Turnchapel Branch

[Nearholmer]

Dave

 

What marvellous information - many thanks.

 

Kevin

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 5 shows a drawing of the Hooe Lake viaduct in profile. Two particularly good Mike Roach photographic references of the bridge in profile have been made available on the Cornwall Railway Society site [> Devon Galleries > Turnchapel and Yealmpton], with one of these dated at Sep-1961.

 

The bridge comprised two fixed outer spans and a central span that opened by 90-deg clockwise rotation to park on dolphins in the navigation channel of The Cut into Hooe Lake (refer to Figure 1 in previous posting). [More to follow on the dolphins in another post.]

 

The drawing in Figure 5 is linked to correspondence from the BR Western Region engineer (N S Cox) in 1961 concerning dismantling of the viaduct after closure of the Turnchapel Branch [archived in Plymouth and West Devon Record Office file (PWDRO): PCC/45/1/3501]. It defines the length of the bridge with distances of 91-ft 0-in between parapet faces and outer span pier centre lines and a distance of 100-ft 9-in for the central span.

 

The drawing, dated 19.1.1962 and marked ‘not to scale’, must have derived from an early original plan for the bridge because a wall flanking the outer span where it rested on the parapet top is shown at the right hand end.  Both ends of the bridge originally exhibited these features, but the masonry is only seen in the very earliest images of the bridge. It was cut down to a low wall at both ends relatively early on. Thus, looking at the Bayly’s end of the Nov-1940 photographic profile in Kevin’s Jan-13 post, you’ll see that the wall has been cut down. The masonry was likely dressed limestone, perhaps similar to that shown in the inset in Figure 5.

 

The trestles used to strengthen the outer spans are not shown in Figure 5. Engineer’s correspondence in PWDRO PCC/45/1/3501 indicates that the military trestles were installed in 1957/1958. [More to follow on the trestles in another post.]

 

National Archives record MT 10/639 has correspondence between the Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Co and the Board of Trade concerning construction of the bridge. This spans 26-Apr-1894 to 22-Jun-1984, with assent for construction being granted by the Board. The correspondence refers to plans that accompanied the letters but that are not themselves included in the National Archives file. Copies were sent to the Duchy of Cornwall for approval, as the foreshore in The Cut was owned by the Duchy.

 

National Archives record CRES 58/553 has records relating to Stokes Bay (Gosport), Oyster Pool Lake and Hooe Lake: railway and pier. I’ve not accessed this material but have wondered whether the Hooe Lake viaduct plans were mixed up and bundled with the Stokes Bay railway information on filing (unless there is another Hooe Lake near Portsmouth!).

 

Surprisingly, in the original assent from the Board of Trade (MT 10/639/1), construction of the viaduct was meant to have been completed by 2-Aug-1894, although a margin note on the letter stating that indicated this was to be extended (extension period not specified).

 

A legal document included in PWDRO PCC/45/1/3501 (dated 30-Dec-1895) conveyed the relevant section of The Cut (marked in red in the inset of Figure 5) to the Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Co for the consideration of a sum of £9 paid to the Duchy of Cornwall.

 

Derby-based Andy Savage added a comment to a very early photograph of the bridge, posted in local Plymouth historian Derek Tait’s flickr stream (www.flickr.com/photos/webrarian/719234096/in/photostream/), indicating that bridge metalwork was produced by the Phoenix Foundry Company Limited of Derby.

 

I’ve not found more detailed engineering plans of the bridge but will post additional dimensions relating to its width and some guesswork about its structure informed by photographic evidence and the structure of Laira Bridge presently.

 

If anyone else is aware of bridge plans, it would be great to share that information.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 6 shows a photograph of the bridge parapet on Barton Road over which the viaduct entered Turnchapel Station. This was taken in Sep-2010; the parapet has now been demolished for the new housing estate mentioned in earlier posts.

 

The width of parapet itself was 250-in (6.34 m).

 

Based on old photographs of the bridge end viewed from the station my guess is that the width of the bridge outer span sides was 24-in. I’ve since measured the end posts on Laira Bridge over the River Plym (similar era), and those were exactly 24”.

 

My best guess is that overall width of the bridge was 18-ft 0-in, giving an internal clearance of 14-ft 0-in. Allowing for a clearance of 1-in on both sides of the bridge, this would mean that the walls flanking each side atop the abutment would need to be 16-in in width. That would add up to a total width for the parapet face of 250-in, as measured.

 

Plymouth and West Devon Record Office (PWDRO) has a file (982/31) with a plan for new dolphins, dating from 1927 I think. In that drawing there is an outline profile of the central span of the swing bridge. Based on scale measurement in that drawing the width of the central span of the bridge also appears to be exactly 18-ft. [More to follow on the dolphins in another post, inc. dimensions.]

