Grogley Junction & Polbrock Engine Shed

Hi Yan

the scissors makes mores sense in that context but I'm still not sure it would have been required in reality.

Polbrock's primary function is presumably to supply/service locos to Grogley?

In which case 2 reversals to get onto shed seems too many. Is the engine shed track plan based on anywhere prototypical?

In which case I'm not sure why you'd need direct access to the North Cornwall line?

You could have the junction as part of the scissors but only a single line to Grogley.

Given all the other lines are single, double line seems a bit excessive.

That said, rule no 1 applies and it depends on how intensive a service exists in your reality.

The frequency of services on the actual North Cornwall wouldn't dictate extensive works or signalling. Wasn't that why the prototype junction box wasn't replaced?

I'm not much of a railwayman but my visualisation of this part of the world is definitely 'less is more'.

My understanding is that the Board of Trade disapproved of junctions like Ruthernbridge - just a single point - much preferring junctions to be laid out as full double junctions like Grogley, even on otherwise single line. So to keep your BoT inspector happy, the entire three mile section of main line from Rutherbridge Junction to Wadebridge junction would be double. Otherwise haven't you got several short single-line sections operated by token or whatever? - particularly inconvenient for light engine movements from the shed to Grogley. I think you can find exceptions to the BoT preference in parts of Scotland or Ireland; how remote was North Cornwall?

Hmmm... Good thoughts from you both.

 

By the time the North Cornwall line reached this neck of the woods it may well be consideed a remote section of the LSWR. Looking at other junctions on the line, Dunmere was just a single point junction, unlocked by a token from Boscarne Junction. I could possibly argue that Boscarne junction was a single point junction, with exchange loop in the middle and long loop siding on the down side. As for the original Grogley Junction this was a single point junction but a reverse junction. BUT the BoT might have considerred my Ruthernbridge differently as it would have been the junction between the LSWR & GWR. So more thought required here.

 

As Ullypug states the double track might be a tad excessive for this stretch of line as it is a little out of character for the North Cornwall Line. I have also pushed the limits a little as space is at a premium on this stretch of line between Polbrock and Grogley as the river does run in close to the track bed at more than one point. But there is more space beyond Polbrock towards Wadebridge for double track so I'll go back to the drawing board and have a rethink.

 

In my universe the traffic would be similar on the North Cornwall line to Launceston as it was in the late 50's early 60's. The extra traffic would be towards Newquay/Mawgan Porth and St. Blazey both via Ruthernbridge.

 

The engine shed has been loosely based on the GWR Leamington shed.

 

Many thanks guys

Your leaving yourself open, by making the assumption 'the last big project'? On the subject of the junction layout, I personally prefer the scissors crossing.

 

Julie