2251

I think you are referring to the remains of the refectory pulpit. By way of explanation, Shrewsbury was a house of black monks, who ate their meals in a refectory accessed from the cloister (all of which has been swept away). While the others ate, one of the monks read from the pulpit.

The double Sentinel (an 0-6-0 + 0-6-0) was a one-off produced for Dorman Long. Presumably it is shown there on its way from the Sentinel works in Shrewsbury to Dorman Long.

The Railways Archive say it was published in 1956: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1135 They also have a rather interesting electrification timeline on that page.

The Regulation of Railways Act 1868, section 20, is the provision in question (repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1959): "All Railway Companies, except the Metropolitan Railway Company, shall, from and after the First Day of October next, in every Passenger Train where there are more Carriages than One of each Class, provide Smoking Compartments for each Class of Passengers, unless exempted by the Board of Trade. "

I am not sure the interim report says quite that. It says that "RAIB’s preliminary examination has found that the movement of train 1F30 across the junction was being protected from trains approaching on the Down Main line by signal SY31, which was at danger (displaying a red aspect). Train 1L53 passed this signal, while it was at danger, by around 200 metres, immediately prior to the collision occurring." SY31 is only a short distance to the east of the London Road overbridge. The distance between it and the vee of the junction looks to be about 180 metres, in line with the 200 yds overlap for 4-aspect MAS mentioned above.

The RAIB has stated that: "The impact of the collision caused the front two coaches of train 1L53 and the rear two coaches of train 1F30 to derail. Both trains continued some distance into Fisherton tunnel following the collision, before they came to a stop." (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collision-between-passenger-trains-at-salisbury-tunnel-junction)

There are some very clear photos (not, I add, mine) here: https://www.roscalen.com/signals/Worcester/NortonJct.htm

Indeed. I would urge anyone seriously interested in this point who has not already done so to read these two decisions, the first in the Court of Appeal, the second of Mr Justice Akenhead, before commenting further: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2015/1175.html

Many thanks -- that is very informative.

As matter of interest, what happened when the junction went in for the Coventry line when Avenue station was closed? Was the existing frame re-locked, or was there a panel?

The report is now out: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022958/R072021_211005_Sheffield.pdf The key conclusion appear to be this on page 7: "The track gauge had widened because a number of track screws, that secured the rails and baseplates to the wooden bearers, had broken, allowing the rails to spread apart under the loads from passing trains. The track screws had failed several weeks, or perhaps months, before the derailment, but the failures had not been identified by Network Rail’s maintenance inspection activities. Although this was a location with a potentially high risk of derailment, it had not been recognised as such because Network Rail’s guidance for identifying such risk had not been applied. Additional mitigation had therefore not been considered. "

I have pointed out before that BR timetables are not Crown copyright, because the people who produced them were not servants of the Crown. Crown copyright applies, by section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to works produced by "an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties". Post-nationalisation, railwaymen were not employed by the Crown but by two statutory corporations, first the British Transport Commission and then the British Railways Board.

How about Tamworth? It might require some modeller's licence to make something of a reasonable size, but it is a real joint LNWR/ MR station. The original station was a most attractive thing:

We had this topic some time ago. To avoid, repetition, here is the link:

There is a general power granted to the "relevant authority" (in England, the Secretary of State; in Wales, the Welsh Ministers; in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers) by section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to authorise "the erection or retention of a sign of another character" than that prescribed by the Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64 Thus it is quite possible (indeed, likely) that these non-standard signs were specially authorised, in which case they are legal. I add that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State personally to give authorisation -- it will all be done in his name by the civil servants.

Many thanks for posting that link (as it happens, I was aware of it). Unfortunately it, like all the other material I have read on the subject, does not answer the question, was the branch legally a tramways?

Speaking of tramways, does anyone know the precise status of the Shipston-on-Stour branch? It was shown after conversion to locomotive haulage as a "locomotive tramway" or "tramway" on timetables, and was always worked without block telegraph. I suspect that the answer is that without a trip to a good library, and a trawl through the legislation from the original Act of 1821 to the GWR Act of 1883 permitting the use of locomotive haulage, it is impossible to know.

It is on the NER's (now closed) Leamside line.

The section of the Inverness and Perth Junction Railway from Aviemore to Forres. The scenery, especially across Dava Moor, is spectacular.

Is it not Reading Good Lines West rather than Reading Middle?

"Monetising", to use the modern phrase, the space is not a new idea. In recent times these have been the ubiquitous lock-ups, garages, etc., but at a very early point, the London & Greenwich had the idea of building cheap houses in the space, although for obvious reasons that never took off:

Given the condition of the cars in the background (I am pretty sure the one on the right is a Ford Popular 103E; that on the left might, perhaps, be a Ford Anglia 100E), I would suspect that the date is more likely to be 1960s than 1970s.

Here is some more information about the locomotives proposed, from Chacksfield's biography of Collett. There were to be four varieties (the way the information is set out is rather less than clear: why people cannot use tables for this kind of data I do not know): Class I -- 2550 hp, 1-Co-Co-1 (8 off) Class II -- 2100 hp , apparently 1-Co-Co-1 (40 off) Class IIa -- 1400 hp, apparently 1-Co-Co-1 (55 off) Class III -- Bo-Bo (no hp figure given) (61 off) Classes I, II, and IIa were for "main line work" and the class III for "local trains, banking and shunting."

To be clear, the last quote above is not from the1932 Order, but is a mistake on my part (it is the extract from the report a second time) and I cannot manage to delete it.

By that date, very much so. The Pringle Committee had reported in 1927 recommending electrification at 750V DC (third rail) and 1500V DC, with up to 3000V in special circumstances where permitted (overhead). The report is here: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Pringle1927.pdf The key bits are these (page 6 of the report): Those recommendations were then embodied in the Railways (Standardisation of Electrification) Order 1932.