West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Quite - otherwise why would colour light signals have virtually everywhere replaced semaphores?

 

Moreover, it ran all last summer, whenever a preserved railway was legally permitted to do so. The WSR could learn a lot from them.

 

Just out of interest I've been trying to find out just when coloured light signals were introduced on the WR. As far as I can see (and I happily stand to be corrected) major stations such as Paddington, Bristol and Cardiff had their first coloured lights in the 1930's!
Light signals were rolled out across the region in general between 1959 and 1963 (although there are still a few places they haven't found out about yet )

So are coloured light signals really inappropriate? I guess the branch lines were changed later rather than sooner but is a 1950's station with early 1960's type of signalling such a horrendous mismatch?

 

Two trains a day departing BL at 11:00 and 14:30 and returning from Watchet at 12:45 and 16:15. I don't know anything about the available capacity of the trains and have no idea of passenger numbers

 

A few random observations on 'C/L' signals and 'authenticity' etc...

1. The GWR C/L schemes of the 1930 etc were not the same as the multiple-aspect schemes of later years. They simply used 2-aspect C/Ls to replicate the indications of 2-aspect semaphores and effectively worked in much the same way as an 'arm-less' semaphore.

2. Even today some semaphore are replaced by new semaphores rather than C/Ls, as happened at Yeovil PM some years ago. A like-for-like replacement involves far less alterations to the locking and control circuits etc (if any) than would be required to support C/Ls. For example, if you were to (say) replace a LQ Home with an UQ Home, then no problem - but if you were to fit a C/L as the Home instead then you would need to provide a 3-aspect R/Y/G signal and add all the necessary additional controls to ensure that, when you pulled the lever to clear the Home, the 'proceed' aspect would be either Y or G depending upon the state of the Starting signal in advance.

3. In the 1930s the GWR considered a CTC scheme whereby the entire Barnstaple Branch would be equipped with C/Ls and controlled from a panel at Dulverton. Had they done that and it had proved cost-beneficial, then one may speculate that they would have gone on to do the same for the Minehead Branch.

 

It's probably worth remembering that the WSR had major problems even before the current management arrived; in good part because of a very long-term decline in ridership.

Noel

 

You know what you mean to say, I know what you come across as saying. If what you come across to me as saying differs from what you mean, that is not me "misrepresenting" you, that is you not being sufficiently clear. None of us on here even know who you are, let alone what you are like. All we have to go on is what you write. If I was to say that you sound like an embittered ex-husband, that's what you sound like to me, and probably to others. No matter if it was not your intention to sound like that, it is still the truth that you do.

 

Any idea when in the 30's? I would assume post 1936 that any trial projects would probably be abandoned.
With no regard to the economics but more for the War Effort.

 

Something else that everyone seems to be missing is that to say that something has a 25 year lifespan means that it would be prudent to plan to replace it after 25 years. It doesn't mean that it will crumble into dust on the stroke of midnight on the 25th anniversary of its installation. How much of the equipment and rolling stock on the railway was life-expired decades ago? Has everyone forgotten that, back in the winter of 2018/19, Seaward Way level crossing was not the only problem the railway was facing? It is highly likely, that, with limited resources, it was decided that the crossing could wait while more urgent problems were sorted out. Of course, if they had been armed with the level of omniscience that some people think indispensable for the management of a heritage railway, they would have forseen that the crossing barrier mechanism would pack up the following winter, but being less than supermen, they didn't.
Of course, the management responsible for that decision have reacted in the worst possible way to things coming unravelled in the way that they did, with secrecy and misinformation, however that doesn't mean it didn't appear to be a reasonable risk to run at the time. When you set out to drain the swamp, it is wise to allow for the possibility that you will end up to your arse in alligators, but that doesn't mean that you should assume that you definitely will, or even that it is probable.

 

Blimey, I go away for 24 hours to play trains and when I come back I can no longer work out who are the cowboys and who are the injuns in this tale...

Tom

 

I've given up caring! I'll just vote with my feet and stay away until the present chairman and his cronies (and probably the line too, the way they are running it) are history.

 

Never mind, here come the Cavalry from the DEPG

 

Now your posts have taken a turn for the weird. I have no idea what you are talking about, I'll defer to you about what bitter ex-partners sound like because clearly it is an area where you have a lot of experience in the role.

To paraphrase Eric Morecambe - you are reading some of my words just not in the right order, which is the only reason I can think of as to why you come up with responses that read like Morecambe playing the piano.

When you've something coherent to say, come back and I'll listen. Till then.

 

Me too

 

I could understand the uproar if, say, Grosmont crossing gates were being replaced with automatic barriers, but Seaward Crossing is preservation era. It's only ever been barriers and colour lights. Yes, nice to investigate early on whether semaphores are an option, but not when the project is basically signed off and ready to go.

 

A break from level crossings, signals etc. Is it known whether the Director who has recently resigned from the WSR Board - see Companies House - still retains his position on the WSR Staff?

 

I hope we'll find out in the forthcoming newsletter, but unless my memory is failing me, that person was appointed General Manager not long before the pandemic, in a paid capacity. To save costs, his appointment was deferred, and in the meantime he was made a director so he could still be involved in management. I presume this temporary state of affairs is coming to an end. That's the simple explanation, I await with anticipation what malign motives the great and the good of NatPres can come up with!

 

Who on the WSR, back in 1990 odd, thought it a reasonable decision to allow a new level crossing- with all its safety and maintenance issues? Why was it thought to not compromise the historical integrity, (or heritage impression if you'd prefer) of the WSR to install barriers and sirens and flashing lights then, but 25 years later it is thought an unpleasant compromise?

 

3 gates at Grosmont repaired or completely renewed in the last 2 years.We hope to renew the 4th gate,the smallest one,this summer.

 

I looked at CH the other day.

Something rang a bell with me, but I might be totally wrong. I seem to recall the temporary appointment to the board of someone ex Big Railway, pending the taking up of a permanent staff appointment.

Does any of this ring bells, or chime (pun intended) with your thoughts?