 

Noticeable on the parapet face in Figure 6 are black tar stains. Possibly these derive from the great fire in Nov-1940. When the oil fuel tanks exploded, burning fuel reportedly erupted 300 ft into the air, with oil boiling over from the compound into the station. It ran onto the bridge in one direction, setting fire to it, and in the other direction flowed along the track to the tunnel entrance under Boringdon Road (refer to Figure 1 in earlier post). The burning oil cascaded over the grassy bank, which ran parallel along the passing loop, and into the Air Ministry sidings; it poured down onto Barton Road, into The Cut and set fire to Bayly’s on the other side. An interesting account of the incident was recorded on the BBC history website by Mrs Mary Gamble, who, as a young girl, lived in Turnchapel. [www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/82/a4664982.shtml]

 

Also noticeable in the parapet are fixing holes for what I believe to be a notice board. I think it’s just possible to make out a notice board under the bridge in the ‘Atlantic Wall’ photograph of the site in Nov-1940. [www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/07/world-war-ii-the-battle-of-britain/100102/ scroll down to photograph 8].

 

The sloping wing of the abutment is not visible in Figure 6. It’s behind the chain link fence and overgrown. The station steps were located to the right of that again.

 

A good photo of the wing abutment is in Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch book on page 149. The photo (from 1980) is now held in the PWDRO: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search Turnchapel. Scroll through the results pages to find the image under the following reference number:  PCC/76/5/8889

 

The only photo I can find that shows the station steps themselves is in Kingdom on page 27. This dates to 1959 and shows the bridge in its open state viewed from the Bayly’s side with the steps in the background. Would be great to know if anyone else has located clearer photographic information.

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

Not easy without the engineering plans, but Figure 7 is my best guess at structural detail for the bridge end at Turnchapel Station.

 

Text and numbers are small in Figure 7, but hopefully anybody interested will be able to click on the image and zoom in or download it to see.

 

There are a number of useful photographic references showing detail of the bridge from inside as well as the station end. A particularly useful one is in Bernard Mills’ Steam Around Plymouth on page 119. This shows the Plymouth Railway Circle brake van special from Friary on 30-Sep-1961 pulling in to Turnchapel just as it reaches the Turnchapel end of the bridge.

 

Some of the guesswork in Figure 7 is based on that photograph.

 

Again, would be great if anyone else has more information to share about the bridge structure.

 

[Dave_Hooe]

When considering the structure of the Hooe Lake swing bridge outer spans, it may be helpful to add a little comparative detail from Laira Bridge over the River Plym. This has recently been restored as a cycle and walkway and is therefore open for survey.

 

Like Turnchapel, the Laira Bridge spans feature 12 lattice crosses, but there are significant differences in the structure. A brief survey of one end of Laira Bridge is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

 

The Laira Bridge sides are exactly 24-in in width, which I suspect was also the case at Turnchapel. However, the Laira spans are longer and therefore the cross dimensions are larger, resulting (I think) in taller sides and with the Laira track bed raised on lateral girders (in contrast to arched beams on the Hooe Lake bridge).

 

Moreover, the internal width between the sides of Laira Bridge, measured at 15-ft 7-in, is larger than proposed in the previous postings for Turnchapel: Figures 6 and 7, estimated to have been 14-ft 0-in.  I suppose that the greater width in Laira Bridge would be required to provide clearance associated with the curvature of the bridge (see Figure 8).

 

Comments welcome from anyone with greater engineering prowess than me!

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

I don’t want to divert the thread of this discussion from Kevin’s initial focus on Turnchapel, but there is an interesting feature in Laira Bridge that may have particular relevance to the swing bridge leading into Turnchapel Station.

 

Some of the spans had different length sides with ends that were not square on. This was to accommodate bridge curvature. It’s not drawn accurately in Figure 8, although there is a comment there to that effect.

 

This difference in overall side length manifests itself in different lengths for the upright posts at the ends of spans that sit atop the piers. Presumably the cross dimensions, which effectively define the height of the bridge sides, remain the same on both sides.

 

The significance of this is not to do with curvature in the Hooe Lake swing bridge, since that bridge appears to have been perfectly linear, but in relation to how the central span opened.

 

Available photographs taken inside the bridge seem to show a closely fit straight junction between the outer spans and the moveable central span (i.e. not curved to accommodate central span rotation). Presumably the span ends over the piers in The Cut would therefore need to be angled, as per Figure 10, to allow opening of the bridge. If that were the case, then perhaps the post uprights in the fixed span ends were unequal in length on the two sides of the fixed spans (cf Laira).

