TheSignalEngineer

18 hours ago, big jim said:

And I bet they were relieved by a saltley man

I know of their reputation, the name supposedly came from having characteristics of a certain bird. Perhaps also for their liking of working throughout on excursions to Weston Super Mare then six hours on the beach before working back.

One of their best seaside trips I saw was when a pair were sent out from Saltley on 58002 to rescue a ailing HST. They passed us on the sea wall at Dawlish en route to Plymouth, dropped the HST off and had a brew then worked the 58 back light engine to Saltley.

22 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The track circuits here are lettered A, B, C etc, which was common on LNER  More modern schemes tend to have numbers to identify track circuits.  There is a "Power on" light in the corner to show that these indications are available.

Thack Circuit numbers on the LMS were all individual to start with. We had some in the 10000's .

Before I retired track circuit identification on new work had gone over to use of two letters. One line would be identifed sequentially AA, AB, AC etc. The second line would start as BA, BB, third would be CA....

On 01/02/2024 at 00:35, St Enodoc said:

Agreed. However, any safety case that assumed that people would not make mistakes could not be considered to have reduced the risk to a level that is ALARP.

The one thing you will never stop in the world is somebody doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, either by accident or deliberately.

Your have to start from the assumption that a mistake will be made, then try to prevent it. Unfortunately total prevention would only be achieved by never moving.

The biggest risk is what happens during a failure. The lower you get the failure rate the more likely an incident will occur as the operator is less familiar with what to do when having to run the job in degraded mode. 

Just to throw another grenade or two into the subject,

I looked in the HMRS photo archive for some prototype info about a current project and came up with a picture showing an X9 Mica A  No. W105815 still with Insulmeat branding and LNER Insulmeat Van No. E82652 both carrying the Jamaica Bananas labels.

https://hmrs.org.uk/-aep804--8t-insul-meat-br-w105815---part-e82652-in-use-as-banana-vans-f3r.html

On 30/01/2024 at 12:29, Cwmtwrch said:

So far as I know all surviving vehicles of these designs were converted, but no 9ft wb were,

I think the right hand one in this Colour Rail picture is a 1/241 with LNER Clasp Brakes and narrow planking. No XP branding but Yellow Spot. One I don't think I will be doing

Regarding the actual signalling shown as you have three signals which cannot be seen from the box I would expect track circuits to be provided at these. That would be numbers 5, 15 and 17 on your diagram.

At 5 and 15 there is a danger of forgetting a light engine, accepting a second train the getting Line Clear and pulling off. The risk is getting two trains in section. See Hawes Junction Accident 1910 https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Hawes1910.pdf,

You need to know when a train has arrived at the Outer Home 17. It's not a good place to put a signal from the point of view of carrying out Rule 55. If a train was held there the Fireman would not be happy at having to walk through the tunnel to sign the book and get instructions from the signalman in the case of a failure which necessitated passing the signal at danger. There would be a berth track circuit to hold the Block at Train On Line and prevent a second train being accepted if the signalman forgot about it. There would also be a telephone to communicate with the box.

I'm not sure how much need there would be for it, but it would be useful if trafic was such that you wanted to accept a train with one already standing in the station. If it is at least 1/4 mile from 17 to the back of a train in the station it would be possible to give Line Clear for a following train and hold it at 17. I would be inclined to provide a 440 yard track circuit on the station side of 17 to enforce the Block Acceptance distancefrom Home signal to Clearing Point..

Signal Box Diagrams tend to be very company and even date specific.

What you have done so far would be quite typical of an LNER box on the GC. The depiction of the box as a rectangle with diagonals is typical of ex GCR diagrams. those posted by @Michael Hodgson are good examples, the Leicester one being a gem.

Using the very end levers for the distants is normal except as mentioned above at one end where there is a level crossing.

If you want to see some examples of actual ones there are a lot on this site https://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/railways.htm sorted by original company

The wiring diagrams section also has a picture of an LNER Block Instrument.

