Seaton Junction

[Blair Robinson]

The compilers at PCRail have come up with another fine simulation - this time a heritage look at the LSWR main line in the 1950/60s era. There are a couple of queries which have arisen, and which our experts on this Forum may be able to answer.

Firstly, were the points here ever fitted with point machines. I think it's unlikely, but I can't be certain.

Secondly, does anybody have a signalling plan of the box at this date, please? I don't have the Pryer book for this box, and I don't think that it has been published on this Signal Box website. There have been questions about the working of the FPLs and if anyone has a locking table as well as the layout, that would be very welcome.

Many thanks

Blair

[Chris Osment]

No motor points to the best of my knowledge.

There is an SRS diagram for the box. 1950s/60s covers a few changes, so depends exactly when/what has been simulated.

Sadly, I don't have a locking-table I could try to answer your questions, tho' I doubt I would have the answers.

[Fast Line Floyd]

I find it amazing that the track layout of Seaton Junction which John has linked to this posting has not raised any eyebrows!

Graham

[Chris Osment]

I find it amazing that the track layout of Seaton Junction which John has linked to this posting has not raised any eyebrows!

Err...possibly because there is no such link? at least, nothing that I can see

[Sharpey]

I find it amazing that the track layout of Seaton Junction which John has linked to this posting has not raised any eyebrows!

Err...possibly because there is no such link? at least, nothing that I can see

In the track layouts section of the main page there is a new diagram of the "proper" Seaton Junction (I'm a Midland man!) which John has linked to this thread!

[tynewydd]

Which is a subtle way of saying, John, that the Seaton Junction simulated is the track SR one in the West Country with 4 mainline tracks, while the trackplan is the MR one in Rutland with three lines converging. Fascinating but different.

One can imagine that careless passengers buying tickets "back in the day" could have led to many "Oh, Mr Porter" type incidents - because there was a third station named Seaton in Cumbria, a fourth one in Durham/Northumberland and there was also a Seaton Delaval.

Adam

[John Hinson]

In the track layouts section of the main page there is a new diagram of the "proper" Seaton Junction (I'm a Midland man!) which John has linked to this thread!

Ha ha, I wondered how long it would take somebody to spot that! Uploaded it in haste before realising that the conversation was about another one. Was going to get round to deleting the link but life overtook me.

John

[Blair Robinson]

Yes, thanks for the layout, John, but it's a long way from the LSWR main line between Axminster and Honiton Bank. If anyone has a link to that one (presumably it's in Pryer volume 5, which I don't (yet) have, then I'd be grateful for a look at it.

Blair

[davidwoodcock]

I had wondered whether the east crossover, which is quite some way from the box, might have been motored, but I found a photo which showed four sets of rodding heading in that direction (up and down loop points, fpl for the latter, and the crossover) so they weren't.

What was unusual was that the point rodding was in the middle, between the up and down roads, rather than to one side. I couldn't find a clear enough photo of the west end to see if the same applied there, but it may well have done.

[John Hinson]

Yes, thanks for the layout, John, but it's a long way from the LSWR main line between Axminster and Honiton Bank. If anyone has a link to that one (presumably it's in Pryer volume 5, which I don't (yet) have, then I'd be grateful for a look at it.

The plan I had from George (Pryer), although it didn't come from the book, appears identical to this:
http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srm/S3420.htm

John

[Chris Osment]

Yes, the rodding went down the middle to the west end as well.

At one time, where signal 6 is shown on the diagram (the Down Local Starting just past the end of the platform), there used to be two straight post signals side-by-side. The LH one was No 6, whilst the RH one was a corresponding Down Starting for the Down Through line and worked by lever 3. Quite how good the sighting of this was for a Down Through train if there was a train standing in the Down Local is unclear. I don't know exactly when No 3 was taken out of use, but IIRC it was about 1949.

NOTE: although functionally it was 3 that was taken OOU, in terms of their relative location to the Down local it was No 6 that was removed and the 'old' No 3 then became No 6, thus keeping the surviving signal closer to the line to which it now applied. In practice I think both old posts were removed in due course and a single new one put in their place.

[davidwoodcock]

I don't know exactly when No 3 was taken out of use, but IIRC it was about 1949.

Later than 1949, there is a S.W.Baker photo dated 16.09.1950 which shows both posts in use, although the LH one is clearly in poor condition.

I suspect that sighting of no.3 was never an issue.
Either the distant was off and the driver would expect a clear run with an emergency replacement becoming obvious because the bracket signal shortly beyond (no.4) would also be put back,
or the distant was on and the driver would creep from the home assuming that no.3 was on unless the bracket signal (no.4) was subsequently pulled off.

I am imagine that no.3 was only provided originally because of the principal that if there was a signal on the loop there should be a matching one on the main line to avoid confusion, especially at night.

[StevieG]

.... or to hold a slow non-passenger train if it was desirous to get a passenger train past it but for which SJ was a scheduled call?

[Chris Osment]

.... or to hold a slow non-passenger train if it was desirous to get a passenger train past it but for which SJ was a scheduled call?

But in that case why not just let it down to 4, especially if it was long? Whether they ever put one behind 4 AND one behind 3 is a matter for conjecture....

[StevieG]

.... or to hold a slow non-passenger train if it was desirous to get a passenger train past it but for which SJ was a scheduled call?

But in that case why not just let it down to 4, especially if it was long? Whether they ever put one behind 4 AND one behind 3 is a matter for conjecture....

Completely agree Chris : My apologies; the size of the viewable diagram, and later going from memory, meant that I overlooked 4's existence.