TheSignalEngineer

I believe that Bilston was designed to work on coke from Yorkshire coal. I think this was also, along with Nottinghamshire, the source of most coal for Corby. If Corby coke were used at Bilston one possible route would be via Leicester, Nuneaton and Saltley to Bordesley yard on the GW line then reverse throug Snow Hill to Wolverhampton LL then back down the OWW to Bilston West. Another, possibly easier, route would be Nuneaton, Water Orton, Walsall and Dudley and reverse to get to the OWW at Bilston West or the Princes End Branch to get to Spring Vale on the Stour Valley. At the time, if you wanted to be particularly devious, I think you could still have done Corby, Wellingborough, Northampton then Towcester and Stratford-upon-Avon or Rugby and Leamington Spa. Spoilt for choice really in those days, I can think of at least six other ways of getting it round the Birmingham area. By 1967 it was all going in via Spring Vale

I remember trains of coke hoppers bound for Bilston passing on the Down Through line at Snow Hill. I don't know where they originated from but my abiding memory is of a WD 2-8-0 getting stuck on the 1 in 45 gradient in the tunnel for the best part of an hour with a load of about 40.

LNER V1 and V3 seemed to have spent a lot of their time in Scotland and the North-east. I did see a V2 in Birmingham on one occasion, and it left heading South-west! I would think a more likely tank loco for the GC would be an L1 2-6-4T. One did get across the SMJ from Woodford Halse to Stratford-upon-Avon with a road learning trip when the layout at Stratford Old Town was altered in the early 1960s. One of my old workmates photographed it at Evesham Road Crossing.

In old signalling when a train was stopped at a signal the fireman was supposed under Rule 55 to go to the signalbox and sign the train register to remind the signalman that the train was there. If the train was standing on a track circuit which either prevented the protecting signal(s) in the rear from being cleared or prevented the signalman from giving Line Clear for another train to approach on the same line then there was no need to do this. A diamond signa on the signal was to tell the train crew that the signal was exempt from Rule 55. Sometimes, particularly if the signal was a long way from the box such as an 'Outer Home' or 'Advance Starter' a telephone would be provided. This was in a box with diagonal white stripes on it and sometimes there was a 'T' on the diamond. In this case the train was detained for more than a certain time at the signal, often 2 minutes, then the fireman would call the signalbox to see what the cause of the delay was.

Getting close to what would probably have been. The ground signal from the loco siding should be before you reach the points. In real life it would probably be about 12 feet away depending on the vintage of the equipment. The Calling-on arm on the Home signal would have had horizontal red/white/red stripes rather than vertical in BR days. Depending on the controls applied and amount of track circuiting, especially as the bridge blocks visibility, both the Home signal and the Starting signal by the fiddle yard would have diamond signs, but would probably not have telephones.

Depending on the location of the next box and who controls the next signal, also company and era when the layout was last resignalled, there could be a case for the shunt ahead arms. It depends on a lot of factors.

The calling-on signal into the platforms will be required if it is possible to put a second train into an occupied platform or to allow a light engine to enter from the Down line to take out a train. The disc in the dairy is for coming out. The points inside would be hand points so no need for signals at that. The stack disc could actually be a single disc as any move using it will be an out-and-back so there is little room for confusion by the driver. He should know exactly where he is intended to finish up. The points will require five levers including the trap/derailer in the dairy. There will be five facing point locks. The lazy way is to have a lever for each, but there are two ways of doing them with four levers and possibly one way with three levers but I don't think I would recommend that one. If there is a Starting signal controlled by this box a train length beyond the bridge then there would be no need for the shunt arms below the platform end signals. If the Block Section is short there probably wouldn't be room for an Outer Home signal on the approach. I would estimate a minimum of 24 levers and a maximum of 30 levers plus two or three spares.

I think the Bachmann signal box is a bit big unless it were to be controlling a lot at the other side of the bridge. It is based on Loughborough North which currently haouses a 50-lever frame. Based on what I think your track layout is, and putting in a logical set of moves needed to operate a loco-hauled service I would estimate that just for the station area about a 25-lever frame would be more likely. This would assume that shunts to clear platforms or release locos were done 'Right Line' Looking at the pictures the dairy sidings would need a trap point to protect the platform, although if space was tight a derailer or scotch block may be provided instead. I'm not sure what the distant signal at the bridge is for. It would be unlikely to provide one at this position, and if it were it should not have a diamond sign on the post.

I will try to have a look later at how many levers would be needed. Spacing is between 4" and 6" per lever depending on the company and era when it was built. On top of that a bit at each end.

What beats me is that Bachmann got the wheelbase and end profile more or less correct but failed with the overall length. Airfix managed to get the length right on their kit around 60 years ago.

Portsmouth Harbour to Leeds, 27th April 1984. Note the obligatory 'Windmiller' in the first coach. Engine worked as far as Birmingham New St, where it changed for anything Saltley wanted to lose for a few days.

