MoonMonkey's findings and thoughts

I think that whilst there may well have been official minimum sizes, many bridges were built before they were introduced, so basically anything goes. Witness the several low bridges on goods lines such as Par Harbour or Radstock. So whilst your bridge is very narrow, it is completely plausible. 

9 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

I think that whilst there may well have been official minimum sizes, many bridges were built before they were introduced, so basically anything goes. Witness the several low bridges on goods lines such as Par Harbour or Radstock. So whilst your bridge is very narrow, it is completely plausible. 

Many thanks ikcdab, thoughts much appreciated.  Maybe I'll go for the illusion!

Severely cramped bridges were usually low rather than narrow.  A major problem with what you are proposing is what might happen if there was an accident or breakdown while the loco was under the bridge.  How would the crew get out? 

If there was a real bridge that narrow it would probably be worked by horses.

 

Hi,

 

Have a search online for images of the 'Auchmuty' branch in Fife.  One of the bridges was so tight that it was possible to see score marks in the stone, caused by the passing locos and stock.

 

Hope that's of use.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

56 minutes ago, mike morley said:

Severely cramped bridges were usually low rather than narrow.  A major problem with what you are proposing is what might happen if there was an accident or breakdown while the loco was under the bridge.  How would the crew get out? 

If there was a real bridge that narrow it would probably be worked by horses.

 

Thanks Mike, i might have to pretend (in my own mind at least) that its worked by horses.  That, and applying Rule 1!

52 minutes ago, Alex TM said:

Hi,

 

Have a search online for images of the 'Auchmuty' branch in Fife.  One of the bridges was so tight that it was possible to see score marks in the stone, caused by the passing locos and stock.

 

Hope that's of use.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

Wow, that looks worse than mine!  Remarkable really. Thanks for the insight. 

How about an "engines must not pass this arch" sign?
 

 

Beyond it you can imagine an industrial line with its own shunter, a horse, or even just men with pinch bars...

Edited August 24, 2021 by JimC

12 minutes ago, JimC said:

How about a "locomotives must not pass this point" sign?

 

And/or limited clearance signs on both sides of the arch?

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Dickon

The Burry Port and Gwendreath Valley was well known for its restrictive loading gauge; many will have heard of the cut-down cabs of the Class 03 and 08s that worked the line in BR days. Less well known were the width limits, which meant a pool of brake vans were specifically allocated. They had narrow step boards, with the edges used by the guard picked out in white paint. One or two also had 'Caution; narrow foot-boards' painted on the body-sides.

1 hour ago, JimC said:

How about an "engines must not pass this arch" sign?
 

 

Beyond it you can imagine an industrial line with its own shunter, a horse, or even just men with pinch bars...

Many thanks, JimC.  That would be a nice idea on the layout, I haven't seen that before.  I guess the same wording could have been applied to a wooden sign in a rural branchline, rather than trying to replicate the cast plaque.  If so, that could be a nice way ahead for me.  

Just out of interest, do you have the dimensions of the sign?  

1 hour ago, Dickon said:

And/or limited clearance signs on both sides of the arch?

 

Likewise, many thanks Dickon.  That looks like a more 'infrastructure' sign that I amagine was commonplace across the  network.  Do you have dimensions for it, even approximate?  And do you know if that pattern of sign was used in the mid-1940s?

1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

The Burry Port and Gwendreath Valley was well known for its restrictive loading gauge; many will have heard of the cut-down cabs of the Class 03 and 08s that worked the line in BR days. Less well known were the width limits, which meant a pool of brake vans were specifically allocated. They had narrow step boards, with the edges used by the guard picked out in white paint. One or two also had 'Caution; narrow foot-boards' painted on the body-sides.

Many thanks, Fat Controller.  If I interpret things as having the line heading through the arch, I think I'll go for the 'no engines'/limited clearance approach.  Modified rolling stock could, however,  make for an interesting conversion in future, although I think the small rural yard off a GWR mainline wouldn't have had that luxury. 

17 minutes ago, MoonMonkey said:

Just out of interest, do you have the dimensions of the sign?  

No such luck, however: 
https://www.scalemodelscenery.co.uk/lx237-oo-engines-must-not-pass-this-arch-sign-gwr-pack-of-2-oo4mm176-8029-p.asp

18 hours ago, MoonMonkey said:

  Do you have dimensions for it, even approximate?  And do you know if that pattern of sign was used in the mid-1940s?

I haven't been able to find any precise dimensions, but I would guess that they were about 18" square.  However as JimC says they are widely available in all scales.  

They were introduced by British Railways in 1952. I'm afraid I don't know what warning signs the individual railway companies used before then.  I'll try and find out with a quick Google. 

 

Edit: The minimum size was 300mm square.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Dickon

Many thanks!

Just picking up on this notion of a yard featuring an arch with no engines... lovely signs by the way, JimC, thanks for the link!  

 

I am working on the assumption that the bit of the yard beyond the narrow arch would be worked by horse.  Thus, there would be a need for the horse to drag the wagons along the track through the arch, in both directions.  

