The Stationmaster

There is an element of that but 1st Class loadings on the West of England from what I have seen - including yesterday as it happens, thus loadings are far more varied than that and include business trab vel (as I saw yesterday with three people oposite me obviouasly travelling for business purpose and no doubt in 1st because it guaranteed than m a table at whoch they could sit and review what they had been doing during the day (reserved seats). Morning westbound trains also tend to ;pad well in 1st as do some of the balancing afternoon/early evening Up trains. Business travel still seems common on the Paddington/Reading - South Wales route and I'd be sirprised if that isn't the case between Euston and the West Midlands. Cross Country between Reading & Birmingham, in particular also tends to have quite busy business travel in 1st Class

As far as braking distance is v concerned it depends which braking curve is used to design the signalling. on most of the former Wr 'Mixed Traffic' braking distanc es were used in teh design so both are catred for. However with some of the Liz Line spacing I suspect it is well be low Mixed Traffic braking distances as will be the closing-up signals at Reading/. Hence east ofReading, rather illogically in some places where signal spacing is basically unaltered from 50 years ago, the maxiu mum permitted soeeds for freights has ben reduced (but they can still easily catch the Liz Line trains on some sections!. Whire space on timetable graphs is widely misunderstood with many folk (who often should know better) equating it to 'unused capacity. Of course sometimes it is exactly that but usually it isn't

That is absolutely, frighteningly, laughable - what kind of halfwits were - A. Driving the loco, and B, Controlling the movement ? And misreading used to count as a category A SPAD and it might well (I sincerely hope) still count as one. Interesting one this. SPADs are reportable, in bulk, monthly (so therefore not immediately reportableor within X hours etc unless the SPAD results in something worse). So the interesting question then arises about the status of the incident. Misreading (a signal), which seems to be being claimed as what happened in this incident, used to be considered a serious SPAD. I don't know if that is still the case but I'd be somewhat worried if it isn't. So on the basis of my rathert dated knowledge it would have been reported to RAIB as part of a bulk return. However if RAIB are keeping an eye on wider railway events there is maybe enough discussion on the 'net about this incident to ring their 'WCRC alarm bell' and they will be making discreet enquiries about the incident especially about whose Driver was involved. If RAIB deoes not become involved the incident will be dealt with solely within the railway industry and no report is normally made public

I'm sorry Phil but I'm not with you on this. If the loco hadn't reached the protecting signal how did it manage to run through some points because surely the signal in rear woiuld have been at danger if there were points in advance of it not correctly set? So was it a handpoint in a siding or what exactly was it? If the Driver misread and took another signal as applying to him he must surely have passed the protecting signal for his line in order to run through the points - how could it happen otherwise? To be honest it sounds a bit like e the old Saltley problem - although there it was due to GPLs being on the wrong' side of the line they applied to. This led to Drivers not very familiar with the place, especially Eastleigh men, taking a GPL as theirs when it wasn't and duly SPADing and running through points or hitting something that was making a legitimate move Incidentally the expression 'behind the signal' is one of the most dangerously ambiguous terms I have ever come across and use of it has killed a few people over the years. Unfortunately the current 'kiddiwinks reading age' version of the Rule Book dispensed with the terms 'in advance' and 'in rear' in the cause of 'plain English' (the same people who wanted the Rules to use the term 'faraway signal' instead of distant signal) This incident might however possibly take us back to WCRCs unfortunate past habit of not properly managing Drivers - assuming that it was their Driver. But whoever the Driver belonged to he should have known the road and the layout and driven accordingly and it woud appear from what is being said that he did not do so. That is a serious offence and probably still amounts to a Category A SPAD so the Driver would have to e relieved and taken off the job

The Backing Distants weren't dummies - they were semaphore signals with 2 foot arms.