I was involved with an infrastructure maintenance bid when Railtrack tried to put in all sorts of similar 'partnering' and 'alliance' stuff around 2000. I didn't win because one of the other bidders had no experience of railway infrastructure maintenance and seriously misunderstood what was involved. At the inquest our Finance Director was very pleased with the outcome, congratulating me on finishing in the 'Silver Medal' position, and the MD vowed that we as a company would never again bid for a maintenance contract under Railtrack's conditions. Shortly afterwards the whole IMC arrangement started to unravel, finishing with the work being taken back in-house.

It is 157.4798thou or 4mm (approximately 5.4%) too long. The BR diagram shows 18'6" over headstocks and the Bachmann version scales off at 19'6".

One was photographed on the Halesowen Branch on what appears to be an Engineers train on Sunday 4th September 1955 http://www.photobydjnorton.com/RailwayPictures/58143AppHunningtonViaductKM.jpg Any advances on that date?

Sounds like a Baldrick moment. Our cunning plan is we haven't got a plan, that way nobody will know what we are doing and can't say it's our fault when it goes wrong.

Not always a bad thing. I was displaced on one occasion and my promotion prospects in that particular line took a step backwards. Rather than stagnate I took a sideways move to a job which would give me some different experience. Due to promotional opportunities opening up and another reorganisation, within less than three years I ended up back with my old office but two steps higher than when I left.

Prototype for everything corner?

Warning - Political Content Ahead (but purely for historical context.) One thing we have to face is that railways have been a political football since the 1830s. William Ewart Gladstone, as President of The Board of Trade, introduced the 1844 Railway Act. This was the first attempt at 'nationalisation' and imposed many Government controls on what railway companies could and couldn't do. The main reason that the railways were not nationalised following this Act was the 'free enterprise' culture in the mid-Victorian period prevented it. Had not the issue of Ireland intervened Gladstone would probably had another bite at the railway companies when he became Prime Minister in 1868. For those interested in the politico-economic argument surrounding the issues of State control of the railways this academic paper has some interesting observations on the history of it from an economist's viewpoint http://www.socsci.ulst.ac.uk/econpolitics/profiles/mf.bailey/bailey_1844.pdf The writer's final point sums up a lot of the comments made on here "Ultimately, it seems that the main lasting value of the debate surrounding the 1844 Act is as an example of how ideas reoccur in economics."

Re-orgs,re-orgs. In my 30 years service before privatisation I can remember being affected by about 15, of which at least two were still-born and three others were overtaken by the following one. In the late 1970s/ early 1980s there was a team based at Euston House whose sole function was to think up re-organisations. It didn't matter who or where as long as there was a re-org going on somewhere. i think it was to keep the Unions occupied so they didn't have time to cause trouble elsewhere.

I fear that we will end up in the same state as our water system. As I drive around I am delayed at three or four different places every week by United Utilities digging up the road to fix water problems. Most are caused by years of neglect and under investment in keeping the system up to scratch just to please bean counters and shareholders. Doing that may be acceptable to the water industry but I hate to think of the consequences of applying the same principles to railway tracks or signalling. We have already seen it to an extent with incidents such as Lamington Viaduct, those will just be the tip of the iceberg - lucky escapes - until we get another Clapham or Hatfield, then they will all be running around trying to shift the blame to the poor s*d on the ground

They had the Railway Clearing House to apportion various dues under running powers and cross boundary traffic. IIRC it took about 12 years after Nationalisation to sort out all of the bills.

Latest order arrived quickly and better price than big boys. Top service.

No, that one was to do with the politics of the Grand Junction, London & Birmingham and Birmingham & Oxford Junction. Captain Huish, the Chairman of the Grand Junction, wanted an amalgamation with the L&B to give a direct route from London to Manchester and Liverpool. Possibly to force the issue he courted the B&OJR, part of the GWR camp, with promises of through services from Paddington to Manchester. This persuded the L&B to join with the Grand Junction and Liverpool & Manchester to form the LNWR. Huish insisted that the B&OJR Duddeston Viaduct was still built even though he had no intention of letting Paddington have access to his empire.

The idea is not that far fetched. The remnants of the real Hope Street lie just to the south of Birmingham city centre about half a mile from what could have become the GCR route from Marylebone to Moor Street. The Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway had its eyes on reaching Birmingham when the original North Warwickshire line proposal was approved in 1894. The MS&L purchased a large shareholding in the permanently financially broke E&WJR in 1893. Its idea was to promote doubling of the E&WJR from Stratford-upon-Avon to a new junction with the MS&L London Extension near Woodford Halse, thus giving a route from London to Birmingham which was 10 miles shorter than the GWR via Oxford. The plan faltered when the GCR, as the MS&L had then become, did a deal with the GWR over access to London. The GWR stepped in and took over the North Warwickshire project in 1900. By the time construction started the independent route from Hall Green to Moor Street via Sparkbrook had been abandoned in favour of joining the GWR line at Tyseley.

May be just samples as there is a big fingerprint in the back of DoDo's cab.