Castle Aching

[Nearholmer]

There’s a similar tale about an infiltrator being landed at Dungeness and attempting to book through to London on the RH&DR, but that one I really don’t believe.

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Dull but worth and probably Edwardian Queen Anne in its architecture. By the late 20th century, a slightly seedy comprehensive, having merged with the secondary modern.

 

Not sure that's what Conan Doyle had in mind as Lord Saltire's alma mater! 

 

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I was hoping for something a bit more 1870s! 

 

Oh, certainly, 1860s-70s high gothic, just as you suggested! 

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Not sure that's what Conan Doyle had in mind as Lord Saltire's alma mater! 

 

Yes, he'd be cross.

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, he'd be cross.

 

[groan]

[Caley Jim]

52 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

The two men were eventually shot but the woman was allowed to live, if I remember correctly.

Thank you @ianathompson for correcting me.  I only heard the story once in a talk to our local U3A on the ineptness of German spies in WW II.

 

IIRC the woman was a double agent who asked the police to call someone high ranking in the security services to verify her identity.

 

Jim

[Northroader]

Just reverting back two pages to the proposed shed plan, would it help to have the Birch’ham and Ach’ham Lines diverge immediately at the end of CA Station? The Birch’ham line then hugs the back wall, disappearing behind a scenic screen, to reappear further on with the triangular junctions into the big oval. The Ach’ham line stays in full view in front, with the single line bridge you fancy. This helps to minimise one source of congestion.

Back to the West Country for inspiration, Bodmin General for Castle Aching, with a single platform station with required facilities, and Junction at platform end? (Possibly “flipped”)

[Nearholmer]

Funnily enough the Bodmin, wadebridge, Padstow area came to my mind earlier when thinking about the WNR, in the context of a “local trunk” that was connected to the rest of the world by s straggling main-line.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

Just reverting back two pages to the proposed shed plan, would it help to have the Birch’ham and Ach’ham Lines diverge immediately at the end of CA Station? The Birch’ham line then hugs the back wall, disappearing behind a scenic screen, to reappear further on with the triangular junctions into the big oval. The Ach’ham line stays in full view in front, with the single line bridge you fancy. This helps to minimise one source of congestion.

 

Yes, that could work

 

 

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

Back to the West Country for inspiration, Bodmin General for Castle Aching, with a single platform station with required facilities, and Junction at platform end? (Possibly “flipped”)

 

 

Actually, I think the 'shed plan' had been simplified thus before we moved on .........

 

 

Though what you'd do is run the bottom Cassette Yard into the corner and put the door in the end wall between the Cassette Yard and Castle Aching. Birchoverham Market would need to be flipped.  The bottom cassette yard is now the Northern Branches.  The upper one is Aching Constable (Wolfringham, BLT, GER and WNR Bury & Norwich) and MGN.

 

Bodmin?  Like it.

 

I would like to stay as closely as possible to the existing CA track plan.

 

Could we simply make minor amendments?

 

We could add a headshunt off the 3 sidings.

 

If we do that:

 

(i) We can keep the passenger traffic going while we play with our inglenook puzzle in the yard.

 

(ii) We essentially have the equivalent of the Bodmin plan below, sans junction, but with a TT closing off the loop and the engine shed on one of two loops instead of a kick back siding off the loop. 

 

In fact, are we not doing rather better because, unlike Bodmin, we have an extra siding and an extra loop so that two passenger trains can more easily be in the station at once?  If we were to use the Bodmin plan, we could put the first train in the loop, but the engine of the second train to arrive would be unable to run round.  The engine of the first train would have to take the second train out. In WNR terms that would mean swapping the branch engine onto the mainline train and vice versa.  

 

 

Long, long ago, after someone made the brilliant suggestion that the shed road from the TT should be closed to form a loop at the other end, I decided that the shed road was best used as the de facto run-round loop, so that spare passenger stock could occupy the loop under the train shed. 

 

Kevin has seen that this is an essential advantage, I think. 

 

With the headshunt, we contain the goods shunting.  With the two loops, we can stick one passenger train in a loop allowing a second to run into the platform road. The only time the yard and the platform road are engaged in the same business is probably if a NPCC is to be taken off or put on using the short near siding (which will have the side and end loading dock.

 

So, say:

 

(1) The branch set comes in from Achingham.

