Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

 

Flat or National Hunt?

 

I can imagine space for a small rural course "over the sticks".

 

National Hunt, I should think.

 

Racing Comes to Fakenham, 1905

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

Here’s a nice small country station:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2by2QM8j4

 

Surely these plonkers should have seen that coming! 

 

Jim 

[wagonman]

59 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

National Hunt, I should think.

 

Racing Comes to Fakenham, 1905

 

There was also a racetrack at Holt/Halte but I think it was out of use before 1900. 

[Compound2632]

Horseboxes galore! (More family carriages etc. and race excursions made up of picnic saloons too.)

[NeilHB]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That is a really curious example, because there is no facility to pass trains on the main line, which must have made its traffic-handling capacity rather limited, and it certainly doesn't get all carried away with a classic double junction.

According to the books I have on the BCDR, it was a block post on the main line, and goods trains were frequently parked on the branch itself to allow other traffic to pass on the main line. Effectively blocking the branch train from accessing the junction until they had departed. There was also a rather long headshunt at the Belfast end of the station which may have assisted in passing trains when required? 

[Northroader]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

How on earth did you find it?

 

 

 

Actually, it was a tailpiece on a promotional email from Camden Miniature Services, which you may find is quite a useful site. I found the string of swear words had me laughing uncontrollably, but that’s probably just me.

https://www.camdenmin.co.uk

[Edwardian]

Here is a first go at the new scheme, benefitting from the more generous footprint of a purpose-built shed, filling the land available.

 

I am not entirely happy, but it does help to illustrate my point; it allows me, by using three stations and two cassette yards, to represent:

 

(1) The Achingham Branch

 

(2) The rest of the WNR system

 

(3) The system's links to the GER and M&GN (there is even a short length of the M&GN, as it joins near Massingham, i.e. between Castle Aching and Birchoverham Market.

 

 

As the platform at CA (est. 53" max.) effectively limits train lengths, all trains must be under 4'6", hence the cassette yards need to be this length also. 

 

To relate the layout plan to the system map:

 

 

Thoughts, corrections, suggestions etc welcome.

 

[Nearholmer]

53 minutes ago, Northroader said:

had me laughing uncontrollably, but that’s probably just me.

Not just you, I was “rolled-up” by it too. It’s very clever.

[Northroader]

I like to see everything kept really simple, but you’ve got four single line routes converging on a terminus station with one platform and a short bay, which will cause problems.

[Schooner]

56 minutes ago, Northroader said:

but that’s probably just me.

Fraid not - the channel has a new subscriber

 

17 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Here is a first go at the new scheme

Bravo! Lots to commend it, not least legibility.

 

Have I understood the parsing of the system for the new shed (dimensions?) correctly, that from an operational PoV are we looking at

• Main line terminus (Castle Aching - three routes)
• Branch line junction
• Branch line terminus (Achingham - one route)
• Main line junction to
• Branch line junction station (Birchoverham Market - two routes), and
• Main line (WNR and M&GN) to cassettes

?

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Northroader said:

I like to see everything kept really simple, but you’ve got four single line routes converging on a terminus station with one platform and a short bay, which will cause problems.

 

Might do in reality; on the model, one might call it "interesting operation". Much depends on the frequency of service, of course. Though I see an operational problem if the trains reversing at Castle Aching have to divide at Flocking, which is represented by just a couple of points.

[Nearholmer]

My late father in law, when presented with any “North Indian” food, of which he was a true connoisseur and expert cook, would taste it carefully, think for a long moment, then (almost always) pronounce very slowly, while nodding sagely: “Too much tomato.”. 
 

The draft plan made me think: “Too much fiddle yards”, which is a byproduct of too many routes.

 

I suppose it might all hang together if each route has barely any trains, but even with very thin services it looks to me as if CA will snarl-up. Maybe some of these services need to terminate at their respective junctions.

 

Time to draft a timetable? If we had mileages, and notes as to passing places, a WNR WTT might be devised between us all, and that would tell us whether CA would be as pressured as I fear.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

59 minutes ago, Northroader said:

I like to see everything kept really simple, but you’ve got four single line routes converging on a terminus station with one platform and a short bay, which will cause problems.

 

No, just one platform!  The bay is just the loading dock.

 

That was always the idea; everything ends up at CA and through traffic has to reverse out.

 

The idea was that I need only model CA to model most of what ran on the WN.

 

The limited facilities at CA just mean I have an endless sequence of stuff, one train in, then out, at a time!  The passing loop is the only concession to the one-train-at-a-time policy.  After all, there is only one person to operate the line!  

 

The new plan does not change that, it merely represents a bit more of the various routes feeding into CA.  In other words, the new plan makes no difference whatsoever to what was always intended for CA. You can see all that from the system map. 

 

Now, probably, the Bishop's Lynn tram services would mostly have terminated at Aching Constable, but I can stretch a point.  Likewise, it is not likely that the Norfolk Minerals Railway would have running rights over the Wolfringham branch and, thus, come to CA.  However, all the other traffic should. 

 

What the new plan does add, through the inclusion of Birchoverham Market, is branch traffic from Staithes and Fakeney, though rather a short run, into the platform at Birchoverham Market and back.

 

You may well be correct to suggest that the traffic is too much for CA, but that is a consequence of an expansion of the WNR system that has been with us for some considerable time; the new layout scheme does not add any new traffic for CA.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

My thinking was related more to the real CA than the model one.

 

If you factor time to run from previous passing point, time at terminus, and time to get back to the previous passing point, my gut feel is that, capacity is about one train per hour, maybe one every forty minutes. It could me more, if suburban-style practices were adopted, but that seems unlikely - I imagine a lot of parcels, luggage, old gents who’ve misplaced their umbrella etc.
 

You could have a flight of two or three arrivals, followed by two or three departures, but is there room to park the first train out of the way, while the second is dealt with.

 

As has been said, a lot depends on how frequent the service on each leg needs to be, and on whether CA is a point of connection for passengers (mind you, long connection times seem to have been normal on this sort of railway).

Edited June 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

My somewhat biased understanding is that the principal train of the day arrives at Castle Aching with the through coaches off the "Leicester", which then depart as part of successive trains to Birchoverham-on-Sea and Fakeney (and vice versa), or as one train that is divided at Flocking, or wherever. I suppose that the way this would be dealt with would be the addition of WNR carriages ahead of the through portion. 

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

My somewhat biased understanding is that the principal train of the day arrives at Castle Aching with the through coaches off the "Leicester", which then depart as part of successive trains to Birchoverham-on-Sea and Fakeney (and vice versa), or as one train that is divided at Flocking, or wherever. I suppose that the way this would be dealt with would be the addition of WNR carriages ahead of the through portion. 

 

I thought just to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea.  That portion will have separated at South Lynn and a MGN loc, or, if short handed, a MR loco, takes it from South Lynn to CA where it reverses. GER services will likewise come to CA to reverse for Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea.   

 

As for other traffic: 

 

- Fakeney & Staithe branch services terminate at Birchoverham Market

 

- Most Bishop's Lynn Tramway services terminate at Aching Constable. I will allow the odd one through to CA

 

Goods services will come through from these destinations, however.

 

- Achingham and Wolfringham services are to and from CA, though some of the latter could terminate at Aching Constable.  

 

Achingham would have a regular 5-6 passenger services each way a day, a daily goods and 1 or 2 through passenger services.

 

Wolfringham 2-3 passenger services, a daily goods and coal trains/empties from/to the Staithes run as required.  

 

Now, if I place triangular junctions where the Bury and Norwich lines meet, I can have quite a lot of the Norwich and Bury traffic running between the two, with only services for CA and the Birchoverhams coming to CA.

 

This is where it gets tricky, running in and out of CA:

 

- Achingham: 5-6 passenger services each way a day, a daily goods and 1 or 2 through passenger services.

- Wolfringham 2-3 passenger services, a daily goods and coal trains/empties from/to the Staithes run as required

- Birchoverham Market and Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea, 5-6 passenger services each way a day, and a daily goods

- Bishop's Lynn daily through passenger service, daily goods

- Daily GER service for Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea

- Daily MGN/MR service for Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea

- Daily WNR Norwich service

- Daily WNR Bury Service 

 

That's about 26 trains coming in and out each day. One may feel that is too many!

 

[Edwardian]

37 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

is there room to park the first train out of the way, while the second is dealt with.

 

 

 

As the shed road tends to be used as the run-round loop, the loop itself could stable stock from tome to time.  I suppose the second train loco would have to lurk there also, or in the goods yard. 

 

The station isn't really designed to have more than one thing happen at once, however, 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Time to draft a timetable? If we had mileages, and notes as to passing places, a WNR WTT might be devised between us all, and that would tell us whether CA would be as pressured as I fear.

 

 

 

I fear you are right on both counts.

 

Mileages can be roughly derived from the system map. Passing loops can be added wherever required.

 

My current plans, posted above, make it hard to assume less that 25 trains in and out per day.  great for a model of Castle Aching, as it allows me to run pretty much everything I want, but a lot to get in and out of CA each day!

 

Thinking further, if adding the triangular junctions mentioned earlier, you might, say, decide that a third of the Norwich and Bury traffic runs between those two places, a third runs between them and the end-on junction with the GER, where passengers may change to a GER service, and a third runs to CA for CA and the Birchoverhams.  

 

That is still a lot to run into CA on top of the other traffic envisaged. 

[Donw]

I was going to say Fakney train could reverse at BH Market but that will not fit into the shed plan which I rather like. Merstone I think will do well using just a single platform and be in keeping with the other stations. We used to park on he site the platform still existe as a mound with a sign to say it was former the station. Oddly the area round there would probably seem quite normal for norfolk  (well apart from perhaps the sight of chalk downs. It is in the valley of the Eastern Yar low lying ground nearby with reeds. About a 1 mile to Sandown the line is alonside the yar and one could almost be sure of seeing a water vole.

Don

[Nearholmer]

28 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

That's about 26 trains coming in and out each day. One may feel that is too many!

 

Presumably at reasonably decent hours too, maybe between 7am and 9pm, if typical timetables of the period are any guide. That's roughly two trains per hour, and I really do think you'd be pushed to accommodate that.

 

All these goods trains? I assume that they are coming to CA mainly to re-marshal and go somewhere else? Where are the marshaling sidings?

 

What all this does illustrate is why real railways hate this sort of station so much!

 

Tunbridge Wells (LBSCR/West) was rather like this, serving as terminus for three routes, and mostly as a through station for a fourth. It had an enormous number of train movements, way out of proportion to the number of passengers who actually started or ended their journey there. The service intensities were not hugely dissimilar to what you propose (a bit higher), and it needed double track as far as the "split outs", three main platforms, a big goods yard, used partly as a forwarding point, and a decent-sized loco shed in order to cope with it all. It was a big station, taking-up lots of space. Read all about it http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml

Edited June 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Donw]

Well one answer would be to moved the passing loop up to the junction for achingham and add  a couple of sidings and have it out in the country  a couple of miles or more from CA to allow some of the the freight stuff to be handled there with a short trip run into CA  with wagons for other places held the loop+ sidings aea.

There would need to be some smart working at CA. I would envisage a train arriving a spare loco can shunt the coaches as required set up say the Achingham Service and depart. The Original train loco has had time to turn and be watered and coaled ready for the next arrival or departure. Yes most of the activity would be centred on CA no bad thing for a solo operator  but another two or three could be easily accomodated. If there were too many coaches at CA some could be taken to the passing loop as ECS.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

13 minutes ago, Donw said:

Well one answer would be to moved the passing loop up to the junction for achingham and add  a couple of sidings and have it out in the country 

 

Very good idea, and exactly what real railways tended to do. In model terms, it would make an alternative "play zone", pure shunting, which some people enjoy. I imagine one of the branch goods engines, the one with the shortest run, spending a fair while here sorting trains for onward destinations, either that or CA has a pilot/shunter allocated to this job and to shifting carriages at the terminus.

[uax6]

The passing loop is one aspect I don't like, it seems a bit 'toy town' to me. 

Would it be practical to have the loop as a portion of double line running from the junction for Achingham? Bear in mind that its likely that there would have to be two signalboxes at the loop/junction, one at the junction and one at the other end of the loop (or double track) as the points will be over the BoT limits for facing points.

 

Having that junction as a double track one would be quite useful, as it would serve the purpose of loop for both lines, and it isn't unusual for junctions in the middle of nowhere to have loops.

 

Also I wonder if you need to think about the shape of your to be purchased shed. If it was T shaped with CA at the bottom of the leg of the T then you could turn your junctions in two different directions for the different destinations.

 

I too worry about your single road terminal station. Its likely to be very busy, and I'm sure it wouldn't have existed as a single platform for very long as the extra routes opened up. Indeed I wonder if it would actually have been more like a 5 platform station (much like King's Lynn was) to deal with the three routes (KL had 5 routes iirc) to be able to cope with the traffic. Certainly it needs to be more than one, maybe a timber platform to the south of the engine shed (the shed being in the middle of the platforms)?