 

Not sure how much asymmetry in side length may have been required for opening where the central span is about 100-ft in length with a bridge width of 18-ft … estimate made in Figure 10.

 

Comments on swing bridge design from any engineers out there welcome!

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

Moving on to the Hooe Lake bridge trestles… As mentioned previously, these seem to have been installed around 1957/1958 to strengthen the outer spans.

 

The concrete piles that supported the trestles are still there to be seen on both sides of The Cut. Figure 11 shows a rough pass survey on the Barton Road side together with an attempt to model the trestles in 2mm scale.

 

Since doing this rough survey, detailed site survey information for Barton Road and the parapet area has now become available in the 11/01250/FUL planning files (previously discussed).

 

I have also done a more detailed structural survey of the concrete trestle piles (next post), but there are a few points to draw out from the rough survey here.

 

The width across Barton Road at the right hand end of the parapet was about 8.4 m. There’s a grassy verge from the edge of the road that drops down to a concrete ledge (this is also marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey). The concrete ledge was perhaps a retaining wall installed to prevent subsidence of the road and quay edge crashing into the bridge support. At the point of measurement, the width of the verge to the outside edge of the concrete ledge was 2.45 m and from there to the quay wall (which is partially broken down) was 1.72 m. The distance from the concrete edge to the horizontal girder between the bridge piers, which was measured with a bit of slightly stretchy fishing line and a weight, was 16.0 m.  The total distance from the parapet wall to the centre point of the bridge piers was estimated to be about 27 m or 88.5-ft, reasonably consistent with 91-ft distance of Figure 5 that came to light a year or two later.

 

As another small detail, the square top of the concrete piles is roughly level with the surface of Barton Road.

 

There are plenty of modern day pictures of the trestle piles and remaining bridge piers available online in various photostreams.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

For a more detailed survey of the Hooe Lake swing bridge trestle piles, see Figures 12-15 attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave_Hooe]

Apologies for the swamp of posts this weekend folks. Hope some of the info will be useful.

 

Will likely be radio-silence from me for a week or two now, as head down with work.

 

I have some more info still to share on the bridge dolphins and hopefully we can then 'leave the bridge and pull into the station itself'.

 

Best wishes, Dave

Edited April 9, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[olivegreen]

Apologies for the swamp of posts this weekend folks. Hope some of the info will be useful.

 

Will likely be radio-silence from me for a week or two now, as head down with work.

 

I have some more info still to share on the bridge dolphins and hopefully we can then 'leave the bridge and pull into the station itself'.

 

Best wishes, Dave

 

No need to apologise - this is great stuff, Dave. many thanks again for sharing the information.

Mike

[DavidLong]

Kevin,

 

I seem to recall a 7mm scale model of a portion of the Turnchapel branch in LSWR days. It featured the bridge and the area to the east of it. I am fairly certain that it was featured in BRM but can't recall the date, probably post-2000. If I turn out my copies I may find it.

 

David

 

The good news, Kevin, is that I found the issue of BRM (September 2005) but the bad news is that the layout is called 'Laira Bridge' which is just before the junction for the Turnchapel branch! A nice layout but not very helpful to your project. Sorry!

 

By the way, just in case you are interested, there are some photos of the layout here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13176

Scroll down past some other excellent layouts at the Wigan show 2007.

 

David

Edited April 10, 2017 by DavidLong

[Dave_Hooe]

Just to add to David's preceding post... There is also David Mallott’s compact Chapel Wharf layout in 2mm scale, inspired by the Admiralty coaling and oiling depot at Turnchapel Wharves (but not encompassing Turnchapel Station) [www.2mm.org.uk/layouts/chapelwharf/index.htm]. 

[Dave_Hooe]

To continue with information relating to the Hooe Lake swing bridge that led into the station, there is a (rather delicate) 1927 scale drawing for replacement dolphins in the Plymouth and West Devon record Office (PWDRO record 982/31). The drawing is (surprisingly) bundled with plans linked to Devonport Tramways, although there is no associated correspondence or architect name to add context. However, it gives some useful dimension information that is reproduced in Figure 16.

 

The focus of the drawing is on the replacement dolphins, but an outline of the central span and pier are included in plan view and elevation. The dimensions of the central span itself appear to be exactly 100-ft by 18-ft; its sides are drawn with a width of 18-in, narrower than the 24-in width postulated for the fixed span sides in Figure 7.

 

One important detail in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing is that there is no longitudinal asymmetry on the central span and so the ‘scarfed’ junction between fixed and outer spans considered in the earlier posting (Figure 10) can be scrubbed. (See next post for more discussion on this.)