(2) The branch engine then runs round, pulls the branch train back out of the platform road and then propels it into the loop.  The branch engine will stay in the loop with the coaches.

(3) Mainline set comes in to platform road, branch passengers make the connection.

(4) Mainline train goes out again, its loco having used the shed loop to run round.

(5) Branch set is returned to platform road by pulling forward from the loop and backing into the platform road, and is then ready to depart. 

 

Things get more interesting where a vehicle needs to be taken off one service and put on the other!

 

Depending on how the timetabling progresses, is there significant benefit in having a double track section out of the station?

 

If so, would a slip be appropriate to achieve this?

 

Frankly, if we do not need a double track section to avoid congestion, I won't bother, but if it assists with the timetable, I'd be happy to add it to the plan.

 

I have to relay the track in any case. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Edwardian
Further information

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Depending on how the timetabling progresses,

 

Not tonight, Josephine.

 

Too tired, I'm afraid.

 

[Compound2632]

Josephine de Beauharnais contemplates her timetabling difficulties:

 

 

[François Gérard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]

[Donw]

On 16/09/2021 at 17:37, uax6 said:

Another factor is are the services symmetric? (ie is there the same number of up trains as down trains)

 

When reading through Backtrack, I note that quite often the timetables aren't symmetric, and have some very strange sized gaps during the day.

 

Andy G

 

you have to look at the working TT   sometimes two engines work back together so 6 down trains beome 5 up trains. The WTT will also show light engines moves or Engine and brake trains.

 

Don

[Donw]

Interesting things timetables

 

If say you want an hourly service between two places 

if the journey takes 45 mins two trains will be sufficient

if it takes 75mins you will need three trains but the return departures are set half an hour apart from the outward departures 

 

The other things is that timetables sort of grow  no one sort of sits down and works the whole timetable from scratch. They take the timetable from last year and adapt it to cater for extra trains . faster timings new routes.  I suggest you do something similar start with a very simple timetable for the main route  then add in extra routes etc. building it up.

 

Don

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Actually, I think the 'shed plan' had been simplified thus before we moved on

That makes things far more straightforward.

[ianathompson]

8 hours ago, Donw said:

The other things is that timetables sort of grow  no one sort of sits down and works the whole timetable from scratch. They take the timetable from last year and adapt it to cater for extra trains . faster timings new routes.  I suggest you do something similar start with a very simple timetable for the main route  then add in extra routes etc. building it up.

 

That has certainly been the case with my own layout.

Many more goods trains now run than was initially envisaged and they were all added to meet "demand".

Similarly passenger services have developed so that each train is perceived to fulfil a specific need of the community.

 

I, obviously, follow the 1960s continental scene, and spent some time studying what little information was available when I started to build the layout.

What most people overlook is that railway travel in pre WWI Britain , as well as the continent, was a rarity rather than an everyday event.

The majority of British rural branch lines operated a basic service pattern of one in the morning, one at noon and one in the evening.

There might even be one in the late afternoon on a busy line!

 

I would have thought that, given the traffic density of rural Norfolk, this would have sufficed, along with a local goods service.

A perusal of a reprinted Bradshaw for the lines in your chosen area will probably confirm the service pattern or provide other ideas to copy.

 

Ian T

[Edwardian]

9 hours ago, Donw said:

 

The other things is that timetables sort of grow  no one sort of sits down and works the whole timetable from scratch. They take the timetable from last year and adapt it to cater for extra trains . faster timings new routes.  I suggest you do something similar start with a very simple timetable for the main route  then add in extra routes etc. building it up.

 

Don

 

Agree.

 

And I was attempting to begin the process HERE

 

Where this led me was to consider the starting point not as Castle Aching (CA) to Birchoverham Market (BM) (mainline), or, CA to Achingham (branch line) services, but to think of the basic service as:

 

BM - CA - Achingham, BUT, achieved in two different ways:

 

(i) Separate trains (BM - CA train and CA - Achingham train) that connect at CA.  Here the ability to use the loop to have two trains at CA at the same time should help to speed things up.

 

(ii) Through trains, whereby the same service runs BM - CA - Achingham (reversing at CA) 

 

So, step one, using your method, is to schedule those BM - CA - Achingham passenger services.  Perhaps, then, we add the Goods as step 2.  Step 3 we consider the effect of traffic via Aching Constable. Step 4 would be the additional line occupancy on the Hillingham - BM section of the mainline due to MGN services coming onto the line. Step 5 regular additional services, such as livestock trains on market days (additional timetable goods on certain days) and Step 6 ad hoc specials or RaR services, to be shoe-horned into the schedule.

