Moretonhampstead goods yard access

[ejstubbs]

I've just dug out my track layout diagrams book for South Devon by R A Cooke.  He ... has the TT being removed by 1913 which would make the 1936 map rather out of date, not something that would be a great surprise. 

 

The turntable isn't shown on the 1936 map.  The map in my post was the 1905 one.

Edited March 21, 2017 by ejstubbs

[brianusa]

Just come back to this topic after returning to W7 and a new computer.

 

 

"My understanding is that Yealmpton was originally going to be a through station - the line was intended to extend as far as Modbury. If that had come to pass then the loop would have indeed had have "up" and "down" sides, and hence to have trailing access to the yard as it was oriented you would need to access it from the non-platform side of the loop, via a diamond. As a terminus, the Yealmpton configuration looks a bit odd IMO. (Come to that, as a placename Yealmpton looks a bit odd!)"

 

 

The through station idea was soon dropped but the track arrangement remained and other stations on the branch had the same layout. As for being odd, the river Yealm flows nearby and Yealmpton village is just up the hill, hence the name. There are a lot more odder place names on the country!

 

Brian.

[Harlequin]

I was looking for a Devon branch line terminus prototype recently and came across Moretonhampstead (which is quite near me, as it happens).

 

I too asked the question, why is the goods yard access arranged that way because it creates some difficulties in a model and that's when I found this topic. Interesting answers, thanks.

 

I've done a bit of doodling, trying to compress and rationalise the station for modelling while retaining it's essential character. The current idea omits the crossover - is that sacrilegious or sensible? What do you think?

 

(Click to enlarge)

 

The buildings are just indicative at this stage.

 

The idea would be to use Peco OO Bullhead track - so large radius points throughout with one of them having to be trimmed slightly to reduce the turnout angle.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

I think you've captured the essence of the plan quite well, but whether it is captured well enough for your interpretation of Rule 1 is up to you.  Personally, I would want to go with the most faithful to the original I could manage in the space.  Both plans require the section to be blocked while goods shunting is carried out and your timetable will have to reflect this; almost any shunting movement prevents a passenger movement anywhere closer than the next station.  As this cannot be solved without putting in a headshunt off the goods/run around loop, a major alteration to the real plan that would significantly affect the appearance of the model, there seems little to be gained by diverting from reality.  You only have about 6-9 inches, 2 or 3 wagons not including the loco, space between the clearing points of the crossover and the loop exit trap point.

 

All this is no more than my personal view and how I might proceed in your position; other views are (probably) available, and the only one you should take any notice of is your own!

 

You will probably need a trap point at the exit to the goods/run around, and at the goods yard exit as well.

Edited November 19, 2017 by The Johnster

[DCB]

I was looking for a Devon branch line terminus prototype recently and came across Moretonhampstead (which is quite near me, as it happens).

 

I too asked the question, why is the goods yard access arranged that way because it creates some difficulties in a model and that's when I found this topic. Interesting answers, thanks.

 

I've done a bit of doodling, trying to compress and rationalise the station for modelling while retaining it's essential character. The current idea omits the crossover - is that sacrilegious or sensible? What do you think?

 

Hampton-malstead.png

(Click to enlarge)

 

The buildings are just indicative at this stage.

 

The idea would be to use Peco OO Bullhead track - so large radius points throughout with one of them having to be trimmed slightly to reduce the turnout angle.

 You sort of have the pointwork but not the proportions, the sidings were a lot longer than the platforms.   Both Ashburton and Moretonhampstead  served the same Dartmoor area and both were where their respective valleys became narrower and steeper.  Together with Princetown they ensured most of the moor was not too far from civilisation though the upstart line from south of the Thames did not deign to sent any tentacles onto the moor from the north.

 

We went to Ashburton and Moretonhampstead this summer and my wife in particular was struck by just how hilly South Devon is, the hills start at sea level and both Ashburton and Moretonhampstead are ringed by hills and MoretonHampstead station site with loco shed and what looks like the station building now part of a transport depot is down quite a steep hill from the town.  If the line had continued I think gradients would have needed to be in the 1 in 40 range as the line was close to the valley bottom already.

 

If you want a GWR south Devon South Dartmoor feel to your terminus big hills are going to be essential and a gradient into the terminus would be good.

