West Somerset Railway General Discussion

A week or so ago the Rally Team posted on their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pg/steamrallywsra/

The annual rally is planned to take place in Norton Fitzwarren in August. Because of the current restrictions in place to combat the coronavirus (Covid -19) pandemic, questions have been asked as to whether the event will take place.
The organising committee are continuing to plan for the rally to take place as normal and urge all exhibitors to book their places in the normal way. Based on current information, there is no reason to believe that current restrictions will remain in place in August.
Of course, we cannot offer a 100% guarantee that the event will take place, any more that we can guarantee that the sun will shine during the weekend. We will keep the situation under review and provide updates when appropriate.

We hope to see you at another enjoyable Rally in August

From the rally chairman



I hope this helps, @AnthonyTrains2017

Steve

 

This is amazing. Really enjoying WSR;TV on Youtube

 

Thank you

 

You will have to excuse my ignorance on this topic and I apologise for asking what are simple questions.

What you’ve written prompts a couple of questions - to what extent did pre-grouping systems persist into group and nationalisation? It strikes me that by their very nature, single lines tend not to be heavily worked primary lines and so would be low priority for investment. The Highland mainline might be one exception. Was it a case of that with the exception of Abermule (which was down to human involvement rather than the technology) all the different systems worked so there was no real need or incentive to change?

Did a more dominant company within the grouped railways force its system onto the smaller components? Did say the GWR impose their preferred system on all of the Welsh companies they were grouped with, whereas, with say the SR, no company was truly dominant and able to impose its system on the others? Plus, I guess the poorer the company, the lower the priority?

 

The human factors are what everybody remembers about Abermule, but there was one technological recommendation in the report which would immediately have prevented it and which was widely adopted: locking the starters with the token instruments.

I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as Mr Shaw but I do think that in general there was relatively little technological incentive for change in this area. The North Cornwall line used non-returnable tablets combined with track layouts that required tablets to be withdrawn for shunting, which rather constrains the way you can operate the line, but it was never a harsh enough constraint to consider refitting everything given traffic levels.

One aspect is that I've seen reference to smaller lines leasing their instruments rather than buying them outright, but I'm not at all sure how widespread this was.

 

I think the point that is easy to forget is that, then as now, railways had assets that were long-lived but very expensive, so there was a considerable penalty to replacing them before they were life expired. Signalling systems were no exception in that regard.

To take an example at the other end of the spectrum: at London Waterloo, the absolute peak of mechanical signalling was the 1892 installation. (At that point all services were still steam, so in addition to handling the trains, there was a considerable amount of light engine moves that had to be dealt with on top. Electrification caused those to diminish, in turn allowing future reduction in the number of signalled moves required - but that was all in the future).

The 1892 installation lasted until 1936 - 44 years - when it was all swept away as part of a larger resignalling scheme stretching out well beyond Waterloo. That 1936 signalling in turn lasted into the late 1980s - over fifty years. Essentially only two main signalling schemes in a century at the busiest station in the country. Eventually in each case traffic demands or difficulty keeping old equipment operating forced a change, but there was no desire to change for many years. If you apply that to the much lower demands of a single track branchline, then it should be maybe not too surprising if companies maintained old systems for many decades. Even the wear and tear would be lower: on a lever frame in a branchline signal box, the major levers might have been operated perhaps a dozen times per day, and some of the other levers very rarely. At Waterloo, the levers for the main movements were being operated dozens of times per hour to cope with several thousand movements per day.

Tom

 

Incentive for this form of investment was slow in rural areas. Until closure the Minehead Branch had ‘free starters’ that is, starting signals NOT interlocked with tokens. That continued at Blue Anchor until the instigation of token working in the early 1990’s.

Robin

 

Agreed, and that is why there is a fair amount of manual signalling still in use today on the national network.

One thing to add though is that modern computer controlled signalling enables much larger areas to be controlled by a single person, which can bring substantially reduced operating costs.

 

Would that have allowed a shunting move on the single line while it was occupied by an incoming train? And if so, how do preserve safety - a home signal well before the station and a "limit of shunt" marker? Or just by procedure / practice?