 

 

1.   BM - CA - Achingham Passenger Service

 

Considerations:

 

Distance/time:

(i) Assume an average speed on the branch section of the route of, say, 20 mph, and 30mph on the mainline section

(ii) I sketched out distances for the branch section HERE, but perhaps they can be rationalised and completed thus:

 

BM - Hillingham - 3 miles

Hillingham -  Achingham Branch Junction (ABJ) - 7 miles

ABJ - CA - 2 miles*

CA - ABJ -  2 miles

ABJ - Doughton Abbey - 4 miles 

Doughton Abbey - Achingham -  6 miles

 

That gives a total journey BM to Achingham of 24 miles, with a change of trains or a reversal at the halfway point, CA

 

Balance: Assume a symmetrical service unless something dictates otherwise.

 

Starting Point: Decide whether the services should start at the Achingahm end or the BM (or if different on different days).  Whose need is greater, people of Achingham to reach BM early in the day, or vice versa (and is there a milk train?)?

 

Direction? Which direction is designated UP and why?  For good order I will provisionally adopt trains to Achingham as UP

 

Frequency?

Ideally I'd like:

(i)  Weekdays: 5 Up, 5 Down

(ii) Tuesdays and Thursdays, 6 Up, 6 Down

(iii) Saturdays: 7 up, 7 Down

(iv) Sundays: 3 Up, 3 Down

 

Intervals?     

 

Throughout the day, but concentrated, like the the examples of branch TTs given, on the beginning and end of the working day.   A natural interval over lunch might be a good opportunity to schedule the daily goods. 

 

Type of service?  Which are separate and which are through trains? 

 

 

2.   BM - CA - Achingham Daily Goods

 

Considerations:

 

Speed? Average 10 mph?

 

Timing? As some prototype examples suggest, a lull at a branch terminus in the middle of the day often facilitates shunting.  Here we have pick/up drop off at:

- Hillingham ( not modelled)

- CA (plus reversal)

- Doughton abbey (not modelled)

- Achingham

- CA again (?) plus reversal

 

 

3.   Aching Constable traffic

 

How do we accommodate (i) through traffic on and off the mainline and (ii) the need to connect with AC's branch traffic? 

 

 

Considerations:

 

Congestion? The triangular junction (ACSJ and ACNJ) sees traffic coming off and on the mainline between Hillingham and ABJ.

 

It is, thus, necessary for all traffic using ACSJ and ACNJ to deconflict with the BM - CA - Achingham traffic.

 

It is, thus, necessary to know the distance to these junctions and add them to the route mileages:

 

BM - Hillingham - 3 miles

Hillingham -  ACNJ - 5 miles

ACNJ - ACSJ - 1 mile

ACJS - Achingham Branch Junction (ABJ) -  1 mile

ABJ - CA - 2 miles*

CA - ABJ -  2 miles

ABJ - Doughton Abbey - 4 miles 

Doughton Abbey - Achingham -  6 miles

 

Services?  Two types of services pass through AC:

- Through services (GER and WNR Bury and Norwich) en route to BM - these merely represent line congestion on the ACNJ - BM section of the mainline, affecting the ability to accommodate BM - CA - Achingham traffic on that section. 

- Branch services from (i) Bishop's Lynn (Tramway) (the BLT) and (i) Wolfringham/Shepherd's Port.  These give rise to other considerations 

 

A decision has to be made in relation to these branch services.  The passengers do not want to end up at AC.  Most likely they want to:

- Go to the Birchoverhams

- Go to Achingham

- Connect to a long distance train (which could be done at AC, or by travelling on to BM if necessary)

 

This leads me to consider:

(i) Whether one or both of these branch services should run through to BM, thus adding to the congestion already threatening the ACNJ - BM section of the mainline

(ii) Whether one of the BM - CA - Achingham through services should be routed via AC, engaging the triangular junction  and involving a reversal at AC

(iii) Kevin's suggestion of a shuttle between CA and AC

(iv) Other options? 

 

4.  Traffic off the MGN

 

Considerations:

 

Distance: The junction with the MGN can be immediately at the south end of Hillingham station  

 

Traffic: This is currently envisaged as the following traffic to B-N-t-S.

