Turnchapel Branch

Dave_Hooe · May 9, 2017

We have now arrived outside the southwest corner of the former naval fuel oil compound, photograph view point M on Figure 52, at the position occupied by the pre-WW1 pump house. The pump house (cf. Figure 49 inset in post #56), its surrounding fence and the pipelines communicating with the depot via the connecting culvert through the bund would all have been significant trackside features at this site in the period from 1908 to Mar-1941.

The picture in Figure 67a was taken in July 2012 with the oil depot behind us and looking westwards. The line to Turnchapel Wharf ran to the left of the fence seen here and onwards at the foot of the quarry face. A gate can be seen installed across the path of the rail line, marking off a section that eventually passed into private ownership. The WW2 pump house (discussed in post #71) is hidden behind the overgrown patch marked and the concrete in the foreground is the site where the pre-WW1 pump house linked to the bunded oil fuel depot once stood.

Figure 67b shows the view from roughly the same position as Figure 67a but now looking in the opposite direction, eastwards towards the oil fuel depot itself, which is marked by the decaying mesh fence around the bund top. Notable features here are the large rock that stood immediately beside the rail track on the southwest corner of the compound and the concrete pipeline culvert through which the oil pipelines passed from the depot to the pump house.

Figure 67c shows a couple of lower resolution pictures from a similar position to Figure 67b, but taken in Mar-2012 (with less growth obscuring the pipeline culvert). Additional reference photographs of the culvert at higher resolution but with more growth are given in Figures 67d – 67g. Some approximate dimensions have been added on the images.

The position of the pipeline culvert and its extension from the bund are very well plotted in the surveyors’ survey sheets submitted with the 11/01250/FUL planning documents.

Figure_67c Turnchapel Station Admiralty OFD tour.tiff

Edited May 15, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Nearholmer · May 9, 2017

Is Dave Hooe Junior (I'm guessing) enjoying being used as the standard unit of height?

He looks about the same age as Nearholmer Junior, and I can just imagine the groaning if I asked him to perform that task!

Kevin

brianusa · May 9, 2017

This whole project is a great record of a certain place and time. Not well known except to those who are familiar to the area.

Brian.

Dave_Hooe · May 12, 2017

Thanks chaps – and you’ve scored a ‘hole in one’ with the unit of measure analysis, Kevin! These days I keep a tape measure with me to spare my poor long-suffering family!

Figure 62b is now inserted into post #71 above (copy also below). This includes an annotated copy of Mike Roach’s photograph of the western end of Turnchapel Station –– many thanks to Mike and the Cornwall Railway Society for the kind permission to use the photograph. Mike’s photo is one of the best available resources for track detail at that end of the station, including the single catch and sand drag in the passing loop and platform lines. Two other highly recommended reference photographs that add track detail for the Quarry/Air Ministry sidings turnout and spur were taken by Maurice Dart, also in Sep-1961, and are published in Branch Lines Around Plymouth by Victor Mitchell and Keith Smith (photographs 96 and 98).

Several additional Sep-1961 photos from Mike, available on the Cornwall Railway Society website, provide excellent track detail at the bridge end of Turnchapel Station. These can be found distributed between the Devon Galleries / Turnchapel and Yealmpton section of the CRS website and the Railtours section of the website. Mike’s photos provide a near complete record of the pointwork and timbering at the bridge end of the Station, the only gap being the timbering detail between the end of the bridge itself and the switch a few paces towards the Station. I don't think I’ve seen any photographs that quite cover this region.

I know next to nothing about track alas –– so will have to leave any commentary on track detail to others!

Coming back to Mike’s photograph of Figure 62b, an important feature is the large rock that was located at the west end of Turnchapel Station adjacent to the signal post. I’ll add a few additional photographs of this rock for reference purposes in a follow up post before moving on to some details of the oil tanks that stood adjacent to the Station until Nov-1940.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · May 14, 2017

The photos in Figures 68a-c might be useful. These were taken from the south west corner of the Turnchapel Station site, corresponding roughly to position N on the ‘site tour’ plan of Figure 52. They show another angle on the iconic rock that was located at the western end of Turnchapel Station and which towered more than 40-ft over the railway line. Although rather overgrown, one of the two windlass platform locations on the bank next to Turnchapel Station and close to the rock can also be made out.

A signal post was located close beside the rock, as seen in Mike Roach’s photo of Figure 62b, and the rock appears in several photos of Turnchapel Station throughout its history, notably in a wartime image (AWM-SUK10477) from the Australian War Memorial collection taken on 28-Nov-1940 (see next post).

To me, at least, the ‘Turnchapel Station rock’ has become a focal point for Plymouth’s WW2 struggle and stood memorial to those in Hooe who lost their lives that night on Wednesday 27^th November, 1940 and to the two young firemen who died in the early hours of the following Friday when one of the tanks erupted. I was therefore delighted to see that the developers retained the rock as a feature in the new housing development, albeit in a very much diminished form (Figures 68d-f). Did they realise what that rock stood for and the events that had gone on around it I wonder? The raid on 27-Nov-1940 started at 6:30 pm and lasted until 2:30 am, with flights of bombers sweeping in every few minutes at the peak point. It is often regarded as the first really big raid on Plymouth and presaged the wholesale destruction of Plymouth City Centre in the blitz of the following spring. André Savignon, a French internee for the duration, wrote of it as follows:
“Without developing into systematic major attacks, the raids continued at a quickening tempo and became more sustained and vicious.
It was then that I first clearly discerned in the shadows the features of a new member of the cast who had crept in among us and whose presence we were all pretending to ignore: his name was Fear.
“On 27th November, at six in the evening, a raid began just as we left the General Post Office, (I had wired the B.B.C … next day I was to broadcast from London). We were forced back indoors by a crowd that bustled in off the street. During the first quiet interval, we started for the Barbican. We were nearing the junction of Southside Street and the quay [Figure 68h] — a spot that gives a wide view of the port — when there was a formidable explosion and flame blotted out the vista at the end of the street.
“I said: ‘That’s hit Turnchapel petrol stores.’
“It had, and they went flaming for a week.
“That was our first really heavy raid.”
–– André Savignon, With Plymouth Through Fire, 1968, publisher S.E. Ouston