 

Loco sheds are usually on a kick back to stop locos escaping and to allow locos with axle driven pumps to pump water into the boiler by buffering up to a stop block and slipping the wheels which was the only way to add water to a hot boiler before injectors and steam pumps became reliable and commonly used. I believe GWR no 2 only had axle driven pumps until 1948 or thereabouts 

[Pannier Tank]

Both plans require the section to be blocked while goods shunting is carried out and your timetable will have to reflect this; almost any shunting movement prevents a passenger movement anywhere closer than the next station.  

In BR days around lunch time two trains could be seen at Moretonhampstead. The only Goods Train of the day arrived at 12:50  and the Auto Train arrived at 13:20. The Auto Train would leave at 1335 followed by the Goods Train at 13:50. 

[Pannier Tank]

I've done a bit of doodling, trying to compress and rationalise the station for modelling while retaining it's essential character. The current idea omits the crossover - is that sacrilegious or sensible? What do you think?

 

Like Ashburton,  Moretonhampstead is easily recognised and has a few characteristics which in my view are essential:-

 

1: The Trainshed

2: The SIgnal Box / Engine Shed combination

3: The Diamond Crossing

 

However, "it's your Model Railway" and your choice.

[Harlequin]

Thanks for everyone's insights.

 

The issues are:

• Compression into a reasonable length for a model (and in fact even as drawn it wouldn't fit into the space available to me).
• Compromise - how much compromise is acceptable?

By moving the goods sidings access out of the runaround loop it makes the sidings much longer than they could otherwise be and allows the layout to be a bit shorter.

 

Here are the critical lengths and positions:

The only way I can see to reduce the length further is to reduce the length of the goods sidings, which I really don't want to do (David!).

Note that by placing the engine house/signal box beyond the return of the runaround loop it can be pushed close to the running line (instead of close to the loop, as in the prototype) thus shaving 50mm off the width of the baseboards (assuming simple rectangles).

 

Rule 1 applies but I wouldn't be happy if everyone viewing the layout said, "Urgh, what have you done to Moretonhampstead?".

 

In a parallel universe, I can imagine a GWR permanent way engineer turning up at Moretonhampstead station and saying, "What cowboy laid that? He didn't understand the Board of Trade rules properly!" and revising the arrangement.

 

I completely understand the point raised that the diamond crossing is a fundamental aspect of Moretonhampstead. That's why I changed the name of the revised design and why, maybe, the idea isn't feasible at all in the compressed state I'm striving for!

 

Hills: Yes! One the the attractions of Moretonhamsptead is that it is/was set in very open countryside.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Harlequin

[BG John]

If you really need to save space, you could cut the layout off at the end of the trainshed, and hide a traverser under it, like I'm doing on my broad gauge layout. You might not like the idea, but it would save quite a bit of length, and might be a better compromise than losing something elsewhere.

 

 

[Pannier Tank]

The issues are:

• Compression into a reasonable length for a model (and in fact even as drawn it wouldn't fit into the space available to me).
• Compromise - how much compromise is acceptable?

 

Moretonhampstead Station is certainly a spacious location so I can see the need for compression. I think you will get away with omitting the Crossover and your plan will work. There is still room for some more selective compression e.g you could move the entrance to the run round loop nearer to the platform and move the entrance to the Goods Yard by same amount.

I look forward to seeing you progress with your new project.

[BG John]

I'm tempted to add Ashampstead to my growing to-do list. Mixing Ashburton and Moretonhampstead seems more practical!

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm tempted to add Ashampstead to my growing to-do list. Mixing Ashburton and Moretonhampstead seems more practical!

Moreburton sounds better to me.

[BG John]

Moreburton sounds better to me.

You build your Moreburton, and I'll build my broad gauge Ashampstead .

[Harlequin]

Something new just occurred to me about the goods yard access:

 

Why didn't the gasworks have it's own siding? Presumably it was supplied with coal by rail.

 

Looking at the old maps I notice that the gasworks might have had a loading stage along side the line between the crossover and the end of the run-around loop.

 

So the diamond crossing allows access to the goods yard past any wagons stood alongside the gasworks.

 

(And, this is pure speculation, if the diamond crossing was in fact a slip, then the passenger platform could also be accessed past any gasworks coal wagons.)

Edited November 27, 2017 by Harlequin

[meil]

Something new just occurred to me about the goods yard access:

 

Why didn't the gasworks have it's own siding? Presumably it was supplied with coal by rail.