 

Scale measurements from the PWDRO 982/31 drawing set the column width for the central pier at 12-ft 0-in. It is topped by an octagonal plinth that appears to be 15-ft 0-in across and 12-in thick. The twin piers that support the ends of the outer, fixed spans are not shown in the drawing alas. These piers had a larger diameter cylindrical base topped by a narrower upper section with conical tapering at the junction. When surveying the trestle piles (Figure 15), I was unable to measure the circumference of the outer span piers, even at the lowest spring tide point, because the water around the pier base is too deep to wade. My estimate was that the pier bases might be around 6-ft in diameter. Based on additional analysis (next post), it is possible that the pier base diameter may have been a little larger (eg 75-in rather than 72-in).

 

The original dolphins were diamond shaped structures and enclosed in ‘box-like’ surround that ran all the way around both the dolphins and enclosed the bridge’s central pier. These are marked in dotted lines in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing. They appear to have been constructed with 12-in cross section vertical piles that supported 9-in cross-section horizontal beams. These were clad with a layer of waling planks (probably of 3-in thickness). A good picture of the original structure is in Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch book on page 46 (dated 1-Oct-1896 when the bridge was nearly new). At this point the waling planks were vertically aligned. By 1924 the vertical walings had been replaced by horizontally aligned boards. An old collector postcard with a photograph from H. C. Casserly gives excellent detail. This is available to see online: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search ‘Turnchapel Steam’; image available as 3893/15/18. The image shows that there was a ladder over the side of the central span allowing personnel to descend to a stage suspended beneath and thence, via further ladders, to a walkway running along the length of the dolphin enclosure. Additional ladders from the walkway up to the diamond-shaped dolphins are also seen. The PWDRO 3893/15/18 image also gives interesting detail of Bayly’s yard in the background.

 

The 1927 plan for replacement dolphins in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing shows a composite structure comprising 1-ft 2-in square cross section concrete piles with wooden bracing in two tiers. The structure of these dolphins appears to match available post-war photographic evidence except that the bracing was actually constructed in concrete. Possibly the PWDRO 982/31 plan was an early draft in a tendering process or perhaps the wooden bracing and associated metal fixing plates specified in the plan were temporary features to set up the structure pending installation of concrete braces. The plans indicate that the dolphin piles were to be driven into the channel bed initially as 40-ft lengths. The topmost 3-ft of these was then to be broken off and vertical extensions to be added with the bracing superstructure. In addition to the dolphins a diagonally braced concrete cage of apparently similar construction to the dolphins was added to protect the central pier when the original walings were removed. This cage around the central pier is not included in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing.

 

The bridge superstructure was dismantled in 1963, and a photo (dated 28-Oct-1963) of the operation in progress can be seen in Kingdom on page 67. This photo reveals the structure of the trestles supporting the outer spans in some detail. The dolphins and cage around the central pier remained for a further 30 years. They were eventually removed in 1993. Two photos of the dolphin demolition in progress are available online: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search (i) ‘P000086241’ (ii) ‘P000086242’. These show interesting detail of the structure and suggest that the slightly shallower 1-ft 0-in depth of the horizontal bracings drawn in the PWDRO 982/31 plan was translated into the fully concrete structure. Similarly the planned 1-ft 2-in by 10-in cross section of the diagonal braces appears to have been conserved. Another useful picture with dolphin and central cage detail, used in Kingdom’s book and also deposited in the PWDRO, dates from 1979: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search ‘P000095083’. See also photos on the Cornwall Railway Society site [www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/turnchapel-branch.html].

 

 

As a postscript to this post, a rather grainy and undated photograph on page 29 of the late Arthur Clamp's monograph, Hooe and Turnchapel Remembered, may capture the point at which replacement dolphin work was ongoing. The image shows the vertical wooden piles of the original dolphin and pier enclosure in place but with horizontal beams and waling boards removed. A scaffolding erection and ladder can be made out around the position of the upstream dolphin and what looks like possible wooden shuttering around one of the upright piles. This might be consistent with the instruction in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing for the extensions to be added to the initially driven piles.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

As noted above, the longitudinal symmetry to the central span (Figure 16, preceding post) indicates that the bridge was not constructed with the speculated ‘scarfed’ junction of Figure 10.

 

A plausible alternative, based on information from the PWDRO 982/31 drawing, is shown in Figure 17. The plan view of the central span in the open/swung state aligned with the dolphins is shown in the horizontal direction. (This is extracted from Figure 16.) Proposed detail for the span junction is shown in the vertical direction of Figure 17 (corresponding to the closed position of the central span.

