Miserable

Did any industrial narrow gauge narrow gauge (Feldbahn type of thing, not temporary construction lines) survive until the early 1980s in the UK? It's for a cunning plan on my O gauge layout, it would be nice to reference something rather be purely fictional.

I forget the numbers for Peco, but they aren't that tight (in O they min 6ft radius). I appologise if granny, eggs, but have you had a go with AnyRail, the free software I used for my plan. It has all the Peco etc templates in it - you just join the dots with flexitrack. You can add buildings and so on. Just a thought.

Have you considered using curved points? I may be just me, but I find they can add a nice 'flow' to the layout. With yours switching from top to bottom this may work? The down side is you may have to angle the platforms, or have curved ones. Below is my track plan which uses only curved points (one home made) and a Y. The space is not wildly dissimilar to yours.

So the last bit was cap for the post. The bits I found in the signals odd-and-ends bag turned out to not be what was desired. However, further rooting around produced a brass disc (I'm guessing a counter-balance weight) that was only slightly oversize. Filing this to fit, it needs to be a kind of dome affair going by the drawing, was not going to be easy. Then the little grey cells had a conference and Plan B arrived... I soldered it to a off-cut of the correct size post, then it was easy to file it to the desired size and shape and glue it to the post. Everything then got final coats of paint - and it's done. When the paint is dry off comes the tape on the post, two bits of white splash to cover with black and then off to eBay. It's been fun, if a little slow due to making it up as I go along. The first one I built , for my layout, didn't take long to build but is non-working, it's lit but no operating rod for the signal. Making this a working one has been something of a learning curve, as indeed has been finding out about the variations of the prototype. Every day's a school day :-) Now to clear the decks for the Parkside SR 20T Brake Van. I may use this as the prototype for roller bearing wheels if they are available, another little project I fancy trying. Happy New Year, lets hope it works out better. I'm not risking saying it couldn't get any worse.

That's the thing painted! Some tidying to do, and some chalk to apply to the woodwork, but that's essentially it. The back 'glass' of the case has had some white applied in a thin coat to see how it goes. When it's gone off I'll see if another coat is needed, to which end I've plugged it in as per the photos. The lamp tell-tale is definitely getting blocked, the post being white makes it worse. Eyeing up the SR van kit now, well more being glared at it, but that means.... gulp...... tidying the workbench. About half the stone walling for the back of the north end of the layout is now on order, but will likely not arrive until well into January. The wait is worth it, the Invertrain plaster stone wall is just so, er, walley. Here's some pictures of the now not-just-grey signal.

The plan was to paint the white first, but then I put the tape the wrong side of the line, so black it is. The good news is nothing fell off, the bad news is it's probably just waiting for an inconvenient moment. Doubtless someone will be along telling me I'm doing this all wrong, but some more photo searching seems to show that having a finial may only apply for BR days, and perhaps only then when the signal is much taller than I'm making. So I'm going for a cap, following GWR practice, so it certainly isn't completely wrong. The kit instructions, who's authors I confident are au fait with the prototypes, call for a cap. A couple of likely candidates for the cap have emerged from the bag of signal bits I have knocking around, so hopefully that's sorted out. I forgot to take the photo's with the white applied.. another post follows later as I have to fire up the studio to do a bit of musicing.

Temper temper. Did you ever actually undergo guards training? I think you are confusing yourself with a paper trail. For once and all - there was no difference between a brake test for air or vacuum in the period 79 to 84 - I'm pretty certain of that because explaining how to do a brake test was about the only guaranteed question in the guards exam, or more accurately viva-voce, and I passed. The GA was/is and expansion of the rule book. i.e how to apply the rules, an annex of it.

Well that was certainly unlucky. In theory the reservoir pipe should have been on it's dummy though, but that was a universally ignored rule, I don't think anyone would have suspected that could happen! But nothing to do with brake test efficacy though.

Please do, it doesn't change the facts though. I would rather read posts from people who actually know stuff, there have been a few replies here form people who clearly do actually know, than speculation based on hearsay.

Indeed, and I'm pretty sure that concern would have led to changes in the rules to prevent re-occurence.

Then it's about time someone did, he's just posted more inaccurate information.

There was no difference between air or vacuum tests 79 to 84. Sorry. Indeed there was no requirement to perform a brake test when detaching a banker - it was built in in the process of uncoupling the assisting engine. The Rule book was The Rules, it referred to itself as such.

Nope, no confusion. The names have evolved, that's all. Their function remains the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty's_Railway_Inspectorate

I'm pretty sure that was not the case back in the 80s, just on empirical evidence. But I am, however, rather surprised the driver didn't notice any change in the braking characteristics of the train.