 

Looking at the old maps I notice that the gasworks might have had a loading stage along side the line between the crossover and the end of the run-around loop.

 

So the diamond crossing allows access to the goods yard past any wagons stood alongside the gasworks.

 

(And, this is pure speculation, if the diamond crossing was in fact a slip, then the passenger platform could also be accessed past any gasworks coal wagons.)

Small Gas Works would not (unlikely) have a dedicated siding. The coal would have been dropped in the yard and taken to the Gas Works with horse and cart.

[kandc_au]

Small Gas Works would not (unlikely) have a dedicated siding. The coal would have been dropped in the yard and taken to the Gas Works with horse and cart.

As was done at Ashburton.

 

Khris

[Harlequin]

My point was that, since the gasworks did not have it's own siding, coal wagons being unloaded would get in the way of other goods shunting activities were it not for the goods yard access from the other side of the runaround loop.

 

That is to say, while the goods yard access appears odd at first, and not strictly needed by good practice or Board of Trade rules, there may have been a very practical reason for doing it that way.

 

 

[Pannier Tank]

I seem to re-call there was a ruling about not leaving stock on the 'Main'; you would probably need a Catch Point to stop the Coal Wagons from "Running away".

[The Stationmaster]

My point was that, since the gasworks did not have it's own siding, coal wagons being unloaded would get in the way of other goods shunting activities were it not for the goods yard access from the other side of the runaround loop.

 

That is to say, while the goods yard access appears odd at first, and not strictly needed by good practice or Board of Trade rules, there may have been a very practical reason for doing it that way.

 

Moretonhampstead gasworks rail access 1936.png

 

The diamond crossing was almost certainly there to meet the Board of Trade Requirements as it avoided having a second facing point in the passenger running line.

 

And why couldn't the gasworks coal be unloaded in the goods yard and carted to the gasworks as others have already noted?  The town had an adult population of less than 2,000 at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries so the gasworks would have been quite a minor concern using a relatively small quantity of coal.  In 1901 my home town had a population more than three times greater than that of Moretonhampstead with a correspondingly larger gasworks which was also about four times the distance from the railway station than the gasworks in Moretonhampstead but all its coal was carted from the station goods yard, and no doubt that happened in plenty of other places as well.

[Harlequin]

And why couldn't the gasworks coal be unloaded in the goods yard and carted to the gasworks as others have already noted?  The town had an adult population of less than 2,000 at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries so the gasworks would have been quite a minor concern using a relatively small quantity of coal.  In 1901 my home town had a population more than three times greater than that of Moretonhampstead with a correspondingly larger gasworks which was also about four times the distance from the railway station than the gasworks in Moretonhampstead but all its coal was carted from the station goods yard, and no doubt that happened in plenty of other places as well.

Ah, I see...

 

I was thinking that the gasworks was deliberately built next to the line so that coal could be unloaded directly and I thought I saw the hint of a coal stage platform on the maps. But maybe the position is just coincidence and the line on the map is something else entirely.

 

Fair enough.

[nightmail]

my research revealed that coal for the gasworks was brought into the back siding then loaded onto road vehicles to be transported back down the line (by road) to the gasworks. Labour was cheap in those days!

 

Shame they decided to do it like that, I would have liked a gasworks siding to shunt on my model of Moretonhampstead.

[jim.snowdon]

On 29 November 2017 at 15:33, The Stationmaster said:

The diamond crossing was almost certainly there to meet the Board of Trade Requirements as it avoided having a second facing point in the passenger running line.

Yes and no. Correct in as much as putting the goods yard connection on the run round loop avoided having to provide a second facing point lock in accordance with the BoT requirements. Not correct in that the provision of the diamond crossing was not itself a BoT requirement, but a subterfuge to avoid a requirement. If the railway company had wanted to spend the money it could have arranged to put the goods yard acces directly from the main running line. It does raise the point as to which was, in overall terms, the more economic solution. Four extra crossings or an fpl?

 

The arrangement is not unusual. Another example was Stanmore (LNWR), and both illustrate the almost pathological dislike Victorian railway engineers had of facing points. Some of that may not be down to the complications of fitting fpls but the practicalities of getting switch rails to fit really snugly against the stock rails.

 

Jim