Would this have been done by a rope/line tied directly to the horse on one end, and the wagon on the other, and the horse trudges along the track?  In this case, the horse would need to be either in the middle of the track or to one side where there was clearance (but not through the arch where it would need to be between the tracks)?

 

Or would a capstan and pulleys be used?  There is a nice looking set from Lanarkshire Models and Supplies, one large one and 4 smaller ones.  

If the capstan and pulleys are appropriate, how would they be placed?  

 

I'm thinking of just one, maybe two, to give the notion of a horse-worked yard.  However, I'd like to get them located about right, rather than having them in totally the wrong place.  

The only illustrations I've found show the horse in the middle of the track, and hitched to the coupling hook, which surprised me, because I thought the holes in GWR solebars were to hook on horse harness. I would think in your situation the horse probably would walk between the rails, which in turn suggests that the track would need to be ballasted at least level with the sleepers, if not right over them. I would have thought the investment in a capstan system would be a much bigger and more sophisticated yard than you seem to have in mind.

Thanks JimC, thats useful.  Sounds ike going for an ash ballast effect using DAS clay might be on the cards! 

Most of the rule books and safety books show the horse to the side of the track, with a chain attached to the horse shunting loop on the side of the wagon. Often the rules have a direct prohibition on the use of the main coupling for horse shunting. 

 

That said, as JimC suggests, there are many photos showing the horse in the 4 foot with the chain attached to the main coupling. Not wise, if there is a bit of a slope to the track it is lasagne for tea..... 

 

Now , If I was a Board of trade inspector, with a suitable military title and a large moustache I would create a set of rules for horse working that bridge.  The horse must be out of the four foot and attached to the wagon with a chain long enough for the horse on one side and the wagon on the other side to be clear of the restriction when the move is started. So , 4 yards horse, 10 yards bridge, 5 yards wagon hook. Say 20 yards. The horse can then pull the wagon with a slightly dragging brake through the bridge  without danger of men or horse being caught in the narrow bit. 

 

The same idea could apply for captan working. This is a working set, one day I will find a use for them .  

 

Something like this: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Dave John said:

Most of the rule books and safety books show the horse to the side of the track, 

Which, for those who are into such things, gives the idea of a little cameo with every rule in the book being broken, horse in the middle of the track, horseman riding on the buffer, etc etc...  Or, for those of a macabre bent, the consequence of breaking all the rules... 

While we're on the subject of signs, presumably this is a private siding. Should there be a sign or other demarcation of where the GWR responsibility ends and the private siding begins?

20 hours ago, Dave John said:

Most of the rule books and safety books show the horse to the side of the track, with a chain attached to the horse shunting loop on the side of the wagon. Often the rules have a direct prohibition on the use of the main coupling for horse shunting. 

 

That said, as JimC suggests, there are many photos showing the horse in the 4 foot with the chain attached to the main coupling. Not wise, if there is a bit of a slope to the track it is lasagne for tea..... 

 

Now , If I was a Board of trade inspector, with a suitable military title and a large moustache I would create a set of rules for horse working that bridge.  The horse must be out of the four foot and attached to the wagon with a chain long enough for the horse on one side and the wagon on the other side to be clear of the restriction when the move is started. So , 4 yards horse, 10 yards bridge, 5 yards wagon hook. Say 20 yards. The horse can then pull the wagon with a slightly dragging brake through the bridge  without danger of men or horse being caught in the narrow bit. 

 

The same idea could apply for captan working. This is a working set, one day I will find a use for them .  

 

Something like this: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Dave.  I think that's the way I'd play it too, if I had to.  

I shall leave the capstans and pulleys for another layout (?!?!?!?), but I like the look of your working ones.  That must have taken some doing.  

9 hours ago, JimC said:

While we're on the subject of signs, presumably this is a private siding. Should there be a sign or other demarcation of where the GWR responsibility ends and the private siding begins?

It's a GWR yard initially as traffic comes in from the mainline.  It's a small rural yard off the main line, and nominally it is associated with a minor station on the mainline which is not modelled due to space constraints.  Then, based on the potentially rather dubious back story to justify the model layout set up!, the extension through the arch is to another part of the yard.  I hadn't considered really whether it was to be a GWR or private land beyond that arch.  For ease, I guess I'd go with GWR.  But I see that if it were to be a private siding then some sort of demarkation would be required.  

10 hours ago, JimC said:

Which, for those who are into such things, gives the idea of a little cameo with every rule in the book being broken, horse in the middle of the track, horseman riding on the buffer, etc etc...  Or, for those of a macabre bent, the consequence of breaking all the rules... 

Hmmm, I haven't seen anything about the use of rasberry jam and ketchup on model railway scenes.  Perhaps Woodland Scenics are missing a product range... general gore, and a set of people staged to look like they are running around with their arms in the air, flapping like gooduns!  

Using the rule of thumb that a British brick size somehow became standardised at 9" x 4.5" x 3"  (including the mortar ) and by counting bricks in  JimC's  photo above, I reckon the loco restriction sign to be 6 feet x 18 inches. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by DonB