Tom

 

Rarely any shunting at Blue Anchor. And no, no other protections.

And it wasnt just the Minehead Branch. Several boxes on the Severn Beach line had free starters until the 1980's, I understand.

But I do remember one occasion where a trainee signalman at Blue Anchor pulled off both down home and starter for a light diesel loco due to cross a passenger train at Blue Anchor. The protection left was that the driver would, one hopes, not have taken the starter without a train staff. Fortunately the up train was around Dunster at the time. Mind you, the diesel driver got a bit of a shock when the supervising signalman yelled 'starter back!' to the trainee and the trainee put both home and starter back, the return of the home to danger causing the arriving Hymek to stop in a heap just before the home signal. The driver took it very well, considering.

I guess it makes you appreciate the more modern (post Abermule!) protections.

Robin

 

I don't know there were any 'takeovers' as outright as the GWR, which just absorbed some other railways, but we see cliques and groups in certain areas, loco design being the obvious example.

I think in the SR no company dominated the others in a takeover sense, but the Western section was viewed as the top of the tree, followed by the Central then by the Eastern which perpetuated well into BR days. Presumably this was down to income generated. The divisions were very territorial as well, one of my team who retired a few years ago went for a job on the western section in BR days was told he had done very well but would not get the job as he was from the eastern and they wanted one of their own!

 

>>>The North Cornwall line used non-returnable tablets combined with track layouts that required tablets to be withdrawn for shunting....

Not entirely correct, and in part with respect a mis-understanding about the process for shunting into sections (Regulation 7). You did not need to withdraw a tablet for shunting unless it was necessary for unlocking the GF at an intermediate siding (of which IIRC the NCR only had one or two examples).

The NCR did have all non-returnable ETT No 3 instruments for a number of years, but over time the SR replaced several sets by the returnable No 6 as spare instruments became available for re-use. The Western Region introduced one set of EKT in the early 1950s and the Southern Region added a couple more in the 1960s.

There is circumstantial evidence that BR(S) planned to replace all the remaining ETT by EKT during the 1960s, but this was aborted when the WR took over the line again. The machines went into the back of the BR(S) S&T stores until their closure in the late 1970s, as which time several ended up in my garage (!) en route to Minehead, having been paid-for by individual volunteers. (Sadly I was too poor at the time to buy one for myself :-( ). In the event the introduction of EKT to the WSR took so long that in the meantime the WSR S&T swopped all the SR machines for WR equivalents.

 

NO - but under Reg 7 you could shunt into forward section behind a train that is going away from you.

Limit of Shunt boards are, by definition of their purpose, not applicable on actual bi-directional single-lines. However they did occur sometimes on the loops on single-lines, as the loops of course are by nature uni-directional, although the GWR tended to use their pattern of vertical STOP lamps in such situations.

 

There is a Shunt Limit board on Tenterden bank. Access given by a Shunt Ahead subsidiary arm. Tablet to be withdrawn if no train in section, or if shunting behind a departing train then immediately after receiving TOS from Rolvenden.

 

My post yesterday has raised some questions which I will try to answer succinctly.

Firstly the simple answer is to a very large extent, it was really the modernisation plan of 1955 that saw wholesale replacement of Victorian and grouping era signalling equipment, although all 4 railways between the wars had tinkered with renewals. The GWR hardly at all with perhaps the exception of Bristol and Newport and the Paddington area. The LMS really only Manchester Victoria,Wigan, Southport, and Glasgow. The SR did a large amount although control wise a technological byway. The LNER was by far the most adventurous and pioneer installation at Thirsk paved the way nationally and abroad until the advent of SSE interlocking. There are two notable examples of Victorian designed equipment still in use with Network Rail, both by coincidence in Scotland. The GSWR main line from Kilmarnock to Dumfries is still using Tyers 2 position block instruments and the single line from Girvan to Dunragit has three sections of Tyers No6 ETT instruments. The Highland main line was undoubtedly busy in the 20s and 30s and this no doubt contributed to the LMS Northern Division thinking. The other major signalling expenditure in Scotland in the 30s was the requipping of the Caledonian main line from Carlisle to Glasgow with Tyers F type 3 position block instruments in place of the Caledonian 2 position instruments, presumably because of safety considerations but other technical reasons spring to mind.

