TOPIC:

Beasley40 wrote: Many thanks for that, David,
I couldn’t get any info on Ancestry because I kept putting in his full name, not just his initial.
I don’t have access to find my past, so your offer would be gratefully accepted.
It does sound unusual that he signed up for a further five years in the army reserve. Did they offer some sort of payment for that?

Alan
This is my understanding of the reserve payment. Fellow forummers may have a different perspective if I have got this wrong I'm sure.

By 1881, infantry service became 7 years active and 5 in the reserve.
British Army Reserve forces during the Victorian era were paid. This pay typically came in the form of a retainer sometimes referred to as a pension or deferred pay for their liability to be called out for service, in addition to their civilian earnings. 
The specific amounts varied depending on the section of the Reserve and the period:

Section A Reserve: Soldiers who committed to rejoining quickly in an emergency received about 7 shillings a week. They also had a training requirement of twelve days per year.

Section B Reserve: This was the most common type for men who had completed their regular army service. They received a retainer of around 3 shillings and 6 pence a week (or sixpence a day, often paid quarterly in arrears).

Section D Reserve: For those extending their service beyond Section B, the terms and pay were the same as Section B. 

This payment was a relatively small amount compared to many civilian wages at the time, reflecting its purpose as a retainer for potential future service rather than a full salary. When mobilised and the soldiers were called to serve in a conflict, the reservists would then receive the full pay and allowances of a regular serving soldier of the colours.
Your Grandfather served his 12 years 1884 to 1896. He chose to sign up for the reserves again on his 1896 discharge paperwork.

Dave.....

Dave - thanks for that very comprehensive answer - all I had to offer was they were paid sixpence a day and this from an 1890 newspaper article in which the military correspondent of a Leeds newspaper ranted on about how the Short Service Scheme was inferior to the Long Service that appertained before 1881 when there was no Army Reserve. In it he said that on transfer to the Army Reserve they were paid "sixpence a day for doing nothing" - I thought that they had to do some annual training to prove they were still capable of being an active soldier if nothing else. Do you have a reliable source for your information?

Finally going back to nearly the beginning, the first voyage of 1090 Jon Beasley:

Dublin Daily Express 20 January 1886 - his paperwork shows his East Indies service began on 19 January 1886: