Castle Aching

[Regularity]

You have a facing point access to the light railway, about which the Midland was very averse, Col. Yolland maybe less so. Blue line solution: no more turnouts, but a diamond on a curve.
But also, there is direct access between the two railways. Might an exchange siding not be more likely?

Green solution, one more turnout: exchange sidings can be longer if you wish.

 

[drmditch]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

And his solution would be ... ?

This question may be irrelevant, but what type of 'broad gauge' track were/are you using?

Because it's just possible that I may have some spare.......

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Regularity said:

You have a facing point access to the light railway, about which the Midland was very averse, Col. Yolland maybe less so. Blue line solution: no more turnouts, but a diamond on a curve.
But also, there is direct access between the two railways. Might an exchange siding not be more likely?

Green solution, one more turnout: exchange sidings can be longer if you wish.

 

On maturer reflection, supposing the loop is a goods loop only, not a passing loop, the facing point isn't such a big deal. The passenger station is a single platform, the platform between the loop and the mineral line siding is, I think, a loading bank. The arrangement is similar to our club layout Erlegh Quay, with which I think I've managed to come to terms! 

 

The mode of operation, based on the way we work Erlegh Quay, could be for a main line train travelling anti-clockwise to come to a stand on the main, detach the wagons for exchange, draw forward and set back into the exchange sidings, collect the outbound wagons, then couple up and depart. A train travelling clockwise would stop before the loop, uncouple wagons for exchange, draw forward - probably into the loop, run round, shunt into exchange sidings, collect outbound wagons, run round and set back onto the rear portion of the train. Either way, the brake van remains on the main line, protecting the manoeuvre. which I'm told is correct (i.e., in the context of my informant, Great Western) practice. There's also the option of trains arriving from either direction returning in the direction from which they came, if they are purely conveying exchange traffic or traffic originating at this station.

 

Even if this is a passing loop, Arley on the Severn Valley line (pre-preservation) provides a precedent, even though that's just sidings not exchange.

 

Midland practice is irrelevant as the Midland couldn't really cope with single line layouts. If it had to deal with such a situation, it would lay a loop with dedicated up and down lines, long enough to install the standard double-track layout!

Edited January 19, 2021 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

4 hours ago, drmditch said:

Had you thought at all about the lovely two-level exchange siding at Warthill on the Sand Hutton Light Railway?

There is a picture No.119 in Ken Hoole's 'North Eastern Branchlines'.

 

(Sorry, couldn't find an accessible on-line version).

 

Thus one?

 

 

Not sure I have the width to add a siding on the NG line (though, if I could, the length of a turnout is probably about what I'm short to complete the loop!).  If I can fit one in, I will, because I would then have a goods exchange.  Passengers for the NG will have to make pedestrian progress from the SG "Much Mulling" station to the NG "Littledon"

 

54 minutes ago, drmditch said:

This question may be irrelevant, but what type of 'broad gauge' track were/are you using?

Because it's just possible that I may have some spare.......

 

Thank you.

 

Using SMP/Marcway for the 'mainline'. 

 

Much of the Mineral Line will probably end up FB, but the turnouts between the two and in the yard could be either FB or BH, depending on what I have/can obtain.

 

Code 75 rail. 

 

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

On maturer reflection, supposing the loop is a goods loop only, not a passing loop, the facing point isn't such a big deal. The passenger station is a single platform, the platform between the loop and the mineral line siding is, I think, a loading bank. The arrangement is similar to our club layout Erlegh Quay, with which I think I've managed to come to terms! 

 

It could be treated as a goods only loop.  However, although originally I thought of a mineral line, and still think of it as such, the test track has to be all things to all men

 

It must also be a minor/Light Railway, so, for instance, Rother Valley/K&ESR stuff could run there. So, I would give the LR a platform face. This allows both LR passenger trains and workman's trains on a colliery etc line to be run.  

