2251

The Earl Cawdor seems the most likely candidate (chairman 1895-1905; he succeeded his father to the earldom in 1898 -- before that he was known as Viscount Emlyn) not least because he owned Cawdor Castle in Nairnshire, to which he was presumably travelling.

Snow Hill, c 1962

We had a discussion along these lines earlier this year:

Where they are sitting is more or less the location of the former tramway station:

A serious upgrade took place at Cowley Bridge Jct a few years ago to improve flood resilience so the possibility of the issue being there should be very much lower than it used to be.

The second of those images is a Colour Rail photo attributed to J P Mullett....

I thought we were but wanted to check as "locking bars" is one of those expressions used, perhaps wrongly, in two quite different senses.

Are we talking here about facing point locks or locking (also called fouling) bars, which would only be required where the signalman has a restricted view of the fouling point?

The only prototypical example I can think of off-hand without a station in between is Bearley North Junction, which was laid out as a pair of double junctions: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/sig-diag-bearley-north.htm

Para 79 of the report seems pretty clear that the reason why 13A was not lying normal was not investigated: "There are a variety of reasons that would explain why the switch rails at the 13A point end did not move away from the reverse position, on this occasion, when the signaller commanded 13 points to the normal position (paragraph 76). The lack of movement resulted in the switch rails at the two point ends being in opposite positions (out-of-correspondence) and, therefore, 13 points being unsafe. Such point failures are not uncommon and are generally viewed as a performance or reliability concern. Operational safety is assured by the signalling system detecting the position of the switch rails and, if incorrect, preventing the signaller from being able to clear the relevant signal. As a result, RAIB’s investigation has focussed on the failure of the detection system." (emphasis added)

I appreciate I am late in adding this (and it may be unnecessary detail) but 7915 is standing on the No 2 road in New Yard Sidings, which were (as has been said) immediately to the north of the station and on the east side.

No. The point I was making was that the first GWR loco with piston valves was 2601, not that the other Krugers had slide valves. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.

More precisely, 2601 (which, unlike the other Krugers, was a 4-6-0).

Lymington was a motor vessel not a steamer and equipped with Voith Schneider propellers, not paddle wheels.

The exemption was not specific to London Transport. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1972, which introduced the requirement for retro-reflective plates in the case of vehicles registered on or after 1 January 1973, excluded vehicles “wholly or mainly used as a stage carriage within the meaning of section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1960”.

Here is a photo (obviously not mine) of the "splitting" pattern at Wolvercote Jct in April 1963. I am afraid I do not know the history, apart from the fact that it went c 1964.

On another note....

Good point! But what did levers 25 and 26 do in 1936?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, matters evolved over time. Compare the 1936 and 1967 diagrams available here: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1350 https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1351

The report is here: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Hixon1968.pdf

I am sure you know this, but it is worth noting that Clapham was (unusually if not uniquely) the subject of an enquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 chaired by Anthony Hidden QC rather than an HMRI investigation. The detailed report, produced after a 56-day hearing, is here: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Hidden001.pdf Anyone who reads that report will see the lengths gone to in order to establish not merely the immediate cause of Clapham, but the underlying root causes.

The SRS does not have a diagram available for Norton Jct, but I rather take that to be the down main home (the signal closer to the junction being the inner home).

I have been pondering this further. Given the amount of time it must have taken 2870 and its train to set back it would surely have been quicker (as well as simpler) to have signalled it forward to Wyld's Lane, where it could if necessary have been turned on to the goods lines. I wonder if the explanation is that 2870 and its train have also been diverted off the Honeybourne route and it, too, is due a reversal?

Norton Jct. 23 April 1957.

Presumably reciprocating power in some form -- a pole, bow, cord pulled back-and-forth, etc. I think it is right to say that there is no real evidence that wheels were applied to bring continuous motion to lathes until the Middle Ages.