Wherries

[marshman]

Liz - I think you might be right. I was a bit suspicious of Reedham because of the position of the bridge but looking at the photo before it was flipped and your map shows the river bending sharply, as indicated. That house may not be the station as just before the station there are some cottages -  perhaps its them.

Those dykes also help in that the farthest dyke looks quite large - the map shows it going to the brick works.

Vaughans idea of a tall signal also makes sense as they would have not had signal repeaters then and with that being a sharpish bend in the track beyond the picture, that then would have been easy to see a much taller signal. The tall pole by the bridge could have been some indication perhaps to river users. 

Come on Canarytops - you must be following this!!!!!!!

 

[Regulo]

I think this is exactly where it says it is - approaching the junction of the Cut from Yarmouth on the Yare. The white vessel directly ahead of the wherry seems to be across the mouth of the cut.

[LizG]

17 hours ago, Regulo said:

I think this is exactly where it says it is - approaching the junction of the Cut from Yarmouth on the Yare. The white vessel directly ahead of the wherry seems to be across the mouth of the cut.

Sorry I struggle with your suggestion because although the railway is in the distance, there are no buildings or trees on the far left of the view (viewing picture 1 before reversal).  After posting I did see that it was probably the station cottage rather than the station that was visible.

I love the mountains in the background - amazing angle

Liz

[Regulo]

Norfolk is well known for it's mountainous terrain! 

[unclemike]

7 minutes ago, Regulo said:

Norfolk is well known for it's mountainous terrain! 

of course, thats why reedham has a mountain rescue team !!

their home is the ship inn

[Canarytops]

On 28/01/2021 at 19:59, marshman said:

Liz - I think you might be right. I was a bit suspicious of Reedham because of the position of the bridge but looking at the photo before it was flipped and your map shows the river bending sharply, as indicated. That house may not be the station as just before the station there are some cottages -  perhaps its them.

Those dykes also help in that the farthest dyke looks quite large - the map shows it going to the brick works.

Vaughans idea of a tall signal also makes sense as they would have not had signal repeaters then and with that being a sharpish bend in the track beyond the picture, that then would have been easy to see a much taller signal. The tall pole by the bridge could have been some indication perhaps to river users. 

Come on Canarytops - you must be following this!!!!!!!

 

Indeed I am following this (!) and fascinating stuff it is !

I've just realised (!) I have a slightly different version of this image which shows a bit more of the rhs and indeed it looks like a signal box. The buildings behind remain a mystery as I don't see anything on old OS maps, and whichever location is viewed none seem to fit the locations of the signal posts (from OS maps). I remain puzzled ;-)

[JennyMorgan]

Stalham, but can you recognise the exact location?

[Vaughan]

16 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Stalham, but can you recognise the exact location?

The mill (which was a corn mill) was on the road behind what is now Simpson's boatyard.

[LizG]

1 hour ago, Canarytops said:

The buildings behind remain a mystery as I don't see anything on old OS maps, and whichever location is viewed none seem to fit the locations of the signal posts (from OS maps). I remain puzzled ;-)

There is a rectangular shape just beyond the railway line on the upside down map which would indicate a  building but what - who knows! No footpaths leading to it either as I assume the signal man, walked to the bridge from the station.  Unless it was something to do with the construction of the bridge and then taken down?

The modern satellite image shows there could have been something there.  What we don't know from the image is whether this is the old or new swing bridge and if the old one, the track may have been realigned like it was at Aldeby

[Vaughan]

51 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Stalham, but can you recognise the exact location?

 

No need to credit this photo, as it is the dust cover for the book!

[LizG]

58 minutes ago, LizG said:

There is a rectangular shape just beyond the railway line on the upside down map which would indicate a  building but what - who knows! No footpaths leading to it either as I assume the signal man, walked to the bridge from the station.  Unless it was something to do with the construction of the bridge and then taken down?

The modern satellite image shows there could have been something there.  What we don't know from the image is whether this is the old or new swing bridge and if the old one, the track may have been realigned like it was at Aldeby

Just realised I didn't attach the map - I found another one from around the same time which shows a bit more details (1884).  It crossed my mind that they might have been railwaymen's cottages.  I found some census records which gave the addresses of 5 or 6 cottages but not the location.  I think the signal posts are in about the right position?

[LizG]

15 minutes ago, LizG said:

Just realised I didn't attach the map - I found another one from around the same time which shows a bit more details (1884).  It crossed my mind that they might have been railwaymen's cottages.  I found some census records which gave the addresses of 5 or 6 cottages but not the location.  I think the signal posts are in about the right position?

Just found Station Cottages on google streetview so that theory gone!

[JennyMorgan]

57 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

 

No need to credit this photo, as it is the dust cover for the book!

I also have that book and a photo postcard of the same picture but didn't recognise it!  Thank you for the reminder.

[grendel]

this 1906 map of somerleyton shows a building near the signal box.

[Canarytops]

1 hour ago, LizG said:

Just found Station Cottages on google streetview so that theory gone!

What initially caused me to post was that I couldn't match the railway infra to Reedham, I think the general feedback agrees. I guess this is still my main confusion and it may be a lack of railway knowledge but my understanding of the signal group "A" is that facing signals would have track between them (ie the wherry is "pointing" along the track between signals at "A"). If (?) that were the case I would have thought there would need to be a junction to the left of "A" with that track and the route shown "B-C" or a very tight curve between signal "B" and "A". If the latter were the case why would signal group "A" even need to exist ?

Neither the tight curve or junction exist at Somerleyton.

My whole query is based on the above "railway reasoning" so if that's wrong I'll "go quietly" ;-)

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, Canarytops said:

 

I don't know the actual signal layout at Somerleyton but it was a double track line, so the signals C and D will be the home signals on either side of the signal box (block post) on the bridge.

A and B would have to do with the station behind trees at left and A is a bracket signal perhaps for a goods siding at the station. B could also be  a distant signal for the next section towards the east.

A station does not necessarily have its own block section. The bridge box would be the block post in this case.

Just guessing!

[grendel]

haddiscoe had a branch in the line where one leg split and crossed the river, the other heading round to reedham.

[grendel]

looking at somerleyton, there are trees and the signal post are just by the station, one is shown by station cottages on my snippet above, here we go, with the station, this accounts for your 4 signal posts

[Vaughan]

7 minutes ago, grendel said:

haddiscoe had a branch in the line where one leg split and crossed the river, the other heading round to reedham.

Haddiscoe had two lines, one at low level still exists, between Reedham and Lowestoft.  The other went over the swing bridge from Beccles, with a second, high level station and a signal box (still there) beside the bridge.  These are not visible in the photo.

[JennyMorgan]

A Wherry at Irstead, c1910, down to her binns.

[Canarytops]

19 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

A Wherry at Irstead, c1910, down to her binns.

Very nice image, any idea what the mast "ring" is just below the identification bands ? Gaff jaws also seem very short ? Together with winch fixed to mast - still can't identify her !

[JennyMorgan]

I suspect that the 'ring' is in fact there to hold a a block when the mast is used as a crane.

[marshman]

Why do old black and white wherry pictures just look so good!!!!

[MauriceMynah]

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

Why do old black and white wherry pictures just look so good!!!!

Because they're not in colour.

 

 

 

sorry

[JennyMorgan]

A wherry hull is black and white, colour would be wasted.