Figure_68h.tiff

Edited May 21, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · May 14, 2017

The 28-Nov-1940 Australian War Memorial (AWM) photograph (SUK10477) is shown in Figure 69. A similar photograph (Figure 50) appears in Arthur Clamp’s Plymstock during the Second World War 1939–1945 monograph (page 19), in Anthony Kingdom's Turnchapel Branch (page 57) and appended to the relevant date entries in the Operations Record Book of No. 10 Squadron, RAAF (National Archives AIR 27/149/24). This latter image is attributed to B. Thornton in Anthony Kingdom’s book and may correspond to a photograph in the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office’s archive (search ‘P000079541’ in the PWDRO online catalogue), since many of the images used in the Anthony Kingdom’s book were subsequently deposited there.

The top of the ‘Turnchapel Station rock’ is visible in the foreground of the AWM-SUK10477 photograph, which must have been taken from the same quarry cliff top vantage point as marked for the image in Figure 50. Detail is not easy to distinguish in the low resolution image on the AWM website (posted in Figure 69), but a high-resolution image, available for purchase from the AWM, reveals the scene in extraordinary clarity and brings home the enormity of the struggle faced by the firefighters as well as technical details about the tanks that loomed over the Station.

The tanks would have looked something like the model shown in Figure 69. We know from Whessoe records that the cylinders were of 90-ft in diameter and 37-ft in height and that at least four of them were supplied to the Admiralty for the Turnchapel site in 1908. Tanks of this type, dating to the early 20^th century, appear to have been constructed with both domed and conical roofs. The Turnchapel tanks were of the domed variety.

Figure_69.tiff

Edited May 17, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · May 14, 2017

Now we come to some suggested photographic resources that may provide a guide to the visual appearance and structure of the Admiralty oil fuel compound tanks adjacent to Turnchapel Station. The detail here may not be of wide interest, but it’s as well to include it because the tanks would have been such a prominent feature for much of the operational life of the station and because they played such an important role in its history.

Without access to engineering drawings for the tanks we cannot be sure of the dome dimensions, but a typical ratio for dome cross section to cylinder radii in modern tank design might be 2.456 (www.astanks.com/EN/Intro_EN.html). This would put the dome centres around 9-ft 7-in above the cylinder top. Structural analysis of the Turnchapel tanks is assisted by the availability of excellent reference photographs for the Invergordon tanks, 20 tanks of which were supplied by Whessoe in 1913/14 with the same design and 90-ft x 37-ft dimensions. Recommended reference pictures are embedded in the post below, linked to the source websites. [The linked images below are dependent on the sharing status set for the source images and may disappear from the post in the future, if the sharing status is changed or the image removed from the source site by the image owners.]

The cylinders were constructed from seven rings of riveted steel plates and were self-supporting with no internal girder work along the cylinder axis. There were 12 plates per ring with the vertical seams aligned antiphase between consecutive rings. The horizontal seams were made with a single row of rivets. For the four lower plate rings, the vertical seams were made with 3 staggered vertical rows of rivets at the lateral plate overlaps (e.g. configured in a 17-16-17 rivet pattern between the horizontal plate seam rivet rings). For the top three rings, vertical plate seams were made with two staggered columns of rivets instead of three. Photographs of similar tank construction in progress (ca. 1907/1908) can be seen at Portland and Dover Eastern Docks installations. Detail of plate structure and riveted seams from the Invergordon tanks can be found in the image below. The particular tank featured in this image may at one time have had an outer brick cladding installed around the cylinder, presumably to provide a measure blast resistance.

The AWM-SUK10477 photograph (at high resolution) suggests that the tank domes comprised 8 concentric rings of riveted overlapping plates around a central crown plate. Radial and annular seams were likely made with single rivet rows, as shown in the following picture of a dome from a similar but larger tank at Trincomalee in Sri Lanka dating from the period 1924–1937:

[Explore Sri Lanka source website for the Trincomalee tank photo now requires login -- so embedded link no longer works and has been removed]

The dome of the Turnchapel tanks supported 4 radial catwalks with handrails leading to a central hatch or vent at the top of the dome. The four radial handrails appear to have been of circular tube and very similar to the ones shown in the Trincomalee tank (above), except that each rail comprised only five stanchions (i.e. generating four segments from the edge of the tank to the centre). The handrails did not connect above the centre of the tank, but stopped short to leave a free working area above the crown. The catwalks may have extended beyond the handrail to form, in effect, a square around the central vent/hatch. The handrails appear to have been located on the four-fold radial symmetry lines of the tank dome with the catwalks offset to the right and fixed by brackets to the dome plates. Only the brackets are visible on the Trincomalee tank dome picture above. Photographic references for the Invergordon tank domes are available in Flickr user collections; two excellent examples are:

It’s worth noting, however, that there were some furbishment differences between the Turnchapel tanks seen in the AWM-SUK10477 photograph and the various Invergordon tanks. Some of these differences may reflect post-construction modifications and enhanced safety features at Invergordon. Thus, the dome radial railings appear to comprise a pair of rails instead of a single handrail and the peripheral circular railings may show three rail levels. In several instances angle iron is used on the Invergordon tank domes instead of tube and catwalks appear to the left of the radial railings rather than to the right as at Turnchapel. The peripheral annular railings on the Turnchapel tanks comprised two rail levels and were of tube with stanchions and brackets similar to those shown for the Trincomalee radial handrail (above).

