Tetbury

[RailWest]

I think it is there , but it's one of those that that lie down flat.

 

The rodding on your model is different from the prototype 'cos the crossover from the main line is closer to the station in the model than in the photo relative to the ES siding point. There should be two rods from the GF to the facing point, one for the point and the other for the FPL (under the cover seen in the photo), and then a continuation of the first rod to the far end of the crossover. 

[Chris Chewter]

That's because of the baseboard join that runs just where the crossover would have sat.

 

Like Peter Waterman once said, "No-one can model the real thing to scale. You have to fake it"

Edited November 26, 2020 by Chris Chewter
The quote was from Model Rail magazine 2016. I found it in my magazine library so thought I ought to correct the quote!

[Chris Chewter]

Just to expand, and hopefully not going over the old ground back in June:

 

The Facts:

• It is know there is a two lever frame by Point 7
• A single run of rodding passes alongside the engine shed.
• A point rodding run goes from the engine shed to Point 2.  This also appears to also be a single run from the photos.
• Randolph mentions a second frame.  The location of which appears in no photographs.

The Mystery:

• How Point 6 is operated.  There is no apparent lever
• How Point 7 is operated. There is no apparent lever
• It is presumed that Point 2 is operated from the rodding, as there is not apparent lever.
• It is presumed that Point 3 is operated from the rodding, as there is no apparent lever. 
• Was there a second ground frame is, or if it even existed!  Was Randolphs reference to TWO frames wrong? Would it really be hidden between the engine shed and corrugated hut and therefore why no photographs exist?
• If there was a second frame, then why the long run beside the engine shed? 
• Did the single run past the engine shed operate Point 2 with an economical FPL.
• Could the frame operate ONLY the FPLs, but then where are the levers to operate the points?

 

So many questions!

 

Basically, there are so many possible solutions, and no clear answer from the photographs, that I've decided to model something that matches as many photos as possible within the confines of the layout.  If further photographic evidence or a diagram surfaces, that'll give me the justification to adjust it.  But until something concrete comes to light, the point rodding will be a best attempt within the given facts.  (Hence my earlier quote from Mr Waterman). 

 

If anyone does have photographs that answers the outstanding questions, or has a signalling diagram then let me know, as I would dearly love to make sure the rodding was correct, even though I know the cross over is wrong (That'll serve me right for twisting the plan back in 2016 because "it looked nicer that way")

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Chris Chewter

[RailWest]

29 minutes ago, Chris Chewter said:

Just to expand, and hopefully not going over the old ground back in June:

 

The Facts:

• It is know there is a two lever frame by Point 7
• A single run of rodding passes alongside the engine shed.
• A point rodding run goes from the engine shed to Point 2.  This also appears to also be a single run from the photos.
• Randolph mentions a second frame.  The location of which appears in no photographs.

The Mystery:

• How Point 6 is operated.  There is no apparent lever
• How Point 7 is operated. There is no apparent lever
• It is presumed that Point 2 is operated from the rodding, as there is not apparent lever.
• It is presumed that Point 3 is operated from the rodding, as there is no apparent lever. 
• Was there a second ground frame is, or if it even existed!  Was Randolphs reference to TWO frames wrong? Would it really be hidden between the engine shed and corrugated hut and therefore why no photographs exist?
• If there was a second frame, then why the long run beside the engine shed? 
• Did the single run past the engine shed operate Point 2 with an economical FPL.
• Could the frame operate ONLY the FPLs, but then where are the levers?

So many questions!

 

Basically, there are so many possible solutions, and no clear answer from the photographs, that I've decided to model something that matches as many photos as possible within the confines of the layout.  If further photographic evidence or a diagram surfaces, that'll give me the justification to adjust it.  But until something concrete comes to light, the point rodding will be a best attempt within the given facts.  (Hence my earlier quote from Mr Waterman). 

 

If anyone does have photographs that answers the outstanding questions, or has a signalling diagram then let me know, as I would dearly love to make sure the rodding was correct, even though I know the cross over is wrong (That'll serve me right for twisting the plan back in 2016 because "it looked nicer that way")

 

Hmm, where to start :-)

 

There were THREE GFs at Tetbury. I'm not sure if they were called North/Middle/South or East/Middle/West, but let's use the former for convenience.

 

Point 7 was worked by hand. Admittedly I have failed so far to spot the point lever in any photos, but its context allows us to assume that with certainty. Given its proximity to the North GF then it may well have been one of those levers which lie down flat normally, so as not to get in the way of the GF operator.

 

North GF had 2 levers and was sited next to point 7, but had nothing to do with that point all. It was simply the most convenient location nearest to point 3 and minimised the double-rod run. Two rods ran from that GF to point 3, one for the point and the other for the FPL - all of that can be seen in photos. The point lever also controlled a single rod run which ran to work point 6 on part of the route you've marked in red, so that 3 and 6 worked in unison. A careful study of photos will show that this rod run did not go all the way alongside the ES.

 

Middle GF had 2 levers and was sited on the outside of the run-round loop (directly?) opposite point 2.  Randolph mentions this location in the caption to one of his photos: although the actual GF can not be seen (unless the photo was 'cropped' for publication) its location can be confirmed by studying the rod-runs. Similar to North GF, there was a double-rod run from Middle across under the loop to work point 2 and its FPL. The point lever also worked a single rod run which went along the outside of the loop and part the way only alongside the ES, before turning to cross under the loop and the main line to work point 4. 

 

In other words, there were two separate 1-rod runs along side the ES, one from one end and one from the other end, but they served different purposes, originated from different GFs, and did not meet in the middle.

 

South GF was a 1-lever affair on the outside of the run-round loop near to the trailing point at the dead-end of the platform line. Whether it was a 'true' GF unlocked by the train-staff, or just a hand-lever, or changed from one to the other at some date is unclear.

 

The situation on the model is complicated by the fact that point 7 is much further away from the station relative to point 3 than in reality. If you follow the prototype practice, then the North GF needs to be moved closer to the ES so as to minimise the 2-rod run to point 3 by putting it as close as possible across the ES road from that point - but then, of course, it 'looks' in a different place relative to point 7.

 

Hope that clarifies a few things :-)

Edited November 26, 2020 by RailWest

[Chris Chewter]

One of the problems is the photo below.  I'm struggling to explain where the rodding in this photograph is going.  There was a suggestion it could be some form of interlocking, but is this factual, or hypothetical?  I presume from your reasoning, this is operating Point 6?

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Chris Chewter

[RailWest]

No, that is the rodding from the Middle GF to point 4. It turns to the left and goes under the track somewhere in the vicinity of the down-pipe from the water tank.

 

There was no interlocking between the 3 GFs other than by virtue of the fact that, with only one train-staff, only one GF could be unlocked at any one time.

[Harlequin]

I think you can just about make out the levers of RailWest's Middle GF in Karau. It's always in the shade of the trees.

 

[RailWest]

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I think you can just about make out the levers of RailWest's Middle GF in Karau. It's always in the shade of the trees.

 

I haven't got that particular volume of Karau, only a copy of his track-plan :-(

[RailWest]

Some GFs were sited parallel to the track, so that the operator stood facing the railway. Others were sited at right-angles to the track, so that the operator stood facing along the cess.

 

It is clear from the video clip that the North GF was in the latter category, with the operator facing Down the line towards the ES. But what, if anything, does the Karau photo tells us about the Middle GF please? My guess would be that it was at right-angles to the track, but such that the operator faced Up the line so as to be able to observe the points under his control.

[Chris Chewter]

The middle frame has always been a bit elusive.  I think its on P59 but its always unclear in print.

 

Below is the best photo I've ever got close to it.

 

[RailWest]

6 minutes ago, Chris Chewter said:

The middle frame has always been a bit elusive.  I think its on P59 but its always unclear in print.

 

Below is the best photo I've ever got close to it.

 

In which case, I'm fairly confident that it was as I had guessed, namely a mirror version of the arrangement at North.

[Chris Chewter]

Thank you. That's been really helpful.

 

So as far as I understand it, we have this arrangement, which seems plausible based on the photos, and Randolphs descriptions etc.

 

 

That'll keep me busy this weekend sorting out points 2 and 4.

 

The problem is, I really don't want to shift the North frame due to photographic reasons. I'll have to give it a bit of thought.

 

[RailWest]

6 minutes ago, Chris Chewter said:

Thank you. That's been really helpful.

 

So as far as I understand it, we have this arrangement, which seems plausible based on the photos, and Randolphs descriptions etc.

 

 

That'll keep me busy this weekend sorting out points 2 and 4.

 

The problem is, I really don't want to shift the North frame due to photographic reasons. I'll have to give it a bit of thought.

 

>>>So as far as I understand it, we have this arrangement, which seems plausible based on the photos, and Randolphs descriptions etc.

 

Yes, that's it as far as I can determine from the photos etc :-)

 

>>>The problem is, I really don't want to shift the North frame due to photographic reasons. I'll have to give it a bit of thought.

 

Fair enough, in which case leave it where it is, just remove the short rod going to point 7, have two rods going to points 3 and one of them continuing to point 6. 

 

Which brings me on to the next issue....

 

[RailWest]

The usual arrangement for such basic GFs was two levers. Lever 1 (the LH one) would normally be for the FPL and painted BLUE, lever 2 (the RH one) would normally be for the point and painted BLACK. Sometime, but not often,  the functions were reversed (ie 1 was points, 2 was FPL) if it proved easier to do the installation like that for some reason.

 

So....your North GF needs one of its levers re-painted :-) But which one? Well, when you come to adjust the rod-runs, I suspect that you may find it easier to have the run to the FPL on 3 closer to the track than the run to point 3 and point 6, in which case the North GF could be one of those 'exceptions' to the normal arrangement.

 

So you could have a situation where the configuration of North GF is a mirror-image of Middle GF, as the latter fits the normal convention more easily.

 

But without any official diagrams, no-one will be any the wiser ...:-)

[Chris Chewter]

Yes, I did think that, but in the film still of the ground frame I posted earlier today, they both appear black. I did wonder if it was just really bad cine film!