59 minutes ago, big jim said:

admittedly at the times I’m not ‘safety critical’ in work RTT and the maps are used by myself to see where where my train is, how it’s running etc, certainly saved me standing out in the rain waiting on many occasions! 

I always check things like RTT and Open Train Times maps when travelling and also when out to get a picture.

On a couple of occasions when my wife has been travelling I've been in touch to tell her of train delays or broken connection, down to detail such as what platform her train is set to arrive at and where her onward connection will be standing. 

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.

1 minute ago, ruggedpeak said:

Out of curiousity and for the layperson like myself who understands safety principles but not running a railway, does TORR detect/know a train is clear of the route being released, or is it (using the wording from an earlier post) 'assumed' and therefore not known whether it is clear/safe at the point of route release? If 'assumed' then presumably this requires drivers to be aware of TORR and drive accordingly e.g. proceed but be aware there could theoretically be a train blocking the path whilst you are in the TORR area?

 

If this is a highly technical point that requires a lengthy and detailed explanation for uninitiated, or I have completely misunderstood it, then please don't feel any need to respond! Thanks.

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.

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If we are agreeing why did you start by saying TORR is hazardous?

 

Its not a hazardous concept in itself and it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

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.

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

When it comes to safety, it is not reasonable to assume anything, least of all human behaviour.

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.

On 27/12/2023 at 20:18, exet1095 said:

Using bits from old Mainline coaches leaves a lot of spare parts. This is a D1695 TK made from a composite with a chunk of break third side added in and the blank panel on the corridor side opened up.

 

It is not perfect; the joins are not great and the positioning of the lavatory windows is out as neither donor coach has them in the same place as each other, or the TK, but again, it is fun.

 

Wish I had carved the ventilators off and drilled new holes before cutting the body!

 

Paul

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.

17 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I think BR made one lot of insulated containers that weren't branded as Insulmeat, so could be those?

3 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

No idea, I'm afraid. Just to add to the complexity I have seen a 1960s photo of a B or BD container with a banana importers label on it, but I'm not sure where now.

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.

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

It is; the narrow planks suggest it's a 1/241 or a first lot 1/242

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.

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

The short hinges make me think it's a converted ex-LNER D140.

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.

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

More likely, I believe, to be for traffic to the Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, or Channel Islands.

I think BR made one lot of insulated containers that weren't branded as Insulmeat, so could be those?

On 02/12/2023 at 19:27, teeinox said:

I thought it worth photoshopping the photo to see if the colour could be improved.  It could be: it makes a rather "Hornby Dublo" scene, especially those refrigerated containers in the top right hand corner.

 

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.

9 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I seem to recall a stencil indicator south of on the old aggregate sidings at Draycott (between Long Eaton and Spondon), but they were long disused when I moved into the area so I can't say for sure.  An overbridge blocked the line of sight between the driver and the shunter working the frame.  

 

I've also seen in a couple of places normal bulkhead-type lamps on poles with signal numbers and R suffixes.  But I can't immediately recall where.  

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.

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

To the extent that Daniel Gooch's career on the GW began when he was sent down from Newcastle by Stephenson as a fitter to assist with the setting up of North Star,

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.

19 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I doubt Lord Stamp would have stood for that! He was pretty shrewd, had Bulleid got the job he would have been kept on a tight leash.

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.

3 hours ago, JeremyC said:

Also given Britain had a huge independent locomotive building industry it is interesting to note we seem to have little or no knowledge of who were the design 'movers and shakers' in those companies

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

39 minutes ago, JimC said:

I think there's an argument that, in his desire not to be seen as just importing GWR, Stanier was sometimes a little too tolerant of mediocre designs/existing practice from his drawing offices. 

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?

On 23/01/2024 at 22:38, adb968008 said:

Out to Newark we had a 102mph headwind !!

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.