The RAIB, formerly known as the Railway Accident Investigation Branch, has existed since 1840. Any rail accident or event is investigated, though 'routine' errors may not generate any report and/or investigation if those involved 'hold their hands up' and there are no unusual circumstances. From your posts I'm pretty convinced you are confusing anecdote as evidence, and my evidence for that is that you never quote date and or location, so no apology is required or offered.

I guess the first gets put down to an unfortunate accident, but really shouldn't have happened since the brake test should be the very last action of the preparation (bad habits/over familiarity, human nature sadly), the second is incredibly unlucky - the chances of a the valve being closed by debris when it was parallel, and close, to the pipe is minuscule - but as Terry Pratchett observed "million to one chances happen all the time". It doesn't however invalidate the brake test procedure.

I was a guard 1979 to 1984 (I moved to the box before the the rush,to avoid ending up on the p-way). Those were the rules then. End of story. Guards had to undergo 16 weeks in the class room (14 in our case since we didn't do ticket training) under instruction form an Inspector (ours was a guy called Martin), followed by an exam at Division (Bristol), then being piloted by an established guard during route learning until such time as you felt confident to sign the route.

All the examples you give are where the rules have not been followed. When banking/assisting uncoupling the assisting engine automatically performs a brake test! The 56 thing - can you link the RAIB report - strongly suspect there is more to that than meets the eye as is the case with most RAIB reports. I moved to the box in 1984 just as OMO trains started coming in (to beat the rush) and was never issued with any cock handle. The tail lamp's sole function was to show the train is complete. Detonators were/are used to show where a train awaiting assistance is, and where banking was authourised the start and end points would be specifically defined and lit (the lit bit was a little 'in theory' though).

I'm confused - the lack of a brake application indicates the brake test has failed and the train cannot proceed! That was(is) very definitely in the rules. I can't say what current practice are but the brake test was : Signal the driver (one arm pumped up and down, with a white light at night) to create vacuum or air. The driver 'traps' the vacuum/air - this disconnects the exhauster/compressor from the 'the pipe'. Any leaks will show up on the gauges. The guard (or, for completeness, another authorised person where permitted) pulls the vacuum pipe of the dummy or opens the air valve (holding on to the air pipe, otherwise it will have a go at removing a knee cap) and the brake will be applied. It's obvious if there is a vacuum or air, and you can hear the brake cylinders working . The guard (and etc) then replaces the vacuum pipe on the dummy or closes the air valve. The driver pulls the brake off and the guard notes that the brakes come off. On a freight there was(is) no requirement to check the brake physically applies, since if the last two wagons are not pipe only or carded as the rules state then brake is considered working. However, a lot (most?) guards would kick the blocks (clasp brakes) or tap a wheel with a lump of ballast (disc brakes - remembering only one wheel per axle has a brake usually). On a passenger the guard was (is) required to physically check the brake works of the last coach - kicking blocks etc. If all is good, and all the other preparation tasks are completed the train is good to go. If at any time, for any reason, 'the pipe' is broken a further brake test must be undertaken. Even if that's just unhook the engine and the hook it back up again. If that has been done correctly there is no way the train, both halves, can continue should the pipe part. If anyone thinks they can, please post a link to the appropriate RAIB reports and I'll happily be corrected.

But the fact it it was (is?).

It was very definitely the the case when I was Guarding that the guard did not need to physically go and check the lamp because if the brake test had been completed the the train *had* to be complete. As you say, the guard only had to report 'complete with tail lamp' when the signalman had not has sight of it himself (read him/her). Golden rule No.1 of the railway - never assume anything - it's just conceivable that had the guard relieved the train the test may not have been done A chance in a million, but million to one chances cause accidents all the time. When I moved to the SB about 10% of guards would sigh and go and have a completely unnecessary physical look - meanwhile I couldn't give 'train out of section' for the time it took them to walk back 37 PGS, sometimes leading to delays.

I have to say none of the drivers I worked with would go anywhere without a successful test, the very concept leaves me chilled - it's a No.1 fundamental basic of safety!

So the brake test was not carried out then, since continuity of 'the pipe' is the fundamental purpose of doing one. That's *really* scary if people are not doing that. It's the brake test that allow(ed) the guard to be able to report being complete with tail lamp without actually having to go and look.

Not the most wildly exciting post, but the signal is now primed! A spot of tidying here and then the top coat. It looks like getting a finial before January isn't going to happen, so soon the next project starts. Much as I'd like to do the ABS guard van kit, I really need to get the three Parkside kits I have left over from an attempt at starting a model shop out of the way, to wit a BR 12T Tube, the inevitable BR sand wagon and an SR brake van. As Lady Provenance is delivering a spay gun on Wednesday I think the brake van will be first. I'm not terribly SR (except for Queen Mary brake vans, I need one of them) but have the paint so this will be eBayed too. The others fit in on the layout, which is nice. Anyhow, here's some pictures of a grey signal.

Tea with lardy cakes every day from the local baker on the Frome/Radstock/Cranmore trip - when it was Frome North.