Close to the foot of each of the four catwalks on the tank domes was located a circular inspection hatch with a flip lid. These appear to have been in an open state on Turnchapel Tanks ‘C’ and ‘D’ captured in the AWM-SUK10477 photograph. Smoke can be seen issuing from these hatches on Tank ‘D’, next to the seat of the fire in Tanks ‘E’ and ‘F’. This accords with eyewitness accounts that indicate that Tank ‘D’ was the third to join the fire. The high resolution AWM-SUK10477 photograph shows that the top ring of Tank ‘F’ is much brighter than the lower section of the tank. This may well represent the fill line in that tank, with the metal above the oil level at or above red heat and with that below the oil surface at a temperature somewhere in the boiling range of the stored oil or lower, perhaps ca. 200 °C. Shadows can be seen in the AWM-SUK10477 photograph, indicating that the sun was out when the photograph was taken and suggesting that the metal temperature above the oil surface in Tank ‘F’ was likely above 550 °C, which is roughly the temperature at which red heat emission is visible in sunlight. In all likelihood the temperature was much higher still. Structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and exhibits a 50% drop in Young’s modulus by about 650 °C. The significance of this in relation to the AWM-SUK10477 photograph is that a pronounced buckle –– clearer in the high resolution image –– can already be seen in the topmost cylinder ring of the tank on the side facing Turnchapel Station. This suggests that the walls of Tank ‘F’ were already in danger of collapse when this photograph was taken on 28-Nov-1940.

Returning to the inspection hatches on the tank domes, one can just be made out on the far side of the catwalk in the photograph below for a tank at Invergordon. This photograph also gives an excellent view of a gantry linking two adjacent tanks. The AWM-SUK10477 photograph reveals that a similar gantry bridged between Tanks ‘B’ and ‘D’ at Turnchapel. Presumably there may have been similar north-south bridges between Tanks ‘A’/‘C’ and ‘E’/‘F’, although I’ve found no photographic record to confirm this to date. Possibly there may have been east-west bridges too, but again no photographic evidence is available to establish that at present. Tank top maintenance required personnel to make a rather perilous climb up the 40 or so rungs of the narrow ladders (one attached to each tank side). The Invergordon tanks have spiral steps and / or guard fences fitted to the ladders, perhaps installed as a later safety measure. The presence of bridging gantries between tanks would presumably reduce the number of ascents and descents required.

The Turnchapel tank ladders were attached with two brackets fixed to cylinder rings 2 and 6, the point of attachment being a little off centre in each ring. The ladders were angled slightly outwards at the base so that the climb would not have been quite vertical. A white-faced depth gauge was attached to the side of each tank. This can be made out for Tanks ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the high resolution version of the AWM-SUK10477 photograph. In each case the depth gauge was fixed immediately to the right of the ladder. There appear to have been more than one type of depth gauge in use in the Invergordon tank farm, doubtless reflecting some later installations or upgrades. The picture below provides a good visual reference for the type of gauge on the Turnchapel tanks. The two parallel gauge uprights may have been of wood and were fixed by brackets in rings 1, 3, 5 and 7 on the Turnchapel tanks. A cable ran from the external gauge marker over a pulley at the cylinder top and in through a slit in the tank dome. This was covered with a housing at the edge dome, marked (y) on the Tank ‘C’ model shown in Figure 69 and on the AWM-SUK10477 photograph. The housing was immediately to the right of the ladder top.

Each of the Turnchapel tanks was linked to a 15-in and 4-in pipeline as marked in Figure 52. A similar connectivity is seen in the Invergordon tanks. The pipes entered the tanks side by side with a valve fitted externally close to the tank wall. Inside the tank the pipes fed a pair of delivery/take off arms that were hinged at the base by means of a swivel joint. The arms could be raised by cables running through blocks at the cylinder top and thence to windlasses outside. An excellent view of an Invergordon tank interior is seen in Christopher Weager’s Flickr account. Sharing is disabled for this photograph, but you may be able to see it from Christopher’s Flickr account by clicking on this link –– it’s well worth looking at for an insight into tank structure and function. The blocks at the tank top that served the cables were covered with a housing similar to the one above the depth gauge. These correspond to the features marked (w) and (x) on the Tank ‘C’ model shown in Figure 69, with the block housings located above the two pipeline entry points at the foot of the tank. This explains the purpose of the windlasses that were mounted on the concrete blocks of the bank above the Turnchapel Station platform.

Another distinctive tank top feature was a U-shaped breather tube hanging over a side bracket. One of these is seen at position (z), marked on Tank ‘C’ in Figure 69, and would probably have been visible from Turnchapel Station. Images of the corresponding feature on Invergordon tanks are available here and here on the Canmore Historic Environmental Scotland website and suggest that a pulley may have been attached to the bracket cross bar. [Note that the tank top structure was a little different on the tank pictured in the above linked images. Many tanks (including those at Turnchapel) had a distinct lip over the cylinder edge; the tanks showing the breather pipes in the Canmore photos lacked the lip.]

A circular manhole seems to have been present in the Invergordon tanks and may have been present in the lower ring of the Turnchapel tanks too. The following image shows one of these on an Invergordon tank, with the hatch bearing the name of Whessoe.

The AWM-SUK10477 photograph also shows detail of the pipelines outside the Turnchapel tanks, although again this is clearer in the high resolution version of the image available from the AWM. They appear to have been embedded in a masonry causeway leading from the culvert at the south west of the bunded compound and with a masonry ‘branch’ taking pipe spurs to individual tanks. Some of the pipelines at Invergordon appear to have been insulated and a network of steam heating pipes is seen in the interior of some, but not all, of the Invergordon tanks. Heating seems to have been required to reduce the viscosity of heavy fuel oils. It is unclear whether the tanks at Turnchapel might have required a similar steam heating system. There is a 6-in pipeline marked on the ADM 140/1484 plan, the purpose of which is not clear. Could this have been for a steam line? A control wheel, probably linked to this pipeline, can just be made out at the bund top marked in the AWM-SUK10477 photograph of Figure 69 (clearer at high resolution). The ADM 140/1484 plan seems to indicate that this was connected by a shaft running down the concrete slope of the bund close to the culvert in this south west corner of the compound.