 

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The mode of operation, based on the way we work Erlegh Quay, could be for a main line train travelling anti-clockwise to come to a stand on the main, detach the wagons for exchange, draw forward and set back into the exchange sidings, collect the outbound wagons, then couple up and depart. A train travelling clockwise would stop before the loop, uncouple wagons for exchange, draw forward - probably into the loop, run round, shunt into exchange sidings, collect outbound wagons, run round and set back onto the rear portion of the train. Either way, the brake van remains on the main line, protecting the manoeuvre. which I'm told is correct (i.e., in the context of my informant, Great Western) practice. There's also the option of trains arriving from either direction returning in the direction from which they came, if they are purely conveying exchange traffic or traffic originating at this station.

 

Yes, that is what I had in mind.

 

Whenever the LR loop is not occupied by a LR train, the mainline engine can shunt using it, allowing the moves you outline. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Even if this is a passing loop, Arley on the Severn Valley line (pre-preservation) provides a precedent, even though that's just sidings not exchange.

 

Helpful, thank you

 

 

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Midland practice is irrelevant as the Midland couldn't really cope with single line layouts. If it had to deal with such a situation, it would lay a loop with dedicated up and down lines, long enough to install the standard double-track layout!

 

Indeed, it has to be a generic pre-Grouping layout!

[drmditch]

Re: Sand Hutton Light Railway. Yes, that was the picture. Sorry the arrangement is to large for you. Perhaps, if most mineral traffic was from the NG to the SG you could just have two lines, with the NG one raised.

 

Re: Track. Have sent PM

 

Re: Layout. Do you not need a 'safety point' (NER Terminology) at the LH end of your SG loop?

 

Re: Other layouts. I am using an NER 'Preceeding Place' based on Ilderton on the Alnwick and Cornhill line. I couldn't find an on-line picture, but can thoroughly recommend 'A History of North Eastern Railway Signalling' edited by Neil Mackay, published by NERA. It's a splendid book for browsing and developing ideas. It has a whole section of different track and signalling layouts.

[DonB]

There was /were transfer sidings between the W&L and it's parent GWR at Welshpool. I have not seen a photo of the arrangement, I suppose that the OS maps would show them. ( the OS 1913 revision the map does not show even the proposed trackbed of the W&L ) My copy of that large scale map went to a "Good home" about 15 months ago. 

[Nearholmer]

If you want to get into NG/SG transfers, even within these isles there were a lot, with many different characteristics according to traffic-types. The W&L set-up was at the exceedingly simple end of the scale, because the traffic was "timber and agricultural", and TBH not in gigantic quantities, the L&B was very simple too. Another extreme might be the Ffestiniog at Minfordd, or somewhere like the lower end of the line from the Trevor Granite Quarries.

 

In short: what does you NG line carry? And, how much of it?

[Caley Jim]

14 minutes ago, DonB said:

There was /were transfer sidings between the W&L and it's parent GWR at Welshpool. I have not seen a photo of the arrangement, I suppose that the OS maps would show them. ( the OS 1913 revision the map does not show even the proposed trackbed of the W&L ) My copy of that large scale map went to a "Good home" about 15 months ago. 

The 25" map of the area on the NLS website is from 1901, but this is a snip from the 6" one of 1953.

 

 

Jim

[Northroader]

The W&L at Welshpool was quite an informal arrangement with a Y shaped sidings out at one side of the front of the main line station, no passenger platform, and everything on the flat. Goods interchange was mainly coal sg to ng, and cattle the other way, which ought to suit a country narrow gauge line you’re thinking of?

edit: then there’s Barnstable Town with much the same ethos?

With mineral traffic possibly a wharf with two lines side by side at differing levels, such as at Towyn. Getting into high level discharge hoppers is going to make things far more complicated.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Northroader

[DonB]

There was the unique? arrangement at the Waterhouses end of the Manifold ng line where sg milk tankers piggy-backed a special ng wagon 

 

[Nearholmer]

Unique among common carrier railways in the British Isles, I'm pretty certain, but fairly common in Europe, and still used in the form of rollwagen (which can mean either a NG transporter wagon, or a tea-trolley!) and rollbocken.