 

In order for the 100-ft by 18-ft central span to open by rotation, a minimum clearance of 3.8-in would be required to pass the inside edge of the fixed span end post. If this was set to a 4.5-in clearance in practice and if the fixed span ends were aligned to the outer pier centrelines, then the total pier-to-pier centreline spacing would be {4.5-in + 100-ft 0-in + 4.5-in}, thus precisely matching the distance of 100-ft 9-in specified in the Figure 5 drawing.

 

Minimising the rail gap between moveable and fixed spans requires the central span rails to extend close to the turning circle (large blue dashed circle in Figure 17).  Another Kingdom book photograph (from page 27) deposited in the PWDRO and available online shows detail for the rail junction:  PWDRO, search ‘P000095078’. The span ends at the junction do not appear to be curved. Instead the photograph shows two straight square cut metal floor plates more or less flush with the ends of the massive longitudinal timbers that host the bridge rail chairs. I’ve estimated the cross section of the timbers as at 18-in by 8-in (wxd), perhaps over generously in the width estimate. With the outside points of the central span timbers at the turning circle limit and the leading edge centerline point of the fixed span metal plate also at the turning circle limit, then a minimum clearance gap of fractionally over 1.25-in would be required between the two opposing span ends, as highlighted in Figure 17. In practice the rail gap might be reduced to less than 1.25-in, if the rails themselves extend beyond the timber ends. Looking at the Kingdom book photograph (PWDRO reference P000095078), it may be that the timber bulks stopped a little short of the metal plate ends and the rails extended slightly beyond to provide a close fit.

 

In the 1894 Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Co correspondence to the Board of Trade (see above, National Archives record MT 10/639), a figure of 40-ft 0-in was cited for the opening in the navigation channel either side of the central bridge pier. If we assume that the outer pier centrelines were located exactly beneath the fixed span end post limits (Figure 17, dark brown) and take the waling enclosure to be 14-ft 6-in (as drawn for the original bridge in PWDRO 982/31), then an outer span pier base diameter of 75-in would provide the navigation channel clearance of exactly 40-ft 0-in. A figure of 75-in for the pier base diameter is close to a visual estimate of 6-ft (72-in) made during a site visit to survey the trestle piles.

 

With currently available information, the diameter of the outer pier bases remains uncertain, although something in the range 72-in to 75-in seems probable.

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 18 shows an attempt to model the Hooe Lake swing bridge post-1927 dolphins in 2 mm scale. These were constructed before the PWDRO 982/31 drawing came to light with the information now shared in Figures 16 and 17. The models were constructed simply from 2 mm square cross section styrene lengths smeared with a light layer of Polyfilla to add texture and then painted and weathered.

 

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 19 and Figure 20 show an attempt to model the Hooe Lake swing bridge central span in 2 mm scale including the cage around the central pier and suspended maintenance platform. Photos of the prototype show two prominent lateral girders on the underside of the central bridge span above the pier just inside the stanchions from which the maintenance gantries were suspended eg in local historian Chris Robinson’s book, Plymouth then&now | Plymouth – an ever evolving city, page 149

 

If anyone has further information about bridge prototype dimensions, it would be great to post that. The dimensions and spacing of the outer twin piers remain unclear at present. From photographs, the top of the lower, larger cylinders (at the junction with the conical sections) appears to be approximately level with the tops of the concrete piles (Figure 15) that carried the supporting trestles for the outer spans, and these in turn were approximately level with the Barton Road surface in front of the station parapet.

 

Available photographs also suggest that the diameter of the narrower, upper cylindrical section of the outer piers was 75% of the diameter of the larger, lower section. So if the lower cylinder was 6-ft in diameter, the upper cylinder might have been 4-ft 6-in in diameter (which seems a nice round combination of figures). 

 

 

[Dave_Hooe]

To summarise some of the information discussed so far, Figure 21 shows a suggested prototype outline for the fixed span on the Turnchapel Station side according to my current best guess. (Please feel free to dissent!)

 

The parapet to pier centreline distance cited in Figure 5 is 91-ft 0-in. A plausible way to achieve this span with 12 crosses would be:

·      2-ft 0-in end post on parapet;

·      first cross beginning 6” out from parapet;

·      12 crosses at 7-ft 4-in spacing;

·      another 6-in gap;

·      and finally a 2-ft 0-in end post over the pier top.

 

A 4.5” clearance gap would be required between this end post (Figure 21 plan view insert, dark brown) and the start of the centre span side girder (Figure 21 plan view insert, dark blue).

 

The side lengths of the central span would be 100-ft 0-in, but the spacing between the two outer pier sets would be 100-ft 9-in.