Valves on the oil pipelines entering the Invergordon tanks are well documented in photographs (examples below) and were probably similar at Turnchapel. One of these can just be made out the AWM-SUK10477 photograph (when seen at high resolution) on the 15-in pipe into Tank ‘C’.

The windlasses that operated the internal tank delivery arms are also clearly defined in photographs of the Invergordon tanks (as below). These can be made out in reasonable clarity in the AWM-SUK10477 photograph (when seen at high resolution) and appear to be identical in structure. For some of the Invergordon tanks windlasses were fitted on the tank sides themselves, in other cases they were mounted on a pair of concrete slabs in the same way as at the Turnchapel oil fuel depot.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · May 15, 2017

I hope the preceding post provides a useful account of the oil tanks that stood next to Turnchapel Station. They were a prominent aspect of the site for much of the operational life of the station and played an important role in the station’s history. Viewed from the station itself, the tops of Tanks ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘F’ would have been visible up until Nov-1940, and public passenger service use of the station only lasted a further 11 years until 10-Sep-1951. The tank top features (v-z) marked on the Tank ‘C’ model of Figure 69 would have been noticeable along with the concrete windlass platforms on the station bank. The information above should at least have shed light on the purpose of those concrete blocks now. A particularly clear view of the blocks is seen in another of Mike Roach’s superb Sep-1961 photographs on the Cornwall Railway Society website (embedded link below). The block at the top of the bank to the left of the signal post is the one that served Tank ‘C’; the block hidden behind the funnel of M7 No. 30034 served Tank ‘B’ and was located approximately above the station platform end. The double catch leading to the sand drag that curved around the rock (far left) can also be seen in Mike’s photograph.

Time to leave the Admiralty tanks now, and perhaps turn attention to the station building and signal box in forthcoming posts …

Edited May 21, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · August 17, 2017

An early surveyor’s record (1896-1906; PWDRO record: 1023/124) for Turnchapel Station gives platform dimensions of 3-ft in height, 52-yds in length and 3-yds in width with a masonry retaining wall construction, brick coping and gravel top. Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch book quotes a longer platform length of 175-ft. A simple station building (Figure 70) was located on the platform, cut into the embankment that was later to form the bund to the Admiralty oil fuel depot that we’ve examined in preceding posts.

A very early picture of the station building from c. 1896 (when the station was newly constructed) is available in the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office (reference: PCC/76/5/9795). The image can be found by entering the preceding reference number into the PWDRO archive search (click here).

As seen in this photograph, the building was initially constructed as an open shelter. Heavy sliding doors were subsequently added and the down end of the structure partitioned off as a small booking office. The large sliding doors across the building opening are seen to have been installed in a photograph of the station dating from 1904-1910 [The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve (Irwell Press, 2016 / 2nd edition) page 240]. Thus, it is likely that the doors were added soon after construction. Installation of the doors required the building’s modest platform canopy to be modified, partially cutting away the innermost valance tongues to accommodate a metal bar from which the doors were hung.

The original Turnchapel Station building was destroyed in the fire that followed the bombing in Nov-1940. However, an identical building was present at Oreston Station and this survived (albeit modified with asbestos sheeting repairs in its final years) until closure of the Turnchapel Branch. Good photographic records are available of the Oreston building.

I haven’t managed to find any photographic records of the replacement Turnchapel Station building that was constructed after the bombing, but it is possible to build up some detail about the dimensions and structure of the original building, and I plan to add that in following posts (when time permits).

Edited August 17, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

brianusa · August 17, 2017

Local studies link is dead!

Brian.

Dave_Hooe · August 17, 2017

Thanks for alerting me, Brian! Hopefully the 'click here' link in post #84 is now fixed. It's not possible to install a direct working link to the PWDRO image itself alas, but the 'click here' link should go to the PWDRO search page into which the record number (PCC/76/5/9795) can be entered ... and that will eventually lead to a viewable image!

Edited August 17, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · August 17, 2017

Based on a 30’-to-1” scale drawing of Oreston Station [PWDRO PCC/45/1/3501], the station building there would have been 20-ft in length by 10-ft in depth. Tony Kingdom notes that the Turnchapel and Oreston Station buildings were identical, with the exception that at Oreston one end of the building was additionally partitioned off as Goods Office section. The 20-ft x 10-ft dimensions taken from the Oreston drawing are also consistent with the Turnchapel station building as marked out (at smaller scale) in the 1911 Admiralty plan of the Turnchapel Oil Fuel Depot [National Archives ADM 140/1484]. The ADM 140/1484 plan clearly shows that it was the western end of the station building at Turnchapel that was partitioned off as the booking office.

As shown in Figure 70 (above), the station building was constructed with vertical planking and with a single large window at each end. A sloping flat roof covered the building and extended to the front over the platform where it was bordered with a valance to create a canopy. The canopy did not run along the full 20-ft length of the building but covered the platform opening. The canopy and building roof sloped as a single plane from the platform side downwards towards the rear of the building, which was set into the bank that formed the bund of the naval oil fuel depot.

Given an end wall length of 10-ft, and without going into tedious detail of photographic perspective and direction points, analysis of available pictures of Oreston suggests that the height of the rear and front walls of the building were very close to 9-ft and 10-ft 6-in respectively, with the roof adding a little extra thickness on top of that.

From photographs of the buildings at both Turnchapel and Oreston it is possible to discern 19 vertical cladding planks in the end wall construction between the corners, with the structure of the corners being about half the width of the cladding planks. Cladding at 6-in centreline spacing (i.e. nominally 6-in planks) would then be nicely consistent with the overall end wall length of 10-ft taken from the PWDRO PCC/45/1/3501 Oreston Station drawing.

From that analysis of the end wall cladding it is then possible to provide dimensions for the window width. With some additional analysis, it is possible to come up with end elevation dimensions (in reasonable confidence) as marked out in Figure 71 (below).

The colour scheme shown is purely to provide figurative contrast, and comments from anyone else on the likely actual colour scheme would be very helpful!

I plan to come to front elevation and canopy/valance detail in subsequent posts.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Nearholmer · August 17, 2017

Dave

More gems!