 

Calthrop pioneered the system in "the British sphere of influence", but what I've never got to the bottom of is whether he invented it, and it spread to Europe, or whether he picked it up from Europe.

 

A few example went the other way too, carrying NG wagons piggyback on standard (or nearly standard) gauge wagons. The Campeltown & Macrihanish might even have carried wagons of an even-narrower gauge on NG wagons, I think - I know they carried containers of coal, and I think also little mine hutches, but I've got rid of my NG books, so am working from fallible memory here.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Nearholmer

[ianathompson]

45 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Calthrop pioneered the system in "the British sphere of influence", but what I've never got to the bottom of is whether he invented it, and it spread to Europe, or whether he picked it up from Europe.

 

Having consulted the "Bible", i.e Light Railways by WJK Davies, I am surprised to find no attribution for the invention of either rollbocke or rollwagen.

From memory, and I am not going to trawl the library, I think that rollbocke were invented in Germany.

Davies notes that Calthrop's name was always associated with rollwagen, the implication being that he devised them.

 

There were nearly as many designs of rollwagen as there were railway engineers.

I recollect even having seen photos of ones using six wheel bogies.

 

The advantage of the rollwagen in theory was that the SG wagon could be winched off onto a standard gauge length of track.

This was obviously at a narrow gauge station, miles from the nearest SG siding.

The freed the wrollwagen could then carry another SG wagon, reducing the need for capital investment.

In nearly every case this remained theory as very few wagons went through this time consuming process.

I think that Hulme End was paerhaps the only place that the transporters were ever used as intended.

 

I  took an interest in these pieces of equipment during the late seventies, as they are a fundamental piece of equipment underpinning my own layout.

I have modelled both systems, scratchbuilding them in O scale, but settled, many years ago, for rollwagen.

They have the advantage that they can easily transport SG bogie wagons.

(And yes I am aware that rollbocke were invented that were capable of doing this as well!)

One advantage of modelling a rollwagen is that SG wagons can  easily be placed onto them whereas it is a little more fiddly with rollbocke.

 

Ironically, I had published a photo on my website (which is accessible from the footer) and referred to it in my threads on here, commenting upon the prevalence, or otherwise, of transporters in certain AFK train's consists, just before finding this topic.

 

Ian T

 

Edit; If you go to the website press the "latest info" button the press "current session" and go to picture 12.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by ianathompson
additional info

[Nearholmer]

23 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

One advantage of modelling a rollwagen is that SG wagons can  easily be placed onto them whereas it is a little more fiddly with rollbocke.

 

When I was into H0e, I bought a set of Bemo rollbocke, which IIRC came as a kit "back in the day", and they were an absolute bar steward to use, fiddly beyond expression. They didn't make rollwagen then, although I think they might now, but we did have the equally frustrating Centre Models 009 kit for a L&MVLR one. Centre Models made the whole range of stock for the line, but the kits required so much skill and patience that probably only 1:1000 ever made it onto a layout! The loco-chassis was a work of pure evil, and the coach-sides were printed onto entirely glue-proof transparent plastic.

 

Happy days!

Edited January 20, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

Sie muss ein schmalspur 2 1/2 Englischer fuss ( = 762mm) fur der rollbockwagen, und Meine  freunde James sie haben ein  Zwei  fuss schalspurbahnen, nichtwahr?

[Compound2632]

The Donegal Railway tried out a system of transferable bodies, in conjunction with the Great Northern: Midland Railway Study Centre Item 62181. Less flexible than a piggy-back wagon, as it required a dedicated standard-gauge wagon. The Midland tried out a similar idea for road vehicles, with a flat bed that could be rolled onto either a horse-drawn or self-propelled vehicle.

[Nearholmer]

The FR went in for transferable bodies too, the small black van, with a finial on each top corner, is now preserved.