(i) A three-coach portion of the MR 'the Leicester'

(ii) A GNR through service

(iii) A MGN through service  

 

5.   Additional Regular Traffic

 

Here I'll say no more than that market days, already looking very busy on the passenger front (with an extra service or two in addition to strengthening coaches) may well need a livestock service to be accommodated.

 

Some space needs to be found in the TT for such services.

 

6.   Specials/Runs as Required

 

Specials etc will just have to chance their  luck and be fitted in where possible.

 

 

* Shortening this is a real possibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Edwardian
Adding further steps

[uax6]

Is your goods service pick-up goods, doing shunting at each place as it goes, or is it just picking up wagons that have been pre-shunted for it? (are there stables at each station for a horse to do the shunting?)

 

If it is a pick-up goods doing shunting then it could well take a very long time to do a run, maybe as long as what ever the working hours were at the time. Pathing it would be fun, but it would have a WTT entry, but would likely run very late, or be booked quite lengthy times at each yard. It might only just about make the 10mph average between each stop as well. 

Which also begs the question, would it be an up train one day and then a down train the next?

 

Andy G

 

[Nearholmer]

Haven’t time to graph, but while clearing dead leaves etc in the garden, I think I’ve decided to attack the problem as follows:

 

- first plot an Ach-Ca-BM train that gets there in time for school, say 0840 arrival.

 

- ditto one going home, leaving BM at say 1620 (excuse 24 clock!).

 

- then plot the three long distance departures. This sort of train usually left the seaside after people had had time for breakfast and to get to the station, so I think we flight them out at (say) hourly intervals from 1000, which fits with how I know this was done for inter-regionals from the SE resorts.

 

- then plot the three long distance arrivals, maybe between c1600 and 1830, to let people get supper and settle in at Harbourview.

 

- then plot the goods trains, which I think should originate at AC, one serving CA-Ach, the other the B district. It’s best to get these away as early as feasible, to give plenty of time for things along the way.

 

- a local goods trip (Q) B-CA and return, to deal with local o+s, ideally somehow connecting with the Ach goods. This turn could provide shunting at CA too, making the ‘bounce’ of the main goods quicker.

 

- now start to flesh-out the rest of the B-CA-Ach service.

 

- think about how parcels, and any NPCS vehicles, get connected to and collected from the long distance trains. This feels to me like a mid-morning Ach-CA- AC run, and the reverse early evening, which might as well act as a feeder/collector for passengers too.

 

Of course, this logic won’t survive first contact with the graph paper!

[Nearholmer]

Right lads: chew on this.

 

Its A timetable, and I think it does most of what Edwardian requires, although maybe the B- CA route gets a raw deal, because the big holiday trains hog track occupancy.

 

I’m rather proud of the slow mixed train home in gathering darkness, so please can we keep that whatever happens.

 

(Edited to correct for missing goods train)

 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

Looks like it's going to be Josephine's night!

 

[Nearholmer]

Minor adjustment, to improve the CA-B service just after the shops and banks shut.

 

 

[Edwardian]

Kevin, Linny and I have been looking at this (first version) and, with the aid of colour coding, we have come to a profound appreciation of your genius.

 

It is brilliantly thought through and, dare I say, elegant in its solutions.

 

Tomorrow I shall sharpen my crayons and study the revised version with a fresh eye and sleep-refreshed mind.

 

Thank you 

[Skinnylinny]

Indeed! There were several "Hmmm... Oh! I see what he did there!" moments. We only coloured up until about 1pm but watching the various trains move around the network in colour is a fascinating thing.



I hope you'll forgive my desecration of your diagram!

[Edwardian]

Two minds were definitely better than one, and I am very grateful for Linny's time and input (and crayons!) as we walked through your scheme together. Couldn't have done it without them, in fact!

 

It's good to talk!

 

 

[drduncan]

I have been pondering the Norwich extension and wondering why it runs from Aching Constable south and loops east under castle aching, rather than Castle Acing being converted to a through station by the extension, perhaps with different platform heights and building styles between the original and the remodelled/additional platform. 
 

This would also keep the Norwich traffic off the main line from AC as long as possible. Indeed, if capacity was an issue you could pull the IOW trick and have parallel single tracks running from ACN junction to BM one for BM- CA and one for AC-BM.

 

D

[Nearholmer]

Do study it carefully, looking for mistakes, because I fear that there are some lurking in there somewhere!