2mmFS Long Melford

[richbrummitt]

My preference is to put both stock rails and the V in early. So, I think I would have built the diamonds first. From where you are now the diamond in the centre of the junctions would be my next and then work out to the edges and extremities. 

[Lacathedrale]

Just isolate everything from each other, put in about seven frog juicers and let God handle it?

[justin1985]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

I do think that perhaps working out the wiring of it all, where all the feeds and isolation cuts need to be, should be sorted out on paper before laying any rails. Trimming rails to fit and allowing for gaps I do find rather easier in this scale than trying to cut them after the rail is fixed down and with all the diamonds here might prove better.

 

Thanks Izzy! 

 

I THINK Bill had planned this all out on the plan drawn onto the board. It looks like the pink highlighter marks with thick pencil lines are all section breaks? 

 

 

Definitely a good idea to draw up a separate proper plan though, if nothing else to properly document everything. I've scanned in one of Bills outline diagrams and started tracing it as a vector image. 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by justin1985

[justin1985]

3 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

My preference is to put both stock rails and the V in early. So, I think I would have built the diamonds first. From where you are now the diamond in the centre of the junctions would be my next and then work out to the edges and extremities. 

 

I was rather hoping to be able to work up to that! I see the advantage though ...

 

38 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Just isolate everything from each other, put in about seven frog juicers and let God handle it?

 

Haha that was one of my ideas earlier on, but I think @Nigelcliffe promised it wouldn't actually be too complicated!

[Nigelcliffe]

25 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

 

[ lots of Frog Juicers as a suggestion ]

 

Haha that was one of my ideas earlier on, but I think @Nigelcliffe promised it wouldn't actually be too complicated!

 

The idea of lots of Juicers strikes me as unnecessary, and forces the layout to be DCC. 

 

The actual paths through the turnouts are quite limited, unless the railway permits a train-crash free-for-all.   To use the junction safely, it has to have locking rules (and signalling).  This is how I'd approach the electrics:

 

1 - draw out all the rails, crossings (frogs), etc..   Use three colours - red+black (when known fixed polarity) and something else, (eg. blue) when switched. 

2 - write some simple locking rules for turnouts, to prevent most conflicting paths.  (eg. Turnout A thrown locks turnouts B, C.  ).   With the two outside slips (two left-most diamonds), the rules should stop both turnouts setting a path through the diamond. 

3 - the turnout movements within the locking rules will dictate which crossings (frogs) have to be switched for each route. 

 

I think the wiring for it is a lot simpler than the rails look.  And Bill would have expected to use switches and maybe relays.  

 

Don't worry too much about the reversing loop which turns trains at this stage,  its fairly simple to deal with later.

 

 

 

- Nigel

 

[Ian Morgan]

What was the purpose of the two sidings? Lay-back sidings? The lower one in particular would block all other routes when being accessed. Seems to add complexity for no good reason.

 

[Donw]

I remember when I mentioned wye points someone  commented these were referred to as split leads by railwaymen. If you take a templot RH turout and curve it so the main is on a LH curve you can see by the result it is still a RH turnout. I believe that a true wye would have a set in both stock rails not just the one. As has been said it is the difference of which route is the major. I think true wyes were used in goods/industrial siding where neither route was more important .

 

The the  two sidings do seem odd. I notice that both are trailing connections quite why they have to cross via diamonds is puzzling. The appear to be rather short for lay byes. Now if this had been in hilly country  I might have throught about them holding a banker but even then why two one would seem sufficient. The other throught was it being something to do with interlocking but as they cross the other route on a diamond one would imagine that would be interlocked too. 

Is this based on a real location or something Bill came up with?

 

Don

[martin_wynne]

44 minutes ago, Donw said:

I remember when I mentioned wye points someone  commented these were referred to as split leads by railwaymen. If you take a templot RH turout and curve it so the main is on a LH curve you can see by the result it is still a RH turnout. I believe that a true wye would have a set in both stock rails not just the one. As has been said it is the difference of which route is the major. I think true wyes were used in goods/industrial siding where neither route was more important .

 

Hi Don,

 

Yes. To split the deflection in Templot you rotate the switch part about the toe point with respect to the switch front:

 

 

There are options in Templot to aid this -- it works best with a modified switch-diamond template.

 

The split is normally 50-50, but can be any proportion, such as 25% to the left and 75% to the right.

 

But note that such turnouts are not used in running lines, they are found only in yards and sidings (and not very common).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[justin1985]

Well I think we're concluded they are not true wyes - the branch track to the right is the less used route, and sure enough it is a sharper divergence. Nonetheless I've out joggles into both rails - just because it seems difficult to get a 2mm point blade reliably held sufficiently flush against the stock rail without them - at least in my limited experience. 

 

1 hour ago, Donw said:

The the  two sidings do seem odd. I notice that both are trailing connections quite why they have to cross via diamonds is puzzling. The appear to be rather short for lay byes. Now if this had been in hilly country  I might have throught about them holding a banker but even then why two one would seem sufficient. The other throught was it being something to do with interlocking but as they cross the other route on a diamond one would imagine that would be interlocked too. 

Is this based on a real location or something Bill came up with?

 

 

It is a real location! Signalbox.org shows the track layout essentially as modelled as the 1912 layout: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1064 The bottom siding is labelled as refuge siding, and the top one as branch siding. As you say, both are only accessible as trailing connections from the up platform line - although that is the line with the connection to the yard (extensive, but not likely to be modelled). I think Bill's only simplification was to remove the headshunt / trap at the end of each siding. 

 

A modeller who has built the station in OO has posted a c.1955-61 signalling diagram (his own?) that shows the Bury branch (top) siding removed, but the lower one labelled "Haverhill Dip Siding" - which might be a clue? (not sure to what, but you mentioned hilly?)

https://www.facebook.com/longmelfordjunction/photos/pcb.593063704737635/593058104738195/

 

I've traced a track plan from one of Bill's sketches - I've tried to reflect some of the changes as built (such as the simplified hidden return loop and less divergence on the branch siding) - but I think the curves are pretty much just representative. Therefore it is far from a scale plan, but definitely useful as a schematic. 

 

 

I've started sketching in gaps and colour coding for feeds - definitely a work in progress (haven't even tackled the lower half yet) - but hopefully looking along the right lines?

 

The crossing angles are those Bill had written onto the board. 4 deg does sound extremely shallow, but relative to the others, does perhaps look right?

[Izzy]

 

"I think Bill's only simplification was to remove the headshunt / trap at the end of each siding. "

 

Given the relative complexity of the rest of the track that’s a shame. I think I’d want to include them, even if they were just simple single blade cosmetic jobs for the overall look seeing as how the sidings face on-coming passenger carrying track.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Izzy
to add missed quotation, don't know where it went!!

[Nigelcliffe]

I'd gap between the crossing labelled 4degrees and its neighbour at 9 degrees.   I think that's shown on the diagram, but just checking that the notch does mean "isolation break".  

My default wiring would prevent both routes over the diamond to be set at the same time (electrically it makes the diamond much simpler if the "which way is it being used" is determined by the turnouts into it).   

So, the two turnouts (4degree and 9degree) will be interlocked to prevent the "illegal both over diamond" being set.  

Then, I'm pretty confident it comes out as: crossings (4degrees and 17degrees) can be connected together, and switched from the tie-bar at 4degrees.   And, (9degrees and 13degrees) can be connected, and switched from the tie-bar at 9degrees.    And that's one small bit of the complex junction sorted out electrically.  

 

( How the turnouts are interlocked depends on what form of switches and turnout mechanism is to be used.  There are lots of solutions, but  how depends in preferences for types of switch/lever, type of panel, choice of motors, etc.. ).  

 

Similarly, there will be interlocking rules for "4degrees and 11degrees" in relation to the lower diamond. (Plus interlocking to at least two other turnouts around that diamond).     

 

 

- Nigel

[Donw]

If I still remember my maths tan 4deg or sin 4deg are both about 0.07 or 7 in 100  1:14.3 . Now a D14 is a common sort of size for passenger lines where you do not want a severe speed restriction. There was one in the station throat of Selby. I know that because we used to meet in Pete's shed on the Isle of Wight and he had built a 7mm one to match the actual track plan. You will find plenty of others if you look.  It will need a bit of care to make but will look superb in 2mm. A D blade is planed at 1:48  so about an inch of taper for association rail.

 

I would at least opt for dummy traps on those sidings. Nigel has covered the electrics. Interlocking shouldn't be too bad the two turnouts on the up and down main lines at the throat will determine largely what moves can be done. 

[Ian Smeeton]

The 4 degree, 9 degree, and the K Crossing in Black can all be treated as one section electrically, I think.

 

If you have a look at the answers given for a scissors crossover that I was building in:

 

 

 

I think that this was the clearest solution.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

[justin1985]

Many thanks for all these thoughts - really appreciated!

 

4 hours ago, Nigelcliffe said:

( How the turnouts are interlocked depends on what form of switches and turnout mechanism is to be used.  There are lots of solutions, but  how depends in preferences for types of switch/lever, type of panel, choice of motors, etc.. ).  

 

The removable trackbed means space is actually quite limited. Bill had started installing PECO Smartswitch Servos on other parts of the layout, which I got rid of, but I had been thinking of some variation of servo with under baseboard tiebar and microswitches. Perhaps run from something like an ESU Switchpilot Servo. I imagine it would be possible to implement the interlocking inside JMRI, but I can't help thinking something at hardware level would be preferable?

 

3 hours ago, Donw said:

If I still remember my maths tan 4deg or sin 4deg are both about 0.07 or 7 in 100  1:14.3 . Now a D14 is a common sort of size for passenger lines where you do not want a severe speed restriction. There was one in the station throat of Selby. I know that because we used to meet in Pete's shed on the Isle of Wight and he had built a 7mm one to match the actual track plan. You will find plenty of others if you look.  It will need a bit of care to make but will look superb in 2mm. A D blade is planed at 1:48  so about an inch of taper for association rail.

 

Thanks - I'd been meaning to look up how to translate between angle in degrees and ratios! 

