TheSignalEngineer

I was chairing a risk assesment on a resignalling scheme on a 125mph line. The FOC representative said that his drivers didn't need route knowledge as they didn't run at above 60mph. His boss was told not to send him next time as I didn't consider hom competent for his role in the process. He didn't last much longer before he was moved on.

The principle of TORR and Sectional Route Release is to allow restoration of part of a route when a train has passed over it. Simplistically it works by sequentiol operation of track circuits from the signal to the point at which the release is required. Each track circuit is occupied then proved clear with the next one in direction of travel occupied.

TORR is basically an automated version of what we used to refer to as 'Route Away' control, where sectional route release alowwed the setting of a route across the rear of a train. It was common in complex station areas, Birmingham New Street had it on all of the platform ends and the station would not have worked without it. In about 30 years associated with the place I can't remember an incident caused by it. When it comes to interlocking design certain decisions have to be made, working on the basis of 'As low as reasonably practicable'. It is possible to defeat almost any interlocking controls if the associated operationg rules are incorrectly applied or deliberately ignored. I can design an almost completely foolproof interlocking but you could only have one moving train in the interlocking area at any one time unless all signals had trap points or all trains were automatically controlled. Imagine trying to do that at a station like Leeds or New Street.

Will look OK on the layout when painted. I had the same problem with mine. Unfotrunately the pictures of the final effort disappeared in the Great Meltdown and the originals are archived somewhere. I put the donor bodies on the scanner and printed at life size. Then I made up a picture of the side working from the middle. There's actually a slight error on the extreme right hand compartment window of the models as manufactured. It also appears on the drawing in one of the Jenkinson books. I don't think I bothered to correct that as it was a lot of trouble and I couldn't find a suitable panel.

Found it, Diagram 3/375. 252 containers built at Eastleigh in 1948. They were insulated but the drawing doesn't show meat rails or aluminium facing to the sides and floor. The BR Diagram Book even shows an 'E' series drawing number for them. According to 'A Pictorial History of Southern Wagons' they were to SR Diagram 3029. The same book states that the SR used insulated containers for the transport of bananas, and a picture shows container BN217 being craned at Portsmouth Town Goods in 1932. It has straw hanging out of the doors which would tally with possible use for bananas. That particular lot of contaioners built to Diagram 3002 in 1931 is believed to be the first SR use of plywood for building containers in place of planking. Returning to the photo, those containers appear to be BR ones.

If all of Lot 2346 to diagram 1/242 were narrow planked that would mean that the Parkside body only fits the 50 built in Lot 2598 built in 1954. It may be that Faverdale just used what was to hand as all of the diagrams in the BR book of the time show the wider planks. Good spot, I missed that hinge. D140 were only just pre-War IIRC, with a steel 10ft underframe so would be candidales for keeping when the conversions were done. I think BR made one lot of insulated containers that weren't branded as Insulmeat, so could be those?

Interesting shot. It covers a whole lot of bodies and modifications. The two closest to the camera are the final BR diagram 1/246, Next to those is a BR 1/142 with steam heating removed. This is the one produced by Parkside.The fourth one is probably BR still with the steam heat. First one in the right hand line looks like a Southern D.1478 wrong hinges, more like LNER as suggested below with the steam heat removed. Second is a late LMS or Early BR still with steam heat. The FM containers must have been drafted in because of a shortage of insulated vans. The final van at the top edge is a late BR one.

Work in progress. Parkside BR van backdated to as built. The body of the kit has the strapping of the first 300 built to diagram 1/242 in 1952-4. It would also be suitable to create the post WW2 LMS van or BR diagrams 1/240 and 1/241 if put on a 9ft wheelbase chassis with the correct brake rigging. Roof needs another coat then transfers and weathering. I realised when I took the photo that it is also missing a lamp iron.

These were mainly provided in the days after single manning of locos (not DOO) started, although I remember a few with OFF stencils in the 1960s. The first I remember doing was for propelling the tanks in off the Up Stour into the Albion Gulf Oil depot. The guard would drop off and wait for the train to draw up past the points. When the route was set and signal cleared he pressed the button to light the set back signals. He had a stop button in case anything went wrong.

Researching something totally different I found a reference to the 1914 accident figures. It said that the L&YR had 17 incidents of passengers injured by falling from trains that year.

The alternative version was that Gooch got the job then persuaded the GWR that Stephenson had to locos from a cancelled order for Iberian gauge hanging around unsold and they could easily be converted to GWR gauge. Incidentally Daniel's brother was Loco Superintendant at Newton Abbot in SDR days. His apprentice was a local lad named Churchward.