I'm fairly sure that there were two rates - one for individual consigners and another for a member of some sort of pigeon fanciers or racing pigeon association. The latter I'm fairly sure was a sort of agreed flat rate but still included a mileage element while the former would still have been a pure mileage rate into the early '60s and probably never changed from that. Virtually all the parcels traffic mileage scales had been abolished by 1966/67 and I can't remember any mileage rates being in use when i was working in Slough Parcels in 1967 - everything seemed to be zonal based rates by then (not that we ever had any originating, or even received, pigeon traffic in my time there). Lots of the smaller livestock traffic was shed in the '60s. There used to be a considerable traffic in Day Old chicks which were sent in large cardboard boxes but that Had, or seemed to have, ceased by 1966/7. I know the WR were still accepting coffins (loaded) in 1965 from Paddington but by then I'm pretty sure they were only accepted for transit to Ireland. They were quite expensive as they were sole use of a large bogie van, Customs Declaration Forms, various medical certificates (and a death certificate of course). I would imagine Euston might also have still been accepting them at that time. Most Irish folk arriving in London invariably arrived at either Paddington or Euston hence when they had someone who wanted to go back to be buried in Ireland those were the stations they went to. And of course both stations were one of the first places where those who didn't already have a job to go to applied for one - lots of Irish names on the paybill at Paddington and quite a few still on the railway in that area 20 years later.

I don't now how common it is but some Traction Interlock Systems (TIS) interlocked with door controls and CDL are speed related and not absolute.. For example on a 373 Eurostar set the TIS interlock only applied at relatively low speeds and disengaged once the train was running above that speed range. Thus it was possible to manually force open a door, even though the electric door release control was still inactive, in such a situation. Hence one failed illegal entrant to Britain in course of immediate return from Waterloo to Paris managed to force open a door and jump out - never to be seen again. Which also proved that it had been a waste of BR money adding the necessary fittings to allow such miscreants to be firmly handcuffed to the interior of the train in the compartments provided for Immigration Service use.

Yes and no. If you increase the line speed (assuming it is permissible to increase it above 125mph where there is a level crossing with full barriers) what you actually do is push the green signal aspect (when the barriers are down) further back in rear of the crossing. In other words the crossing has to be closed to road traffic and rail signals cleared for a train earlier than would be the case for a lower speed train. But the critical factor which decides where that signal will be is in fact braking distance from maximum permitted speed of the fastest train (we'll forget heavy freights for a moment) and that distance will be no different for a train following another - it still needs the same stopping distance if the train ahead of it has come to a stand. Mixing in freights can make a difference depending on their load and brake performance - it might need a greater distance to stop 4,000 tons of freight train than less than 1,000 tons of passenger train. But if you push signals further apart to increase available braking distance to cater for faster trains you can, depending on the mix of trains, reduce line capacity because slower trains need shorter braking distances and signals can be closer together allowing more trans to run on green aspects. And that comes back to what the signalling specification requires in terms of lne capacity = headway at a stated speed (for a certain type of train). The big problem on a mixed train type/speed etc railway is how you define a path - not that many people bother to think of that because if the line has capacity for the traffic on offer. you don't need to get scientific. The UIC fiche on line capacity gets very scientific and most UK operators/planners and signal engineers have never heard of it anyway - which is a pity because it's handy source of numbers with which to beat accountants, Civil Servants, and the politicos, round the head when you want to increase total railway capacity; mainland European railways have been doing that for many decades.

The one at Aberdare was worked by a separate lever which was released by either of the two levers which worked a double ground dsc. Logically it would no doubt make a bit more sense as a distant for a Backing Signal but as these discs performed the same job as a Backing Signal it was really more a matter of semantics than anything else. A photo reputedly of 1920s origin (but possibly taken later?) definitely shows the ground disc(s) to which it applied.

Or on older track to hope the fishplates would break and the stop block would just slide backwards. They were easier to re-rail that the ones that finished up on top of a stopblock. The Radyr light was a standard WR Cardiff Division arrangement although they weren't all that common. Basically it was a single lens colour light signanl head which showed a white flashing light to the Driver using the same code as the audible (whistle) code for shunting - so, depending on date - one for stop, two for go ahead, three for set back, and four for ease couplings. The Yard staff accepted the train and set the handpoints, the Radyr Jcn Signalman set the road and cleared the signals and with the train accepted by the yard staff he set the appropriate code by selector switch on teh control box which was on the block shelf - and listened in case the yard staff shouted. The driver worked directly under the control of the fasjhing light until he was out of sight of sight from which point he worked (or was supposed to work) according to handsignals from the yard staff. Later installations elsewhere worked differently and tended to be controlled by the Shunter (e.g. at Theale, and Westbury for setting back into the Down Yard) but most were replaced by use of back-to-back radios at locations where sighting was not good enough for handsignalling. Most of these other systems simply illuminated with a white light meaning set back. One very unusual GWR oddity was a distant signal for s ground disc used for a setting back movement. These were extremely rare (unless someone knows different?) with probably the best known example being at Aberdare ex GWR station (it was removed in 1955). There was also one, of a which a photo exists, in the Friars Jcn area (possibly worked by Acton East?). Reputedly there was a third one somewhere in, maybe, the Wrexham area but I have never seen a photo of it. In appearance it was a normal Backing Signal with a distant signal 'notch' in the end of the arm.

