Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Looking at Google satellite, it would be a squeeze between the shed and the A39, but maybe just about do-able. Certainly unobtrusive. It only needs to be timber and polycarbonate sheeting. I wonder... Mr Miles? Tumbleweed....

 

Stock shed . As I was responsible for the size and spec of the shed at Woody Bay 2005-6 built by Fingle Farm Buildings timber over a Hot galv steel portal frame and the pit and wheel drop it was intended there would be an extra bay added at the back which I wanted as part of the initial build but was blocked by Doug Hill on cost !! The intention was to lay the spur up the cutting as far as we could go and possibly make it a double road with a Y point just outside the shed so that only 12" of clearance existed between stock envelope (2 roads close together ) with a roof over and some lightweight timber sides to stop rain but give good ventilation.
That would protect stock in winter .
When Vingo and then Miles &Co took over all that went out of the window in favour of what you see has been created today !!!
Railways are 85% Engineering if you reduce the ratio then you get something much less as a product !!

 

I did no block an extra bay.

 

Correction - I have found two photographs of the 1930s that show a ladder from the 'landing' fitted at the back of the signal going down the cess. (bottom of the bank) In other words the ladder is at right angles to the rails. The top of the ladder is clearly attached to the side of the 'landing'. As I have recorded elsewhere, the post is (was) fixed in an oblong lump of concrete 2ft 3" along the track, 1ft 8" showing (but the weather could have washed away the soil) The top of this block is 11ft 6" above the cess, and the post (of which the stump remains) is 8ft 6" from where the cess meets the bottom of the bank. The trackbed and cesses are 13ft wide at this point.
Apologies - I was working from photocopies, and have now blown up the originals.

 

>>>The finial for the third signal is in the store-room ex Gents (I think) due to be returned to the needs of menfolk when the extraneous additions are removed and the slate leaning against the wall is put in position. The stub of the second up home of April 1926 is still up the bank about 11ft 6" above the trackbed about 62 yards north of the Down Starter.

Having now had chance to examine the relative photographs (thanks to Michael B), I am of the opinion that the 1926 replacement Up Home at Chelfham was a complete new signal, as inferred by the relevant Signal Instruction 14 of that year, and not simply a re-use of part of the old EoD one. The arm, finial and general arrangement match the style of the replacement Down Starting at Woody Bay and also the 1924 replacement signals at Lynton.

This does mean of course that the use of an EoD finial on any replacement Up Home would not be appropriate unless it was intended to reproduce the EoD original in its original location on the RH side of the line.

 

So what came first the train or the railway? If there was a corridor we could walk to Killington lane at this rate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thou doth protest to much @dunghill1, pray tell us what ‘actually’ happened given your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for clarifying.

I just wonder what relevance this now has given the passage of time.

 

Indeed so .... and 85% of that 85% is the unsung basic and (so long as it's working) invisible stuff, like getting the drainage right.

 

Hi @Michael B we have the position of the signal including a little wood from the post inside the concrete haunching. Are you able to post the picture? As we will be getting on with the signal early next year. Kind regards,
Chris

 

Ooooh @RailWest this sounds all very interesting, We may have to rethink what we are doing here, I'm convinced Dave is making use of this Eo'D signal for that position marked out by the ducting photo'd and posted by @Meatman. Andy, I guess Dave will take some persuading as I feel he will want to do it anyway. Perhaps we need to look at the west bank and not the upper east bank???

 

This blow-up is the clearer of the two. The picture is by C. E. Gooding of the north end of the station and I am grateful to Keith Vingoe for the scan of it. The other similar blow-up picture was taken by S.H Pearce Higgins is very similar but due to the blow-up quite a bit of it has 'noise' which I am not capable of getting rid of. Posting it here will not add to knowledge. There appears to me to be a ball at the lower part of the finial - like the replacement down starter at Woody Bay which has been replicated, but my eyesight is not as good as it was. It would seem logical that the ladder was attached to the landing rather than the post, but over to those who might want to recreate it to judge.

 

My impression - as I have said already - is that the finial is a ball-and-spike type similar to that of the Woody Bay Down Starting, as Michael B agrees. It will be interesting to learn in due course what others think. Certainly the arm and weight-lever arrangement are NOT of the EoD style.

The key question therefore remains - what period do you intend to represent at Chelfham, given that you already have erected the earlier form of Down Starting, but in the location of its 1927 replacement? For accuracy, if you want to have an EoD style Up Home, then it will have to be pre-1926 on the RHS (but will it be possible to sight it adequately once trains are running again?) . That then leaves the issue of what to have - eventually - as the Down Home, given that in later years it was a lattice post but the date of replacement is unknown (yet).

 

Ha, let him put the signal there but as it should be, we can have the EOD bits for Bratton lol

 

Thank you for posting this and what an angle on the ladder! I would agree that the ladder is attached to the landing. This gives us a better idea of what we have to build so Thanks again.

 

You are very funny!!!!!!

 

Funnily enough, I was thinking much the same thing about BF ...

In an ideal world, of course, such an issue should not arise anyway. The Trust will have produced a 'master strategy' document which sets out their view for the future 'look and feel' of the 'new' L&BR and defines such things as how it will be operated, what period of the railway's history will be recreated at each location, and to what extent there can be a trade-off between historical accuracy and the pragmatic needs of modern-day operations etc. Then anyone doing work at places such as BF or Chelfham can simply refer to that as their 'blueprint' and know exactly what is needed. In the meantime hopefully ongoing research and 'lucky finds' will help to fill in a few more of the gaps in our knowledge

 

The key question shall be discussed at Chelfham later.....

As for the Down Starter, There was worries about the stability of the bank with the road below. Thus the post uses the side support of the concrete post. Also Peter Miles wanted to use the concrete post, so it is all there together if we have to change it once a new one is made. I hope this helps.

 

Not sure what you mean by that please?