West Somerset Railway General Discussion

My recollection(admittedly a bit hazy now!) is that the crossing was made an automatic and locally-monitored to save the additional expense that would be required for extra signalling if it were to be controlled by the SB. Do not forget that IIRC the current signalling installation at MD only came about when it did because the SCC had to pay (at least part of) cost of altering the previous arrangements at MD in order to accommodate the crossing, so they were keen to keep costs to a minimum.
But no doubt there were various factors in play at that time.

 

Was it possible in the early 90s to construct a new crossing using gates?

To my knowledge any new crossings need to be modern types.

Also, the WSR wouldn't have paid for the crossing, just like the DFR with their two at St Marys & Lydney Jcn, paid for by the highways/council etc, which were built in the mid-90s.

 

True, but that did not stop SCC wanting to keep the costs as low as possible.

 

However, if the new crossing is to be controlled by the signal box, will not all that extra signalling now be required?

 

Have I missed it, or has no-one here yet mentioned a questionnaire about restructuring circulated by the WSRA to its members? It is in two sections, one with four simple questions to be answered yes, no or unsure, with space if unsure for explaining why, and an optional section for additional comments or questions. When I clicked Submit on the latter the four-question section reverted to blank, so I don't know whether my answers on that were submitted or not.

 

The only extra signal AFAIK is an extra (Semaphore?) up Advance, to, I assume, replace the drivers white light indicator/red flashing limit of shunt indicator.
Otherwise the existing signalling is more than adequate. The signal post was unloaded from the works train on the 2nd of November.
I suspect that due to the distance between MH signalbox and Seaward crossing, it will either require the provision of CCTV and lighting or quite a few trees to be removed.

 

This appears to be a "feature" of many "Contact Us" and similar response facilities on websites. Yes, it is unhelpful and any organisation that uses it (I assume it's a standard software routine) wants their corporate head prodding for their lack of "customer" care and helpfullness.

 

I have assumed that the extra signal would indeed be a new Up Advanced Starting (I wonder what lever will be worked by?) but.....

....under normal interlocking rules you would not be able to clear any main running signals in rear of it unless the barriers were down and locked across the road. So with no subsidiaries under 4 or 5 you could still not do (say) a light engine move from the Main to Bay platforms without at least shutting the crossing, even if you did not now need to pass over it and left the new signal 'on' . You might perhaps be able to go from the Up or Bay sidings if no overlap was required for 3 or 6.

Still awaiting the WSR-TV video to give us all the details

 

I’m afraid you will not get many more details until the ORR have given approval to the scheme - except to say that CCTV will be necessary. (Regular readers will recognise this is a reversion to the Pravda approach. )

 

I completely understand the need to manage messages during that kind of discussion process. On one minor point of detail, can we infer that a scheme has now been presented to ORR for their agreement before the formal consultation process begins?

 

I assumed CCTV as a given anyway, given the distance of the SB from the crossing
Presumably with lighting towers for night-time usage as well? No doubt soon to be a source of complaint from someone...

 

I haven't even seen the questionnaire, let alone any comments about it.

 

Are you a WSRA member? If so you should have had an e-mail telling you about it.

 

AGM report anyone?

 

With the new crossing going in And With all the shutting that takes place, will there be scope for moving the crossing to minimise the disruption to traffic. And maybe clearing stone sidings would obviously free more space.

 

Moving the crossing? Would require re-routing the road?

They are doing it so that the crossing isn't automatically triggered, so locomotives won't need to go over the crossing when coming off shed etc.

 

Yes Re - routing not the best plan your quite right. Although am sure I have read it On a page in the not so distant past. Stone sidings would be good to clear.

 

Yes, I'm a WSRA member but I haven't had an e-mail about it, there's nothing in the spam folder either.
I guess it's possible they don't have my e-mail address, although I thought I'd given it to them ages ago.

 

I got an e-mail with survey in its title, but there is no survey in the email. If I use the link to the WSRA website there is nothing about a survey there either. A lovely photo of some S&DJR fire buckets though

 

Go to paragraph 5 and click the word HERE
The actual survey etc is on the WSRA website apparently - not had time to look at it yet.