GWR corridor trains first appeatred in October 1892 according to Macdermot. The Swindon refreshment stop arrangement was bought-out by the GWR effective from November 1895 but some trains had ceased to call at Swindon earlier that year when negotiations were underway.

Hattons' turnover to year end jun 2018 was definitely £14.41 (rounded) million. Hornby's revenue to year end March 2018 was £35.7 million, a decline of almost £12 million on the previous year. They didn't publish a split by brand in 2018 but their UK model railway sales were £9.9 million the previous year our of total sales of £47.4 million. The decline in Hornby's revenue continued - down to £2.8 million in year end March 2019 but back up to £37.8 million a year later and a big leap to £48.5 million in year end March 2021 (and they reported a profit) - no doubt due to the effect of Covid lockdowns etc. Since then there has been further growth in revenue but the rate of growth slackened noticeably between 2022 and 2023.

There are three photos of it, taken by Dick Riley - on GE territory in the relevant volume of the ' Pannier Papers'. However where it is visible in the photos the engine can be seen as still carrying its Reading shedplate. Back now to 57XX etc?

Or the Shunter in charge of the movement. An interesting observation from Single Line working pn the Berks & Hants (Extension) back in the very late 10 960s. A Down West of England express is brpiught to a stand at Bedwyn clear of the main lines trailing crossover prior to be set back onto the Up Main - which was in use as the single line. A Handsignalman duly informs the, London, Driver that he is to set back over the crossover onto the Up Main - in use as the single line - when the dummy comes off. The response from the Driver - who no doubt normally sailed through Bedwyn with his train at or approaching maximum line speed - was the ultimate in both road knowledge (lack of tiny detail) and the need for someone on the ground to handsignal in such situations as he shouted back 'What '$/&*ing dummy?' (which his Secondman could have clearly seen from his side of the cab if he dared to let in the morning air). Long train, even though the curvature helped a bit, but definitely shwing the need for a man on the ground to handsignal the move.

I think that might depend on the type of share. In many cases 'yes' but not always I think we'll find. Of course with many of these shares where the certificatesy simply chucked away as being consicdered of m no value. (which reminds me I have a form issued by the company asking me to subscribe for shares in the proposed Swindon & Marlborough Railway. I presume that the original recipieny eiter couldn't be bothered, or couldn't afford, to subscribe.

Er no - the trains it dumps at Golborne would be trains which would previously have run on the WCML and which HS 2 would have taken off it to relieve the sections of that route which are suffering capacity problems. The worst capacity [roblem is south of Rugby and motre particularly south of Hanslope Jcn but there are problems on the Trent Valley hence the more recent additional quadrupling but that still leaves the double section which is a headache due to speed differentials. Not so bad north of Stafford. Hence the essential need to carry pout Phase 2A which, along with new capacity at Euston, is the big answer ro solvng WCML's worst capacity problems. Apart from speed differentials - which can be solved in some respects by dynamic loops - the only potential problem at the northern end is where local assenger trains at re using the route in addition to long distance fast trains. Very different from the situation further south where traffic is not only much denser but speed differentials are a headache for timetable planners. The other problem at the south end is the sheer density of traffic which makes engineering work difficult while at the same time creating the need for more of it. The speed profile and stopping pattern mix of the different types of train using the route makes a 2 track engineering work timetable near impossible. The result being that as track renewal work becomes necessary more trains will be subject to booked cancellation and delays. The answer to that is to remove one of the speed bands and that is exact;ly what the original proposal was as it is far less disruptive, and much cheaper, than adding an additional pair of running lines. Only probem is that some idiot decided to call the relief route 'High Speed 2' and not only over egg the maximum speed but use that as the PR selling point to justify building the railway. Alas the country, but particularly the WCML and the trains which have to use it, will be paying the price of that naive piece of PR stupidity for decades to come.