Kevin

JohnH · August 18, 2017

This is fascinating stuff Dave - many thanks for taking the time to prepare and post all this information.

brianusa · August 18, 2017

Fascinating indeed. This is the stuff of such branch lines which seem innocuous enough but even this Southern one had a busy industry, a siding at Oreston, a swing bridge and even a tunnel and Quays as a terminus. Not forgetting a junction station with the GW at Plymstock, all within a few miles.!

Dave_Hooe · August 20, 2017

Sticking with the station building, let’s now zoom in on some detail for the canopy and doors…

Analysis of photographic records allows us to fix the height of the sliding doors relative to the top of the front wall and window recess with reasonable confidence, as shown in Figure 72. The doors were large (probably 8-ft 6-in x 6-ft 0-in) and hung from a metal runner that extended the full length of the building’s front wall. As we’ve noted, the innermost valance panels were cut short to accommodate this runner after the building was constructed. It’s not easy to make out detail of door hanging mechanism, but inspection of the best photographs suggest that it may have been something like that of the sliding doors illustrated in Figure 73. These are doors at the National Trust’s Lanhydrock House, which was substantially rebuilt following a fire in 1881, and are likely to be fairly contemporaneous therefore. The Lanhydrock House doors are of a similar size to those that existed at the station building in Turnchapel. They are a good 2.5-in thick (possibly 3-in) and are hung with wheels fixed in arches that straddle the runner. At Lanhydrock the two doors pass one another and are therefore hung from parallel runners. In contrast, the Turnchapel Station building doors closed together on the same runner.

Only a small number of photographs are available that capture the Turnchapel building, and these seem to show the left hand door in an open position with the right hand door in a closed position. The building was fitted with a stove but would nevertheless have provided a fairly chilly and drafty wintertime waiting experience if both doors were kept fully open! So possibly the right hand door was routinely kept closed. When open, the left hand door is seen to extend slightly beyond the corner of the front wall because the wheel arch is set in from the door edge by some distance. Obviously, the station building doors were not glass panelled like the Lanhydrock doors. They were constructed from vertical planks, possibly eight 9-in planks (based on inspection of the Oreston Station building photographs). Both doors carried substantial notice boards (Figure 74). Large lettering can be seen running across the top of these notice boards. The wording is difficult to make out but could possibly have read ‘DEPARTURES’ on the left hand door. A notice board was also located on the front wall to the right of the right hand door, another reason for keeping that door routinely in the closed position. And, indeed, the doors were in this state (just discernible, Figure 74 insert) when the building was eventually burned down in Nov-1940 following the bombing. Perhaps they were left like that after the station records were hastily extricated — Bernard Darwin notes in his War on the Line that “a signalman and a porter, seeing the danger to the station, saved all the records at considerable risk to themselves”.

The valance panels in the station building canopy were somewhat similar to the ex-GWR design, still to be seen at Exeter St Davids. Having recently measured the panels there, I can give some definite figures (Figure 75). At Exeter St Davids the panel width is 6.5-in with a gap of about ¼-in between adjacent panels. Both edges on the panels have semi-circular notches corresponding to a 1¼-in diameter. The seam between adjacent panels is filled by a tongue inserted into grooves on the panel edges above the height of the hole. The panels are of exactly 1-in thickness. However, it is likely that the Turnchapel panels were slightly less wide (6-in instead of 6½-in) and with the ends cut a little more acutely (see detail in Figure 72). We can be reasonably confident of the 6-in panel width because 23 panel tips can just be discerned making up the front face of the canopy in one photograph and the inside faces of the canopy sides were almost exactly aligned with edges of the 12-ft opening in the front wall of the building (as constructed before the sliding doors were installed). Twenty-three 6-in panels with ¼-in gaps comes to 12-ft pretty much exactly.

The front elevation of the station building would then have looked something like the drawing shown in Figure 76. Again, the colour scheme shown here is purely for figurative contrast. I’m not sure what the colour scheme would actually have been in LSWR and SR days … presumably cream and green would have featured somewhere. Perhaps others might comment on that. Interior detail of the building is not available, other than the fact that there was stove (with the chimney located somewhere towards the back and right of the building) and that the left hand end had a small booking office partition. The doors would have to have been 6-ft in width in order to span the opening in the front wall, at least as originally constructed and seen in the 1896 photograph mentioned in post #84 (PWDRO PCC/76/5/9795). The entrance surround may have been somewhat modified (as suggested in Figure 76) to provide a weather seal for the doors however. I have also wondered whether the wall behind the left hand door was extended to the right to provide a little more space for the booking office partition. The drawing of the station building on the 1911 ADM 140/1484 plan (referred to in previous posts) seems to suggest that it might have been. This same plan also suggests that the door (or perhaps counter flap?) into the booking office partition was immediately behind the front wall on the left when entering the building.

The canopy side of the Turnchapel Station building can just be made out in the Aug-1928 postcard picture shown in Figure 77 together with lampstand detail etc. These details are actually much clearer in a 1904-1910 picture to be found on page 239 of The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve. There were 7 full width valance panels in the side of the canopy and an eighth partial panel (of less than half width), as shown in the detail drawing of Figure 72 above. That suggests the canopy extended some 46-in over the platform or nominally 4-ft including the facia board and roof on the front edge of the canopy.

Notice the high quarry bank to the right of the train in the 1928 picture above. This was substantially reduced when the Air Ministry sidings were installed in 1939. A local resident of Hooe recorded this in his diary in the build up to WW2:

“Wimpey’s of London commenced removal of rubble bank beside Turnchapel Station for construction of sidings, with the rubble used to bury the Radford oil tanks.” (Apr-1939 diary extract from Henry J. Hurrell of Hooe)

Also missing from the station building in 1928 is a hanging sign beneath the canopy. A sign was installed by 1939 on the Turnchapel building (as illustrated in Figure 74) and was also evident in photographs of the Oreston building dating to 1951 and 1962. In these, I think the word ‘OFFICE’ can just be made out in pale lettering across the width of the board. At some point bars were installed inside the windows of the building. These were not present in the 1904-1910 photograph mentioned above but were installed at least by 1939.