 

[brianusa]

All this is amazing!  When I lived in the area, I just knew it as a passenger on the train and a cyclist on my way to Bovisand.  Later when home on holidays, we used to park above Jennycliff and enjoy the view. I've learned more about it subsequently from this and other similar sources,

 

Brian.

[Nearholmer]

Dave

 

The information that you've collated is astonishing!

 

The layout that you must, surely, be inching towards building is going to be superb.

 

The addition of the trestle is interesting, and, based on your numbers, not hugely surprising. A lot depends upon train weight and other factors, but I was taught that a good rule of thumb for two girders supporting a track is that the span should be in the order of eight times the depth of the girders, to avoid undue deflection....... and 91ft is roundly twelve times 7ft 6in, which suggests that, even with low axle loads, this one might have been a bit bouncy. I wonder if the trestle was added when normality returned after the war, and the district engineer woke-up to the weight of the oil tankers going across it.

 

Kevin

[Dave_Hooe]

Thanks for bearing with me chaps. Very interesting comment about the span to girder depth, Kevin!

 

Although it’s not so relevant to the prototype discussion, Figure 22 shows a loosely assembled mock up of the bridge in 2mm scale. That’s more or less as far as I’ve reached with modelling attempts alas -- no track on it. Realistically it may also be as far as I am able to get, since I will be faced with a steep learning curve on scratch building track and an O2 to run on it!  This is one reason why I’m keen to upload information on this forum in the hope that it will stimulate others to take Turnchapel on.

 

But returning to your comment about oil tankers, Kevin, perhaps that’s a good cue to pick up on in the next post with some detail of the Air Ministry sidings … an excellent photograph of these coming in the next post, one that may strike a resonance with Brian’s memories of the Turnchapel Station site.

 

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 23a is a photograph (1997-7219_RJS_BW_1) from the National Railway Museum’s R J Sellick collection, mentioned in an earlier post, that gives one of the clearest perspectives over the Air Ministry sidings (foreground), Turnchapel Station site and the Bayly’s yard across The Cut (mid ground). The National Railway Museum/Science and Society Picture Library have kindly granted permission to post the image on this forum to stimulate discussion.

 

In this picture the small station building on the platform has been removed, indicating that it was taken after the station was closed to passenger use on 10th September 1951. The supporting trestles have not yet been installed underneath the bridge outer span however, and so the picture must predate 1957/58.

 

Our site map in Figure 1 (see earlier post) shows the approximate position from which the photograph was taken on the cliff top above Hooe Lake Quarry. This is shown with the black arrow marked ‘NRM Sellick photo’ in Figure 1.

 

An annotated version of the image will be included in the next post to help draw out some key features.

 

[Dave_Hooe]

To expand features in the NRM Sellick 1997-7219_RJS_BW_1 photograph, an annotated version (Figure 23b) is attached here, cross referencing to the notes in the key below.

 

 

Figure 23b key:

 

[A] Admiralty fuel oil storage compound.  If there’s interest, more detail can be added in future posts –– history, tank construction and dimensions, suggested reference photographs, accounts of the WW2 bombing etc. The corner visible here hosted oil tank ‘F’ (cf. Figure 1). A local newspaper account notes the discovery of a 500 lb bomb tail section during post-war clean up of the site in June 1950 (presumably predating the Sellick photograph by at least a year). This may possibly have been the bomb that made a direct strike on tank ‘E’ or tank ‘F’ on the evening of 27-Nov-1940.

 

BOMB FIN FOUND: Workmen uncover war relic at Turnchapel. An R.N. bomb disposal squad from H.M.S. Defiance was called to Turnchapel yesterday, where workmen had uncovered part of a bomb. Employees of H.M. Dockyard were cleaning the compound which formerly enclosed oil. During the war a high explosive bomb hit one tank and the whole compound caught fire. The squad dug around the body, and seeing it to be only part of a bomb, it was removed from the hole. It was identified as the tailend a 500-pounder. [Western Morning News (Saturday, June 3, 1950)]

 

Concrete blocks with iron hoops.  These look like the sort of blocks used (I believe) to tether Sunderland flying boats on the slipways outside the RAF Mount Batten hangars (further along the Cattewater).

 

[C] Chain link fence.  As originally built, and at the time of the bombing in Nov-1940, there was only a handrail around the top of the concrete bund. Instead of the chain link fence seen in the Sellick picture, a 7-ft iron spear fence ran right around the perimeter atop the retaining wall of Undercliff and Barton Roads, beside the station steps and over the grassy bank between platform and bund. This is visible in several early photos of Turnchapel Station and in many of the wartime firefighting pictures. The position of the fence is clearly marked in a 1911 Admiralty map (National Archives ADM 140/1484) –– more information to come from that in a later post.