I feel that it wasn't so much the lack of desire for technological change that stopped things happening but the difficulty of persuading a board to agree capital expenditure in the midst of the economic situation then present. There is also the not well understood, certainly by me, circumstances of railway finance. It seems that spending from revenue on maintenance activity was permitted albeit fairly tightly controlled, capital spending was a whole different thing. It is significant that all the railway engineering depts spent most money, perhaps 90% even, on overhauling things and comparatively little on new works.

On the matter of token release of starting signals I can say that it really only started to become commonplace sometime after the mass Beeching era closures although some locations had it earlier due to particular operating circumstances.

The GWR had perhaps the most centralised approach to its S&T work, the LMS equally so to its administration but being such a large geographically spread organisation never managed to standardise everywhere, the LNER was run as almost separate entitities under the board umbrella and whilst the SR had a defined approach for it's new works the mechanical installation to a great extent followed their pre grouping origins.

Hope thats not too long winded and boring.
Regards
Martin

PS this has probably deviated enough from the WSR so perhaps if further discussion is desired a separate thread would be appropriate.

 

I am aware that some heritage railways do have LoS boards, but they have no historical precedence of which I am aware, for three reasons:-

1. The purpose of a LoS is to limit wrong-direction movements in situation where otherwise no fixed signal would exists. Clearly on a bi-directional single-line there is no concept of a 'wrong direction' move.
2. Moves controlled by a SA arm would - or should - be defined as "only as far as is necessary". A physical notice is not required for that purpose.
3. A LoS is in effect a fixed signal displaying a permanent stop aspect, so any movement past that board must be authorised by the signalman - mere possession of the tablet/token/staff for the section does not grant that authority unless specifically stated in the railway's rules & regulations, which then - when viewed in conjunction with (2) - rather renders the LoS redundant anyway.

This is just one example of the pitfalls of looking at heritage railways as a basis for historical precedence

 

I started my appreciation of Railways by being taken by my father from Montpelier to Severn Beach for an afternoon out as a small child. Pre singling the sadist who wrote the timetables arranged for trains to pass - first generation DMU's looking past the driver etc in Clifton Down Tunnel

After Bristol resignalling the line was controlled by Bristol Panel as far as the M5 bridge at Avonmouth, from there it was double track with proper signals to Hallen Marsh Junction. There then was a token section (EKT - I've handed it over) to Severn Beach. I dont know when Severn Beach box closed - by the late 70's I think but the only two boxes that might have been not equipped were Hallen Marsh & Severn Beach.

My parents met when they worked for The Midland Bank Executor & Trustee Company in Corn Street in the late 50's Staff being moved to the Bristol Branch would often announce that they were going to look at a house at Severn Beach, only to come back bog eyed at how awful it was.

But for a train ride, its got views over the rooftops of Bristol, the Avon Gorge - when the Festival of the Sea was on the train was seen to stop then reverse so passengers could watch the SS Shieldhall going 'Round the Bend' Avonmouth Docks then the sea banks into Severn Beach where the trains used to come a cropper on the buffers as a result of losing the top side vacuum.

Happy days!

 

Sorry, not entirely true. According to the Record of Amendments for Williton, 'token out' releases were provided on the section signals there on 16th May 1957, although I can find no mention of anything similar elsewhere on the line.

No doubt by the time that the WSR took over all the electrical locks had been recovered anyway, hence why it did not exist at WN in pre-EKT WSR days.

 

I did not realise that these were so rare in this day. By chance I happened to have reason to visit Glenwhilly box on the Stranraer line last autumn and took a couple pictures:

Hope these are of interest

Peter

 

Yes, Chris

But not at Dunster, Blue Anchor, or Kentsford, or Crowcombe, or Leigh Woods, or Bishops Lydeard?

Robin