The oil tanks of the Admiralty compound have been discreetly left out of sight by the photographer, behind the bank on the left in the 1928 picture. However, one of the original cast iron gas lampstands is visible. Again, this is clearer in the 1904-1910 picture in Nicholas and Reeve. There was a second lamp just behind the station building (as viewed in Figure 77) at the top of the ramp up to the platform. By 1939 these had been replaced by the concrete lamp posts that we have featured in the photos of Figures 38-40 (post #51). It seems that these were likely located in exactly the same spots on the platform as the original cast iron lamp stands. Henry Hurrell from the village of Hooe, just along the road from Turnchapel Station, recorded the coming of electricity to the village in his diary:

“Hooe streets lit up by electricity for the first time” (15-Aug-1932)

“Our house wired for electric light (Croft Cottage)” (22-Aug-1932)

– diary extracts from Henry J. Hurrell of Hooe

Perhaps the gas lighting at Turnchapel Station was replaced by electricity around the same time in 1932 therefore.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · August 20, 2017

Thanks for the comments folks. I think that’s all I’ve got on the Turnchapel Station building. I’ve not found out anything about the replacement post-bombing building other than a comment in Tony Kingdom’s book that “both the replacement booking office/waiting room building and the signal box were of lateral wooden planking and asbestos sheeting and concrete slab construction, and were poor replacements to the original station”.

Perhaps we can turn our attention to the signal boxes, if time permits in the next few weeks.

Nearholmer · August 20, 2017

Dave, you continue to amaze.

The door runners look very like those used on LMS and LNER vans.

If you look through the pictures here, some show the gear fairly clearly http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/lmsvan

The LSWR also used sliding door vans, but I can't find a photo of the door gear, because it is covered behind weatherproofing.

K

Edited August 20, 2017 by Nearholmer

Dave_Hooe · August 20, 2017

Thanks Kevin. Oh yes, I see what you mean about the van sliding door mechanisms … arched bracket over the runner holding the wheel in place.

Brian’s earlier comment about the density of features of interest in this short branch is very much to the point as well.

Digressing to Plymstock for a moment … a few weeks ago I paid a visit to the former Plymstock Station site, now being developed as a cycle and walkway through to the new housing development (Broxton Drive) in the quarry and former Blue Circle cement works (that were also linked up to the rail network).

It was pleasing to find a segment of preserved track installed (Figure 78 top left) as a nod to the history of the site. Also, nice to see the bridges being renovated. I stumbled across some rotten timbers in the old track bed complete with chair bolts just beyond the ‘Rock Gardens’ bridge (bottom right in Figure 78). I dare say you might have been over that section of the track in outings on the Yealmpton line in your youth, Brian. So there’s a bit of tangible nostalgia for you!

Edited August 20, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · August 21, 2017

I forgot to mention one aspect of the Turnchapel platform and its relationship with the station building that may need comment. In previous posts discussing the platform (see post #48), we've mentioned that there was a significant gradient falling from the height of the swing bridge to the quays at the naval terminus. The LSWR working regulations quoted in Tony Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch put this at "1 in 80 falling from the signal box to Turnchapel Wharves", the signal box being located just off in the end of the bridge and before the start of the platform. In the most detailed available photograph of the station building* I think it is possible to see a noticeably larger gap beneath the sliding doors towards the left hand end of the building, consistent with a downward platform slope. That's the reason for the note about the platform fall on the front elevation drawing in Figure 76 above.

*a 1939 photograph on page 205 in Mike Oakley's Devon Railway Stations

brianusa · August 21, 2017

Returning to this epic, was there a dedicated branch platform for Turnchapel as most times as I remember the train left from Platform 1 and terminated at Platform 4. Did the GW follow suit with the Yealmpton train after WWII?

Brian

Dave_Hooe · January 7, 2018

Figure 79 shows a little more detail for the original station building at Turnchapel with a reverse angle view to that in Figure 70 and modelled for 2mmFS according to the plans shown in Figures 71–76. (The model was printed in FXD plastic at Shapeways but needs some revision to stiffen the canopy.) Photographic records show the presence of five fire buckets on the east end wall. At the point shown in Figure 79, there were no notice boards on the front of the building nor on the doors and there was no hanging sign beneath the canopy; these were probably added in the 1930s (certainly present by 1939, but absent in 1928). Advertisements were carried on the end wall of the station building; the one visible in the Figure 79 picture is hard to make out but may have been for a firm, ‘A. Todd’.

The high bank to the left of the track in the Figure 79 picture separated the station from the quarry. As discussed previously, this bank was substantially cut down in 1939 when the Air Ministry sidings were installed from a turnout adjacent to the quarry cliff face in the background of the picture. The turnout and a less well-developed siding were probably installed at least by the 1920s, initially to serve the quarry but subsequently expanded into the Air Ministry compound. The Air Ministry compound partially overlapped the position occupied by the old corrugated iron quarry engine house, visible in Figure 79 and marked on the map in Figure 49 (post #56 above).

The entrance to Turnchapel Station was by a footpath just behind the fence panel shown bottom right in the photograph of Figure 79. However, some photographs, including the one in Figure 77, show passengers walking purposefully to the far end of the platform. This suggests that local Turnchapel residents may well have taken a short cut to the village from the far end of the platform round the rear of the rock (marked in Figure 79) and along the old 30-in tramway bed (see map in Figure 49) to come out beneath the Undercliff Road bridge (shown in Figure 60).

The Figure 79 picture shows how the tops of the oil tanks (in this case tanks ‘D’ and ‘F’) stood out above the bund behind the 7-ft iron spear fence at the top of the platform bank. The floor of the naval oil fuel depot inside the bund was roughly at the same height above sea level as the track bed.