 

A couple of NG lines tried inter-modal too, road carts that had a strange mechanism that created flanges on the wheels or dropped-down guide-wheels, when part of a train - the Wolverton & Stony Stratford was one such, and I think the Bessbrook & Newry.

 

Bit off track now, sorry!

 

PS: B&N photo here if you scroll down http://www.tramwaybadgesandbuttons.com/page148/page4/styled-259/page682.html I know of no photos or drawings of the W&SSST ones, apart from a fragment in an article in The Engineer, despite much searching (which cannot continue for the time being due to the museum archive that houses the drawings being closed for now).

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Nearholmer

[ianathompson]

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

Sie muss ein schmalspur 2 1/2 Englischer fuss ( = 762mm) fur der rollbockwagen

 750mm was the minimum gauge on which they were practical.

Grafton's Wild Swan book on the Leek & Manifold notes that one was sold after closure to the Ashover Light Railway. (p310)

The gauge was narrowed to 2 feet but it proved to be unusuable because it was too unstable.

If memory serves the Wild Swan book on the Ashover has a photo of the converted item but it was not immediately visible on the shelves to check!

 

Somewhere or other I have photos of Finnish ones. These obviously caried  5 foot gauge wagons.

I do not recall what narrow gauge they ran on.

 

 

Ian T

[rocor]

22 hours ago, Northroader said:

Sie muss ein schmalspur 2 1/2 Englischer fuss ( = 762mm) fur der rollbockwagen, und Meine  freunde James sie haben ein  Zwei  fuss schalspurbahnen, nichtwahr?

 

Wir hatten auch eine ganze Menge zwei Fuß sechs Zoll Gleise.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_ft_6_in_gauge_railways_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Edwardian]

Ebay woes ...

 

So, I have been bad, so bad.  Bigly bad. Not great.

 

I have made an extravagant purchase.  Insanely so.

 

Normally I would hide my shameful cheque-book modelling from you, but I find I need sage counsel from the Parish Council.

 

Cosmetically, this loco is to a high standard in a good condition.  One of the front guard irons is missing, otherwise it's in great nick.  The tender is not attached to its chassis, but that can be dealt with.

 

It is a brass kit and ludicrously light.  it was described as a hesitant runner and in need of weight. It is remarkably difficult even to get all the wheels properly on the track. Weight on the bogie and in tender would help.  No doubt weight over the coupled wheels would also improve matters.

 

The trouble is, it's dead.  No sign of life whatsoever when power is applied to the track. The pick ups all appear to be in contact with the wheels.

 

What are my "actions on ..." finding a dead locomotive?  I don't really want a refund. I'd prefer to get the ting working.

 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

You tease. What is it when it's the right way up?

 

I can't comment on the failure to go but it does strike me that the tender and bogie frames are rather close together even for 00, with a lot of sideplay for the axles, which appear to be running in plain holes in the frames, no bushes.

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

You tease. What is it when it's the right way up?

 

Something I have wanted for a long time ...

 

 

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

I can't comment on the failure to go but it does strike me that the tender and bogie frames are rather close together even for 00, with a lot of sideplay for the axles, which appear to be running in plain holes in the frames, no bushes.

 

Indeed!

 

Here is a better view ...

 

[Compound2632]

That's got the wrong letters on it. Should read: G&SWR!

 

What leads you to suppose that it is built from a kit?

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

That's got the wrong letters on it. Should read: G&SWR!

 

What leads you to suppose that it is built from a kit?

 

Kits have existed. No idea if this is from one.

[drmditch]

Is it only collecting current form the rear driving wheels?

 

[sem34090]

25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Something I have wanted for a long time ...

 

 

 

Indeed!

 

Here is a better view ...

 

You jammy, jammy, git! I wondered which lucky sod had won her! If I'd had the money I was after the gorgeous 0-4-4T he had for sale, or else the LBSCR C2.