 

Andy G

 

 

[Edwardian]

17 minutes ago, Donw said:

I was going to say Fakney train could reverse at BH Market but that will not fit into the shed plan which I rather like. Merstone I think will do well using just a single platform and be in keeping with the other stations. We used to park on he site the platform still existe as a mound with a sign to say it was former the station. Oddly the area round there would probably seem quite normal for norfolk  (well apart from perhaps the sight of chalk downs. It is in the valley of the Eastern Yar low lying ground nearby with reeds. About a 1 mile to Sandown the line is alonside the yar and one could almost be sure of seeing a water vole.

Don

 

I was rather assuming the Fakeney train would reverse at Birchoverham Market.

 

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Presumably at reasonably decent hours too, maybe between 7am and 9pm, if typical timetables of the period are any guide. That's roughly two trains per hour, and I really do think you'd be pushed to accommodate that.

 

Indeed

 

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

All these goods trains? I assume that they are coming to CA mainly to re-marshal and go somewhere else? Where are the marshaling sidings?

 

Yes, that troubles me.

 

We can have a goods train that runs from Birchoverham Market to CA once a day.  It drops off traffic for CA and then reverses out to Achingham (bigger place, more traffic) and then returns via CA to Birchoverham Market.

 

It's goods coming from everywhere else that is the problem. 

 

Even just reversing them at CA is likely to cause congestion. 

 

If I put in a marshalling yard somewhere in the area of Aching Constable, goods to and from GER lines and between Wolfringham, Bishop's Lynn, Bury and Norwich, can all be kept out of CA.

 

Goods needing to travel to and from any of the following would still go via CA: CA, Achingham, the Birchoverhams, the MGN and Fakeney,  

 

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

What all this does illustrate is why real railways hate this sort of station so much!

 

Tunbridge Wells (LBSCR/West) was rather like this, serving as terminus for three routes, and mostly as a through station for a fourth. It had an enormous number of train movements, way out of proportion to the number of passengers who actually started or ended their journey there. The service intensities were not hugely dissimilar to what you propose (a bit higher), and it needed double track as far as the "split outs", three main platforms, a big goods yard, used partly as a forwarding point, and a decent-sized loco shed in order to cope with it all. It was a big station, taking-up lots of space. Read all about it http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml

 

Hmm, which would rather spoil the CA idea. 

 

Now thinking:

 

Passenger:

 

- Birchoverham Market - CA - Achingham: 2 services each way

- Birchoverham Market - CA: 4 services each way

- Norwich - CA - Birchoverham Market - Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - CA - Norwich

- Bury - CA -  Birchoverham Market - Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - CA - Bury

- CA - Achingham - CA: 4 services a day

- Bishop's Lynn - CA - Bishop's Lynn: 2 services each way

- Magdalen Road (GER) - CA - Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - CA - Magdalen Road (GER)*

- South Lynn (MGN) - CA - Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - CA - South Lynn (MGN) **

 

Goods:

- Daily Aching Constable - CA - Birchoverham Market - CA - Achingham and reverse

- Livestock (Achingham Market days only)

- Minerals from Wolfringham (RasR)

 

 

* GER service: Can alternate with LNWR service

** MR/GNR alternate days

[Donw]

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

The passing loop is one aspect I don't like, it seems a bit 'toy town' to me. 

Would it be practical to have the loop as a portion of double line running from the junction for Achingham? Bear in mind that its likely that there would have to be two signalboxes at the loop/junction, one at the junction and one at the other end of the loop (or double track) as the points will be over the BoT limits for facing points.

 

Having that junction as a double track one would be quite useful, as it would serve the purpose of loop for both lines, and it isn't unusual for junctions in the middle of nowhere to have loops.

 

Also I wonder if you need to think about the shape of your to be purchased shed. If it was T shaped with CA at the bottom of the leg of the T then you could turn your junctions in two different directions for the different destinations.

 

I too worry about your single road terminal station. Its likely to be very busy, and I'm sure it wouldn't have existed as a single platform for very long as the extra routes opened up. Indeed I wonder if it would actually have been more like a 5 platform station (much like King's Lynn was) to deal with the three routes (KL had 5 routes iirc) to be able to cope with the traffic. Certainly it needs to be more than one, maybe a timber platform to the south of the engine shed (the shed being in the middle of the platforms)?

 

Andy G

 

 

 

My suggestion to move the passing loop up to the junction would have achieved that and with the extra sidings could actually keep goods traffic out of CA apart from the stuff directly for CA. helping to relieve presure on CA .

 

Don