At the point pictured in Figure 79 the distinctive under-platform recesses had not yet been installed. These were added in 1939––installation in progress captured in the picture inset of Figure 70. I still don’t know what these recesses were for, but am wondering whether they were an air raid precaution. They were about 3½-ft across and there were seven of them (see Figure 23). The platforms at Plymstock Station were similarly modified but not at Oreston, where there was a decent public air raid shelter close to the Station I think.

Three gas lamp posts can be seen on the platform in the Figure 79 picture, one only just discernible at the far end. The ladder for lighting the lamps can be seen propped against the nearest post. There appears to be a barrow parked beneath the Turnchapel platform sign and against which the gentleman is lounging. This barrow is seen a little more clearly in a recently published 1927 picture in Kevin Robertson’s superb book of E. Wallis collection photographs: Southern Infrastructure (1922-1934 | stations/signalling/trackwork) a second selection. The ladder for lighting the lamp post is also present in the E. Wallis picture, suggesting that it may have been routinely kept there.

A bench can be seen on the platform in the Figure 79 picture to the right of the station building. The reverse angle 1939 shot of Figure 70, shows two benches to the left of the building in 1939 with a couple of fence panels behind.

Some interesting trackwork detail for the station in its pre-war configuration can also be taken from the Figure 79 picture. The run-round loop had single catches at each end. The near end catch had been developed into full catch points with a short spur safety siding by 1949. In principle, there would have been space to fit the trap and spur at the bridge end of the run-round loop even with the original pre-war signal box in place, and just conceivably these features may have been an upgrade introduced in 1939 along with the Air Ministry sidings (but after the Figure 70 picture was taken). However, it seems more likely they were introduced when the track was re-laid in Dec-1940 following the first bombing of the station.

The original signal box is out of sight behind the photographer of the Figure 79 picture. An excellent E. Wallis photograph of the signal box has also recently become available in Kevin Robertson’s Southern Infrastructure: a second selection (page 38). This latter photograph was taken roughly from the position marked (X) in Figure 79 and captures the signal box, bridge end, up starter signal post and station footpath in wonderful detail.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Dave_Hooe

Dave_Hooe · January 7, 2018

Continuing on from the station building notes above, very little information is available on the replacement building that was constructed after the 27-Nov-1940 bombing, other than a comment in Tony Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch that…

“Both the replacement booking office/waiting room building and the signal box were of lateral wooden planking and asbestos sheeting and concrete slab construction, and were poor replacements to the original station.”

The only available (partial) image of the replacement station building appears to be a glimpse in a photograph on page 238 of The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve. The south eastern corner of the building just creeps into the right hand edge of this photograph, which was taken in Mar-1951 from the replacement signal box steps looking along the station fence towards the platform ramp. This picture suggests that the replacement station building had an apex roof (running parallel to the platform).

In contrast to the replacement station building, plenty of photographic detail is available for the signal box that was built after the Nov-1940 air raid (e.g. Figure 80 top left).

The original signal box had stood on the other side of the track and nearer to the bridge; it would have been in the foreground on the left as viewed in the top left panel of Figure 80 (source/date unclear–1950s?). According to Bernard Darwin in his book War on the Line, a temporary replacement signal box was quickly established after the conflagration in the oil fuel depot had eventually been put out on 1-Dec-1940 (5 days after the bombing):

“… in under a fortnight there was a temporary signal box and a newly laid track and freight trains were running; by the 16th [December 1940] passenger service was again normal.”

Larry Crosier in his book Mechanical Signalling in Plymouth, indicates that this ‘temporary signal box’ was a ground frame that was in operation from Dec-1940 until 8-Mar-1942, which was the date on which the ‘permanent’ signal box pictured in Figure 80 formally opened. This 12-levered box was in operation for nearly 20 years until its closure on 2-Oct-1961, albeit that passenger traffic ceased on 10-Sep-1951. Larry Crosier notes that “it was the only SR box in the Plymouth area to have its frame at the rear of the operating floor”. Only 9 of the 12 levers appear to have been used according to the signaling diagram in his book.

The replacement signal box was built into a recess in the bank of the oil fuel depot with a concrete block retaining wall. A picture of the retaining wall taken in Dec-2012 is also shown in Figure 80 (top right), nearly 50 years after the removal of the box, of course, and not long before the site was cleared for the housing development that now stands there. A sloping concrete top to the side retaining wall on the right of box can be made out in the 1950s photo (overgrown with ivy in the 2012 photograph). The corresponding left hand side wall can be made out reasonably clearly in the 2012 photograph however. The telegraph pole seen in the 1950s picture was still there in 2012, its base also overgrown with ivy. The position of this telegraph pole is accurately marked in the 1:500 scale site survey for the housing development (11/01250/FUL) to Plymouth City Council (cf. post #20). So that enables the position of signal box relative to the bridge parapet and to the residual structure of the oil fuel depot to be located with reasonable confidence. (The block retaining wall structure itself was not specifically marked out on the surveyors’ map however.)

I didn’t measure the dimensions of the signal box recess when taking the photograph in 2012, but the block dimensions ratio can be determined from the photograph very clearly as 1 : 1.5 : 3, with the internal width of the recess about 9.5 blocks in length. The height of the rear retaining wall was somewhat below the top of the signal box window frames, but only by a few inches. And the top of the window frames was roughly on a level with the boiler casing top of an M7 (very close to 10’ above the rail top). There’s a bit of infill at the back of the recess in the 2012 photo, but the rear wall appears to comprise about 12 courses above ground level at the front. This suggests that the block height in those courses was a good 9-in, giving probable block dimensions of 6×9×18-in and a recess internal clearance of 14-ft in width.

A number of reverse angle B/W photographs of the replacement signal box have kindly been made available by Mike Roach and Sid Sponheimer on the Cornwall Railway Society website. These provide a good photographic record of the box and can be found distributed between the Devon Galleries / Turnchapel and Yealmpton section of the CRS website and the Railtours section of the website.