[RailWest]

Having finally managed to dig out my copy of Dunn's book on GWR Box Nameplates, I find that the plates for the three GFs were ordered on 8-Mar-1926 as 'TETBURY NORTH GROUND FRAME', '.......SOUTH......' and '........STATION...'. Which leaves the tricky question of which one was South and which one was Station?

 

Well, the order notes indicate that the plates for North and Station were of the flat S20 type intended to be fixed to GF 'covers' (ie the huts), whereas that for South was specified as the free-standing S20 type designed for ground-level installation. One old photo in the book suggests that North GF did indeed have a 'cover' at one time and my guess would be that, if only one of the other two GFs had a cover, then it would be the 'Middle' one. So on that basis therefore it would appear that the GFs were North/Station/South in that order coming down the line.

 

Of course, it is always possible that one or more of them got renamed at some time, WR were good at that....

 

Who said 2-lever GFs were simple ? :-)

Edited November 26, 2020 by RailWest

[Chris Chewter]

Whilst looking through Randolph on Lunch, I found the middle frame on p53.

 

So that’s the Station frame

 

Still trying to find a better shot of the South frame.

 

 

I’ll have to keep searching.

[Harlequin]

Here's one:

https://twitter.com/RHummBooks/status/1246754472241569792/photo/1

 

As RailWest suggested, it looks like the lever is parallel to the track and connected to the points by a crank.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Harlequin

[RailWest]

11 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Here's one:

https://twitter.com/RHummBooks/status/1246754472241569792/photo/1

 

As RailWest suggested, it looks like the lever is parallel to the track and connected to the points by a crank.

 

Looking at that photo, and the vehicles in the station approach road, what sort of date would you put to it? Looks quite old to me...

 

[RailWest]

21 hours ago, Chris Chewter said:

I removed the lever because of this video still below. The photo shows just two levers and nothing serving the point into the engine shed.  Whilst I agree that it would be logical the point would be hand worked, I don't understand why its not in the image below.

 

Looking more closely at this now, I wonder if the lever for point 7 was one of those 'throw over' sort with a big weight around the shaft of the handle and might be the dark item which I've circled here? Is there a link to the video from which you clip was taken please?

 

[RailWest]

The photo at the bottom of p44 in Randolph shows the West GF at Culkerton and IMHO would give a pretty good idea of how the North and Station GFs looked like at Tetbury (even if it is hard tell to Blue paint from Black!). Given that the GFs at Tetbury were installed at a much later date than Culkerton then it is possible that were slight differences in style, but generally not much.

 

Looking at your photos of the model one for North, my first impression was that it looked a bit too 'shiny and modern', especially with what appears to be some form of chequer-plate (?) in the area where the operator would stand - more likely IMHO to be worn concrete or rather tatty timber by that time :-) I doubt that BR would have wasted money on a H&S upgrade in those days......

 

Incidentally, having now also unearthed a copy of the relevant page from Cooke's 'Track Plans' book, I see that he too lists the GF sequence as North/Station/ South.

Edited November 27, 2020 by RailWest

[MrWolf]

3 hours ago, RailWest said:

Looking at that photo, and the vehicles in the station approach road, what sort of date would you put to it? Looks quite old to me...

 

 

The car headed towards the camera looks to be an Austin Heavy Twelve saloon. The wheels (under a magnifying glass) have large chrome hubcaps, which came in with the wire type wheels that replaced Artillery wheels c1932. So I would say not earlier than that. The truck I am not sure about, could be the back end of a mechanical horse? 1933/4 rings a bell for those.

[RailWest]

Meanwhile, having looked even more closely at the Humm photo, I have realised now that the 'cover' (hut) for the Station GF is clearly visible - see attachment. Interesting therefore to get confirmation that the GWR were still covering such small GFs as late as the mid-1920s. The nameplate would have been fixed on the side wall facing the track.

[MrWolf]

Well spotted! Interesting also to see the evergreens and box hedging opposite the platform instead of behind it.

[RailWest]

This is a crop from a 1958 photo showing the SOUTH GF at Tetbury.

 

There appears never to have been a trap-point at the south end of the run-round loop, so the engine release point always lay normally set for the loop in order to protect the platform line from any run-aways and the end section of the platform line – where it was grass-covered – would not have been passed for passenger train use. It is clear from the linkage between GF and point that this was a ‘slotted joint’ installation.

 

When a train arrived in the platform the engine could uncouple and move forward over the point, the ‘slotted joint’ allowing it to push the point over against a spring. Once the wheels of the engine were clear of the toe of the point blades, the point would spring back set for the loop again, so the engine could reverse into the loop without the need to work the GF. However if the engine ever needed to move in the opposite direction, ie going from the loop to the dead-end spur and then back into the platform road, then – once the engine was in the spur – the GF would be unlocked and the lever pulled in order to set the point for the platform line.

 

In most cases therefore a passenger train could arrive, run-round, and depart again without any need to work the South GF at all (but of course the Station GF still had to be worked). This has been confirmed by one of my contacts who observed a run-round at Tetbury on one occasion.