 

[D] Post-bombing replacement signal box.

 

[E] Pre-war signal box position. The original was destroyed in Nov-1940 bombing and subsequent fire –– more on this later perhaps.

 

[F] Site of station building.

 

[G] Station platform.  Dimensions quoted in a surveyor’s notebook (1896-1906; PWDRO record: 1023/124) are: 3-ft height, 52-yds length, 3-yds width. The note book indicates construction with a masonry retaining wall and brick coping with a gravel top, features that are clearly seen in early photographs. Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch quotes a longer platform length of 175-ft. Seven under-platform alcoves are seen in the Sellick photo. These were not present as originally constructed. A photograph on p 205 in Mike Oakley’s Devon Railway Stations (The Dovecote Press) captures the point in 1939 when the platform was being modified to add these, which was also the point when the Air Ministry sidings were constructed. The photo in Mike Oakley’s book is one of only two or three pictures that show the pre-war signal box [E] and it also shows the spear fence on the bank above the platform, as mentioned in [C]. Prior to modification, the passing loop had single catches at both ends with point rodding running along the outside (south side). I have wondered whether the buffered double catch stub (not sure of correct terminology for this – but see blue track marked in Figure 1) was also first introduced during the 1939 modifications, possibly with the rodding transferred to the platform side at the same time. Or were those changes only made when the track and signal box were rebuilt in Dec-1940? It would be good to hear comments from others with greater knowledge of track and stations about what those under-platform alcoves might be.

 

[H] Grassy bank. Early photographs show that prior to the 1939 construction of the Air Ministry sidings a much higher, fence-topped bank separated the station at [H] from quarry workings just to the south. Local diary records capture the build up to the WW2 and indicate that this bank was cut down to make room for the Air Ministry sidings commencing in April of that year:

“Wimpey's of London commenced removal of rubble bank beside Turnchapel Station for construction of sidings, with the rubble used to bury the Radford oil tanks.” (Apr-1939 diary extract from Henry J. Hurrell)

The Radford oil tanks were located just to the south east of Hooe Lake (off scale on the Figure 1 site map) and connected via a pipeline.

For photographic detail of the high pre-1939 bank between the station and quarry site (before installation of the Air Ministry sidings) see:

• two photographs on page 55 of Anthony Kingdom's Turnchapel Branch 
• four photographs on pages 239 and 240 of The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve (Irwell Press, 2016 / 2nd edition)

 

Up starter signal post.

 

[J] Station steps down to Barton Road.  Surveyor’s notebook (1896-1906; PWDRO record: 1023/124) indicates 28 steps; 1911 Admiralty map (National Archives ADM 140/1484) marks two flights quite clearly.

 

[K1/K2] Oil tanker loading / off loading gantries. These correspond to the two black lines between sidings marked in the Air Ministry compound on the Figure 1 site map and would probably have been prominently visible from the station platform. (Brian may be able to comment from memory.) Photographs where glimpses of the gantries can be seen (mostly without much detail) are found in:

Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch on p 29

Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch on p 27 (accessible online, PWDRO search P000095076 and P000095078)

Gerald Wasley’s Plymouth – a Shattered City on p 77

Bernard Mill’s Then & Now: Backtracking Around Friary, Laira, and the Plym on p 102

 

[L] Gang planks. Presumably hinged at the base and folding out to allow access to the top of the tanker wagons.

 

[M] Pump house.  The location of this pump house is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. More on this (including photographic detail and dimensions) in a later post.

 

[N] Toilet? Again location of this is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts.

 

[O] Steps down to Barton Road. Marked in some maps.

 

[P] Quarry gate. Position also marked in 11/01250/FUL. Photographic detail available to upload in later posts along with features around the Admiralty fuel oil compound and Barton Road etc.

 

[Q] Spear fence along Barton Road. Road surface was concrete – possibly added by US military during WW2.

 

[R] Buried oil tank. Tank ‘2’ marked on our site map of Figure 1. Tanks ‘1’-‘3’ of Figure 1, probably wartime additions, were linked to another lineside pump house that still stands today (within a private garden) on the former track route to Turnchapel Wharves. More details later.

 

Upstream dolphin.

 

[T] Timber elevator? The location of the break in the quay wall (now filled in) can still be seen today.

 

Track connection to branch line. Connection was to the west of the station with a turnout installed on the line to Turnchapel Wharves at the time the sidings were constructed in 1939. The position of a gate across the entrance to the sidings can be found in the 11/01250/FUL site survey. In that site survey a wire mesh fence is marked (FWM) which corresponds to the straight Air Ministry compound wall, shown in the Sellick photo running upwards from the bottom of the photograph past the pump house towards Barton Road. A Sep-1961 photograph of the gate across the Air Ministry sidings entrance can be found in Mitchell and Smith’s Branch Lines Around Plymouth (photograph No 96), which also shows catch point detail, albeit with the track slightly overgrown.

