Jump to content
 

An S&C branch


Recommended Posts

I don't know which forum I need to put this on, but I envisage a kind of discussion about a little station on a Settle and Carlisle 'branch'. I have always wished to see a more direct link between the S&C and the Waverley Route. It would leave the main route south of Armathwaite and make its way via Faugh to Brampton, with a station in the town centre. The railway would continue on to Kirkcambeck and Spadeadam, before proceeding to Kielder. The line then would arrive at the town of Bonchester Bridge. The line, in my imagination, would join the Waverley Route NW of Hawick.

 

I have a couple of questions:

 

1. Would this kind of line be viable?

2. Would it be double track or single track?

3. Would the line via Carlisle be preferred?

 

This is a freelance layout so we don't need rivet counting, just overall realism. If the line via Carlisle would be more important, then we can just 'create' a landslide. The LMS then took the decision not to rectify it, given the 2nd route,

 

The year is 1978, steam is still somewhat operational and BR didn't close the Waverley Route. HSTs and the like exist and come through the station occasionally. Only one type of enthusiast loses out: the Blue diesel fan- they don't exist in large numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know which forum I need to put this on, but I envisage a kind of discussion about a little station on a Settle and Carlisle 'branch'. I have always wished to see a more direct link between the S&C and the Waverley Route. It would leave the main route south of Armathwaite and make its way via Faugh to Brampton, with a station in the town centre. The railway would continue on to Kirkcambeck and Spadeadam, before proceeding to Kielder. The line then would arrive at the town of Bonchester Bridge. The line, in my imagination, would join the Waverley Route NW of Hawick.

 

I have a couple of questions:

 

1. Would this kind of line be viable?

2. Would it be double track or single track?

3. Would the line via Carlisle be preferred?

 

This is a freelance layout so we don't need rivet counting, just overall realism. If the line via Carlisle would be more important, then we can just 'create' a landslide. The LMS then took the decision not to rectify it, given the 2nd route,

 

The year is 1978, steam is still somewhat operational and BR didn't close the Waverley Route. HSTs and the like exist and come through the station occasionally. Only one type of enthusiast loses out: the Blue diesel fan- they don't exist in large numbers.

Peter

I doubt this line would have been viable you just need to look at the number of branch lines in the Northumberland ,Scottish borders that closed early  or were axed by Beeching. Being rural passenger traffic would be minimal  so you are looking at freight again not many towns in this area.One interesting thought the RAF base at Spadeadam would be a good source of traffic. Most lines in this area were single track with loops at stations .A line via Carlisle is a good option but again the area is very isolated .As they say it is your layout so why not.Good Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will spend the next few days poring over resources, designing my freelance railway. It might not be very big, but it's the 'Imagineering' that's the best bit. 

 

Let's say that Carlisle area was 'minimised' first, but conflicting movements issues and capacity ones led to frequent delays.

 

Attention then turned to the RAF Spadeadam line, built as a backwater single track in WW1, and heavily modernised in WW2 for the RAF. Therefore, the line was partially doubled (Brampton Jcn with Carlisle line -> RAF Jcn. (Jct. for stub line to the base).

 

The line was singled for the whole length with the 1955 plan and Beeching listed it in his 'closure list'. BUT Beeching wanted to close the WCML (or was it the ECML?- doesn't matter as long as he planned to close one of them) and so the line was kept there in case extra capacity for slow trains was needed.

 

Happily, the line never got fully closed, although some parts were converted to a heritage line. The Scots then (as part of the Tweedbank Project) re-opened the Waverley line and the northern stub of the imagined line was re-integrated and ceases to be a Kielder-Bonchester heritage railway. 

 

The line existed in several sections: S&C -> Brampton kept for capacity reasons, by-pass for East-West goods/charter trains. Brampton -> Spadeadam maintained as a stub for RAF, Spadeadam -> Kielder closed, trackbed maintained, now farmers' fields so easy to re-acquire. the only passing loop got preserved as a heritage centre. Kielder -> Bonchester was a heritage line and Bonchester -> Auld Reekie was re-opened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Until 1957 the site of RAF Spadeadam (https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-spadeadam/) was a patch of boggy Moorland Known as Spadeadam Waste. In 1957 the site was acquired by the Air Ministry for the testing of Missile engines on specialist test stands (no missiles were ever launched from here). Spadeadam was not opened as an RAF station until after the cancellation of the Blue Streak Missile Program becoming RAF Spadeadam in 1976. From that time it was used as an Electronic warfare range used to scare pilots by letting them fly into the area for Reconnaissance or Ground attack missions against a variety of emitters which would attempt to lock them up simulating various types of SAM or AAA radar systems for them to then attempt to break lock, Jam or otherwise escape from. The nearest station was Gilsland (between 393 and 429 ft AMSL) which requires a significant climb to reach the station up the access road from the railway to the accommodation area. (928 ft AMSL)

No airfield exists at Spadeadam (other than a decoy one for practice ground attack and PR missions (no live munitions are dropped on site) though a couple of areas are available for helicopter landings. By and large the entire area within the site is marsh and bog, the site boundary runs from Kielder Water in the East to slightly west of the Access road with the A69 in the south and the Waverly route being the rough Northern and Southern limits.

A better route might be the Keilder branch (if you decide the reservoir was never built as all the line between Keilder Village and the Dam above Falstone is now underwater) which ran down the valley to Hexham. Alternatively extend the line that ran from Brampton Junction to Alston or Haltwhistle to Alston, though you'd have some fierce terrain between Alston and the S&C.

The area around Alston had a number of Collieries (for traffic) and North of the Tyne valley there's plenty of scope for Forestry traffic. The trackbed would probably be singled though, with passing loops

In the end Its your Railway

Hope this is useful

Ian_B

Edited by Ian_B
added traffic detail and noted line type
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

It sounds like the sort of unremunerative Borders line the North British would have built. For the Midland, the connection with the Glasgow & South Western at Carlisle (albeit with the latter running over Caledonian metals from Gretna Junction) was at least as important as its traffic through to the North British. 

 

On the other hand, if this line was built to main-line standards, the junction at Armathwaite would presumably have become the point of division of Midland Scotch expresses and a major marshalling yard for exchange of traffic with the North British. This might all make sense in an alternative railwayverse in which the proposed Midland and G&SWR amalgamation of the 1890s had taken place (London, Midland and Scottish Railway?) so Carlisle became less important as an exchange point. 

 

One could go on to fantasize that this triggered a Caledonian - North Eastern amalgamation... (The two companies were hand-in-glove for Glasgow-Newcastle traffic, cutting out the North Eastern's supposed East Coast partner.)

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...