He would have had The Melts turn them into blades for his 'Razor Gang.' My Grandad still talked about that crowd over 30 years later.

Sharp, Roberts eventually morphed into Sharp, Stewart in 1852. It moved to Glasgow in 1888 and later became a constituent of NBL.

Many did have railway connections. Beyer worked for Sharp, Roberts &Co in Manchester who made mill machinery and diversified into loco building, some for the Liverpool and Manchester. He became their chief engineer and was responsible for manufacture of several hundred locos. Peacock worked for the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester and was responsible for setting up the works at Gorton.

In my career traffic men regarded the S&T as a closed shop dedicated to the 'Black Arts'. Most of us had a railway background and in my case nearly 100 years of installing and maintaining signalling. Top men in loco departments a very small pool. For example H A Ivatt started a Crewe under Ramsbottom. One of his posts was at Inchicore. His daughter married Bulleid who ended up there. His son eas last CME of the LMS. Thompson married Raven's daughter. Gresley was a pupil of Webb and Aspinall as was Hughes. Maunsell's route was Inchicore under Ivatt and Horwich under Aspinall. That's just a sample, it would take all day to go through the 'family tree' of CMEs

Another factor is that the country was in an industrial and financial depression. Like many CMEs Stanier was a production man, not a detailed designer. His job was to get the best out of the available resources, not bankrupt the LMS with grandiose vanity projects. The LMS had an almost new fleet of shunting tanks, 525 4F 0-6-0s between 4 and 8 years old (and even 150 of the Midland ones were largely post WW1). There were 70 Royal Scots only 2-5 years old, the Hughes Crabs still being built, oldest abut 6 years. Fowler 2-6-4 tanks still being built, earliest about 5 years old so a start had been made in upgrading the mish-mash of sundry Victorian locos inherited by the LMS in 1923. There were failures, the locomen didn't really take to the 2-6-2 tanks of either type and a lot of the Derbyfied Super Ds was outlived twice over by the LNWR rebuilds of Webb locos they were supposed to replace. Developing what you already have is often a business decision because a step change can entail lots of money being spent on infrastructure. It's no good building bigger locos without facilities to match. For instance a Jubilee is about 9 feet longer than a Midland Compound. The GWR were still at it after their demise, building Castles and Pannier Tanks to 1920s designs up to the early 1950s I think a better question would be why did Hughes go so soon? After all, he was only 60 when he retired, Fowler was 55 at that time. He was a Crewe apprentice and many Horwich products were superior to what Derby produced. How much would the history of LMS locomotives changed if Hughes had continued to control the Crewe / Horwich axis until he was 65?

Some years ago we flew overnight from Halifax N.S. to Gatwick. We had the full force of the Jet Stream behind us and arrived over an hour early. Peeved the night shift in Immigration. Somebody had to go to wake them up to let us into the country. Baggage were none too happy either as we were supposed to arrive just as the day shift were about book on.

Been there a long time. This is the first shot I took of it there in 1969, copied from an old slide.

The length of time I spend on each varies greatly. Seeing a glaring error straight away can make me move on quickly.

Possibly. Don't think it will be WCRC.

Stanier 2-6-4 Tanks did appear at Cambridge. Bletchley had nine at that time and Shedbash has a Nuneaton one recorded on Cambridge shed in 1949.

Vintage Trains have announced that they are refocussing on a core brand of GWR locos with Choc and cream stock. They will also retain two main line diesels. They are offering Kolhapur and one of their three panniers for sale. Their core fleet will be 4965, 5043, 5080 and 7029. 7752 and 9600 are also being retained for "future opportunities". The main line diesels are 47773 and recently purchased 37240. https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2024/01/steam-locomotive-changes-at-vintage-trains-as-growth-plans-announced.html They have agreed a CDL fitment progrmme with ORR. All stock has been fitted with toilet tanks and will be dual braked.

Vintage Trains have agreed a CDL fitment programme with ORR and their stock now has retention tanks fitted. They are also fitting / reactivating air brakes on their stock according to their latest press release.

This is one I prepared earlier. It is suitable for all bodies produced for LMS D2111 through to BR 1/242

The van next to the containers is either LMS D2111, or BR 1/240, 1/241 or 1/242 with the steam pipe casing still in place on the end. The Peco ex Ratio 4mm kit is quite good for the earlier lots of 1/242 on a 10ft underframe, as modified to remove the steam pipes and provide better insulation hence becoming a 'Yellow Spot' van. (Note to self:- don't forget to change the brake pipe) 1/240 and 1/241 retained the old 9ft underframe while later 1/242 lots, 1/243 and 1/244 had modified strapping.