And of course considerable amounts of racing/homing pigeon traffic passed on ordinary passenger trains as that was the easiest way of getting birds some distance from home (enter the date/time of release on the label attached to the basket before returning the basket to the sending station)

I don't know when it was stopped or if it simply ended because theh shareholders had died but it was definitely a financial imposition on the BTC which was effectively paying for something which should have been put with The treasury (which was sorted 15 years later by the 1962 Transport Act). I wonder for example when teh last individual, or coporate rtc, sharebnolder in the The forth Bridge Railway Co. died let alone someone holding Whitechapel and Bow Railway debenture stock ) (althpugh that wasn't even 50 years old by 1948. the Birmingham Canal Navigation Co was even older dating back to the late 18th century but in 1846 the London & Brmingham Rly guaranteed to make up its annual divifdend to 4% and that passed down through the LNWR and LMS to the BTC and its stock was valued at just under a 4% return (£3/15/0 per £100) when the BTC took over responsibility for the payment 102 years after the guarantee given by the L&B. - the infrastructure of course went to the BTC anyway so presumably there will still shareholders in 1948.

Is there any evidence that block sections were longer on the WCML that was the case on the MML? The LNWr had always tended towards running longer trains than the MR because the latter veered towards the idea of more frequent, but lighter, passenger services over middle to longer distances. And there are far more important factors in deciding what sort of engines a railway might need than the length of block sections. If short block sections meant less powerful engines why did the L&YR build its atlantics and 4-6-0s when it reputedly had the shortest average distance between signal boxes of any mainline British railway?

Yes - but the space in the middle is where all the station buildings go (unless you add buildings on an overbridge across the middle. The length of bauys in station layoiuts like this seems to have varied considerably - for example, and still to be seen to some extent, the west end bays on the Up side at Swindon were very short as were the north end bays at Pontypridd. Overall thsi sort of arrangement was surprisingly common although most such bays would in later years - if they had survived - hold at least the length equivalent of a three car DMU - as you've said - and many were longer (e.g Reading where the east end 'enclosed' bay would hold a six car DMU).

In addition to the points made by 'Cwmtwrch' In BR days black was used for departmental vehicles and they should thus have been carry DW prefix numbers rather than W prefix numbers. Loco coal wagons seem to have fallen between two stools and there is plenty of evidence of them being painted lthe standard light grey (and seemingly even occasionally appearing carrying revenue earning traffic. So for the BR period Rapido appear to be offering a DW numbered example in black plus a couple in standard light grey nit carrying DW numbers (and even a W numbered example which I suspect should probably be GWR dark grey as an early period example.. Quite how many of these still survived in regular use for koco coal as late as 1961/62 can probably only be got at through any surviving wagon registers and accurately dated photos.

I wonder where the rest of them are? Presumably that is just for one livery variant?

Worse that waiting for buses - 30 years is a heck of a long time to wait for two to come along!

Depends which route it took to get there - might have come over the lowlands from the Slovenia direction. 66s can manage gradients but it depends on the trailing load when it comes down to what sort of gradient they can cope with.

Did any of them actually pnly last a year? In reality, albeit with occasional \bumpiness' most of the 1922 amah gam amaltions were born of the 1921 Act. However one or two (e.g the LNW and L&Y ref;ected) reflected previous ambitions. But even then effectively they really only amounted to two reorganisdations - of far from everything involved in running a ralway - and usually little more than the top jobs. The everyday working and accountancy and operation simply ca cattied on as it hadaalways done and changed only gradually. I do wonder if Govt kept away from nationalisation in 1921-23 vbecause of the poptential cost implications as much as for any other reasons? Don't forget that most railway shareholders, and some canal shareholders, in companies nationalised under the 1947 Act continued to receive what amounted to guaranteed dividends from British Transport stock instead of from their original share holdings - as a charge on the BTC - until the stock holdings were amended, and transferred to payment from The Teasury by the 1962 Act. For example I wonder how many GWR and SR Debenture holders were still getting a payment in 1962 (and how many were still getting one after that)? And would privately owned wagons have been transferred, at further compensatory cost to Govt, to a newly nationalised railway in 1921=23