 

[V] Remodelled bank section. After branch closure and removal of the station and sidings, section [V] of the bank between the station and Admiralty compound was cut through to allow conversion of the compound for civil petrochemical use. The cut through section can be seen in the photograph of Figure 2, prior to site clearance for the recent 11/01250/FUL housing development.

 

I’ll try to add further detail and additional photographic information for relevant aspects keyed above in future posts.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

Figure 24 shows my current best guess in relation to the Turnchapel Station platform dimensions. This is based on a 175-ft arc length for the front edge of the platform –– see note [G] in preceding post. Distances marked along the platform in blue (if they can be made out in small print) are length estimates in decimal feet units, based in part of the Sellick photograph of Figure 23. The line gradient quoted from working regulations in Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch is 1 in 80 falling from the signal box to Turnchapel Wharves. There was a single catch at the western end of the passing loop with a sand drag in the platform line (marked in Figure 1 with a short turnout in the blue track plan). The stated 1 in 80 gradient seems to accord quite well with spot measurements in the previously mentioned 11/01250/FUL site survey prior to the housing development. I wonder if this means that the platform top itself would have been built with a gradient (e.g. as in Figure 25). In Figure 26 I’ve tried to correlate the platform length dimensions proposed in Figure 24 with the 11/01250/FUL site survey mapping so that the platform ends would correspond to features seen in photographic records. Scale estimates suggest a platform arc radius of the order of 316 m, although in reality the curvature may perhaps not have been uniform.  I know little about track and stations in general –– so comments/revisions welcome from all. Here’s a quotation from Anthony Kingdom’s book:

 

“WORKING AT TURNCHAPEL

ADMIRALTY WHARVES

When a train requires to run on to the Admiralty wharves at Turnchapel, the Porter Signalman at Turnchapel must first proceed to the wharves, obtain permission from the Admiralty authorities there for it to do so, and arrange for the gates across the single line, which are situated about 200 yards from the Turnchapel station, to be opened. He will then return to the station and accompany the train to the wharves, taking care that sufficient brake power is applied to safely control it.

OIL DEPOT SIDING

These sidings which are under the supervision of the Yard Master at Plymouth Friary, are situated on the down side, and are connected with the single line leading to the Admiralty Wharves. The siding connection is worked from the Signal Box.

The gradient of the platform line, loop and single line is 1 in 80 falling from the signal box to the Admiralty Wharves and attention is directed to the requirements of Rule 151. Wagons left standing on the loop or platform line must be placed on the signal box side of the catch points in those lines. Wagons must not be allowed to stand on the single line between the catch points and the Admiralty Wharves.

Catch points are provided in the siding connection at the clearance point with the single line.

A gate, the key of which is kept in the Signal Box, is provided at the Commission's boundary.

A gate, the key of which is kept by the Oil Depot representative, is also provided at the entrance to the sidings and before vehicles are worked to or from the sidings, the Shunter or person in charge must arrange for the gate to be opened by the Oil Depot representative. After completion of the work the Shunter or person in charge must advise the Oil Depot representative that the gate can be closed and locked.

The sidings are worked by shunting engine.

The Commission's engine must not proceed into the sidings beyond the engine restriction board situated at a point 15 yards inside the gate at the entrance to the sidings.”

 

 

 

[Dave_Hooe]

Sticking with the Air Ministry siding compound for now… although the sidings were cleared following complete closure of the branch line, the pump house itself (Figure 23b [M]) remained intact for many years, until it was demolished for the recent Barton Road housing development. Consequently, good photographic records are available for this building. My best estimates of building dimensions are summarised in Figure 27.  Figure 28 to Figure 36 are added to provide photographic detail for the pump house (minus machinery), photos taken in Dec-2012. Window and ventilation grill details are shown in Figure 28, pipework detail in Figure 29 and Figure 30. Figure 32 suggests that entrance was gated by a sliding door. The location of the pump house is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. You may be able to access a rotatable/zoomable model at the following Shapeways location (probably best click on the arrow to close the guideline information panel and expand the model pane): www.shapeways.com/model/3dtools/5450070/0/6?key=7a584f6cd1d51050f0033325f22b9b17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Dave_Hooe

[Dave_Hooe]

To expand a further detail from the Sellick photograph (Figure 23b), the small building at site [N] is shown in Figure 37, again photographed in Dec-2012 prior to site clearance for the housing development. The location of this structure is also accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts.  Was it a toilet?