The 1950s picture in Figure 80 provides a good view of the station fence––a small detail perhaps, but worth commenting on because it provides a yardstick for mapping features such as the position of the upstarter signal post, track detail and the location of the platform.

Originally there were an additional 3 fence panels to the left of the signal box, as can be seen in the National Rail Museum Sellick photograph (1997-7219_RJS_BW_1; cf. Figure 23 in posts #46/#47). The line of these panels can just be made out on the ground in the 1950s picture of Figure 80. In total, there were originally eleven full panels and a twelfth partial panel completing the fence to the bridge end. Access to the station was by means of steps (just out of sight to the right in the photograph) leading up from Barton Road (see earlier posts). From there a path ran parallel to the fence, through a white gate and in front of the signal box to reach the platform ramp. The station gate was located at the corner of the signal box and closed onto a narrow side panel fixed at the junction between fence panels 6 and 7 (as labelled in Figure 80). The path was ramped over the top of the rodding issuing from the front of the signal box.

The 3 fence panels that were removed during the operational life of the station appear to have been recycled as fencing to close off the top of the wall immediately adjacent to the bridge parapet along Barton Road. When the station site was cleared and the bridge itself removed in Oct-1963, a further two of the footpath fence panels were recycled to seal off the 18-ft gap on the parapet itself left by bridge removal. The position of this two-panel fence segment is marked on the 11/01250/FUL site survey and corresponds exactly to 18-ft, thus indicating a fence panel width of 9-ft.

The position of the original fence panels, when the station was constructed in the 1890s, was likely influenced by the presence of masonry pilasters at the bridge end similar to the stonework (still present) at Laira Bridge and shown in Figure 81 (with some dimensions).

The original Turnchapel bridge pilasters are only seen in very early photos (e.g. photograph No 90 in Mitchell and Smith’s Branch Lines Around Plymouth; and the sepia photograph in Kevin’s post #1 of this thread); they had been removed at the latest by 1924 according to photographic records of Turnchapel. The 1911 Admiralty drawing (National Archives: ADM 140/1484) of the oil fuel depot and station has the bridge drawn with the pilasters however. From this drawing, the length of the pilaster parallel to the track would have been about 7.5-ft, though this minor detail may not have been accurately represented on the ADM plan. The length of the Laira Bridge pilasters (which I partially measured) is probably around 9-ft 4-in along the external length of the cap stones, but with 4-in overhang at least at one end. The width (which I did fully measure) is 40-in (Figure 81). This latter dimension, at least, was likely the same at Turnchapel and is a good match for the 24-in width of the bridge sides plus the extra 16-in wall to the parapet edge (cf. Figure 6). If the Turnchapel bridge pilasters were of similar length to the those at Laira, then the original station fence could have commenced about 9-ft in from the front face of the bridge parapet.

For some reason, the pilasters at both ends of the Turnchapel bridge were removed. Perhaps this was due to stresses from bridge movement in the days before the outer spans were supported with trestles. In any event, the pilasters were cut down to low walls of an estimated 16-in width flanking the bridge end posts, as shown in Figure 6. Photographs from the 1920s (eg Tony Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch p 54) show that, where the pilaster had been cut down on the station steps side, a replacement fence panel was installed and that this was raised above the height of the rest of the fence because it had to sit above the low cut wall.

Following the bombing on 27-Nov-1940 it is likely that the station fence had to be repaired, possibly replaced in its entirety. Four bombs (probably 500 lb high explosive munitions) were released in the salvo that hit the oil fuel depot. Two of these fell ‘harmlessly’ in Hooe Lake, one struck the tanks in the oil fuel depot and one landed in the vicinity of the bridge parapet. This latter strike reportedly damaged the original signal box and demolished the station steps (SR wartime records; National Archives record Rail 648/105). The oil tank explosions over the following days may well have done further damage and the rails of the track were reportedly bent into fantastic shapes by the time it was over. It is unlikely that the original station fence survived this unscathed therefore, and it may have been replaced. Nevertheless, pre-war photographs (e.g. Figure 79) suggest that it was very similar to the fence as pictured in the 1950s and seen in the NRM Sellick photograph of Figure 23. Indeed, it is possible that the fence was reconstructed using essentially the same anchor points for the panels, but with the twelfth panel cut short and closing onto the end plate of the bridge end post, as pictured in a Sep-1961 photograph in Bernard Mills’ Steam Around Plymouth (p 119), instead of running along the side of the post.

Whether or no the pre-war station fencing precisely mapped onto the post-war structure, it is possible to position the post-war fence with confidence (Figure 82) on the 1:500 scale 11/01250/FUL site survey sheet (cf earlier posts) owing to two station legacy features included in the survey: (i) the bridge parapet corner, and (ii) the telegraph pole next to the signal box (TP-2 in Figure 80). TP-2 allows the position of the signal box recess to be fixed with the station gate at the junction between fence panels-6/7.

Although the lamp post (LP-1 in Figure 80) at the head of the station steps was still present when the Barratt survey was done, it wasn’t marked. A photograph on p 144 of Larry Crosier’s Mechanical Signalling in Plymouth shows that LP-1 was located almost exactly at the junction between fence panels-9/10. The foot of the ladder for upstarter signal post was located immediately opposite, on the line side of the station fence. The signal post itself was located very close to the middle of panel-9. I have used that information to estimate the position of the lamp post and the signal post in the station plan.

The analysis of the station fencing has particular bearing on mapping the track at Turnchapel Station because the platform road crossing point seems to have been located at a point parallel to fence panel-3, nearer to the junction of panels-2/3 than the junction of panels-3/4.

The track and an update on the platform location and features are forthcoming items that we might look at in further posts on this thread.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Dave_Hooe

brianusa · January 7, 2018

More interesting stuff, Dave. Any idea of the length of the siding by the bridge? Perhaps one wagon or two wagons.

Brian.

Nearholmer · January 7, 2018

Happy New Year Dave.

Your industry continues to amaze me, and what you unearth is fascinating.

All the best, Kevin

Turnchapel Branch

Recommended Posts

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in