images - cheap cameras provided by Railtrack). Similarly at Goole. And two still taken from a cab ride video taken whilst I was working on the East London Line project. The bridge at Haggerston shows ballasted track, whilst a little further along the Bow String bridge at Shoreditch High Street the modern use of 'slab track' was used. Haggerston Bridge S-B.docxShoreditch S-B.docx
  18. At least they removed a section of track in order to build the platform extension - which is more than they did at Sandy.
  19. Possibly it may have been that a '9 to 5' shift didn't qualify as unsocial hours, therefore you didn't get as much pay?
  20. This any use? Theatre Type Route Indicator-Lamp Numbering.pdf
  21. Possibly @ardbealach is referring to the statue - take a closer look. (I'm not a scouser, so only guessing.)
  22. .... and Dalwhinnie April 2021 - points not set correctly, .... signalling system failed to detect this because an unwanted link and a strap were not removed from the internal wiring of one of the point machines when it was replaced ....
×
×
  • Create New...