 

8 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

"I think Bill's only simplification was to remove the headshunt / trap at the end of each siding. "

 

Given the relative complexity of the rest of the track that’s a shame. I think I’d want to include them, even if they were just simple single blade cosmetic jobs for the overall look seeing as how the sidings face on-coming passenger carrying track.

 

Agreed it needs something. I can't actually find a pre group photo of this end of the station (plenty of the yard end). Maps don't suggest a "proper" stub with bufferstops though (and the cutout trackbed doesn't have enough space!), so hopefully a cosmetic trap point will be enough. I imagine a "double trap"(?) would be most appropriate - i.e. a pair of blades only?

[Donw]

45 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

Many thanks for all these thoughts - really appreciated!

 

 

The removable trackbed means space is actually quite limited. Bill had started installing PECO Smartswitch Servos on other parts of the layout, which I got rid of, but I had been thinking of some variation of servo with under baseboard tiebar and microswitches. Perhaps run from something like an ESU Switchpilot Servo. I imagine it would be possible to implement the interlocking inside JMRI, but I can't help thinking something at hardware level would be preferable?

 

 

Thanks - I'd been meaning to look up how to translate between angle in degrees and ratios! 

 

 

Agreed it needs something. I can't actually find a pre group photo of this end of the station (plenty of the yard end). Maps don't suggest a "proper" stub with bufferstops though (and the cutout trackbed doesn't have enough space!), so hopefully a cosmetic trap point will be enough. I imagine a "double trap"(?) would be most appropriate - i.e. a pair of blades only?

 

I would think a single blade in the outside rail before the diamond would do the job nicely and throw the vehicle away from the diamond, Any movement in and out of the sidings would be at low speeds.  Unless you see a photo suggesting it was a double bladed trap.

 

You could consider a megapoint servo controller currently £63 for 12 servo controller, servos about £2 or so .  Unless we can tempt you to join MERG

 

Don

[Nigelcliffe]

11 hours ago, justin1985 said:

 

The removable trackbed means space is actually quite limited. Bill had started installing PECO Smartswitch Servos on other parts of the layout, which I got rid of, but I had been thinking of some variation of servo with under baseboard tiebar and microswitches. Perhaps run from something like an ESU Switchpilot Servo. I imagine it would be possible to implement the interlocking inside JMRI, but I can't help thinking something at hardware level would be preferable?

 

 

Servo motors need something to control them (fair enough).  The ESU unit is pretty cheap for a DCC controlled device.   Alternative devices include Megapoints, and Harman (a DCC decoder). 

Megapoints are cost-effective if not using DCC or multi-plexed wiring between them (ie. one wire from switch to servo is not overly expensive).  Gets fairly expensive if multiplexed.  

 

Merg is an option, much cheaper, but DIY electronics.   (Though somewhat bewildering range of options for anyone new to it ). 

 

I think the first question is "what sort of control is wanted".   ie. if wanting a screen interface, then JMRI will be fine, the locking rules are relatively simple.     However, if wanting a physical switch interface, then it depends and low-tech may give all that's needed at lower cost and lower hassle. 

 

All of this comes down to lots of trade-offs in wires or electronic complexity.     Though I'm a regular user of JMRI, I don't think software is necessarily the way to go in all situations.  (When covid allows it again), I'm working on a large layout, and there we're wiring one switch to one servo motor - we don't need the complexity of extra multiplexed electronics.  

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

[Izzy]

And just to throw another option into the ring I’m now using AA battery powered hacked servos with micro-switches to interlock things where needed, which works out quite simple and cheap, and reliable in that it’s basic and independent of whatever the track power control system is, DC or DCC.

[justin1985]

11 hours ago, Donw said:

I would think a single blade in the outside rail before the diamond would do the job nicely and throw the vehicle away from the diamond, Any movement in and out of the sidings would be at low speeds.  Unless you see a photo suggesting it was a double bladed trap.

 

That sounds very do-able! I'll definitely plan on doing this.

 

11 hours ago, Donw said:

You could consider a megapoint servo controller currently £63 for 12 servo controller, servos about £2 or so .  Unless we can tempt you to join MERG

 

I did join MERG for one year, and built some of the ServoSet controllers (I concluded an Arduino was a more satisfactory way of doing the same thing) and other little boards (lamp twinkler etc.). However the magazine invariably scared the bejesus out of me, and I concluded that it was very much not for me. I'm happy to tinker with things, but for me I think that is at the level of combining ready made things like Arduino, and tweaking/adapting code. 

 

54 minutes ago, Nigelcliffe said:

I think the first question is "what sort of control is wanted".   ie. if wanting a screen interface, then JMRI will be fine, the locking rules are relatively simple.     However, if wanting a physical switch interface, then it depends and low-tech may give all that's needed at lower cost and lower hassle. 

 

Very good question Nigel - I have been giving it some thought, but not really at a firm conclusion yet.

 

I used to think DCC point control sounded like an unnecessary complication, but then I had always been thinking of "cameo" type layouts! I think these are my real requirements:

 

• Operate from the front (at home)
• AND Operate from the rear (at exhibitions - IF it does)
• One person operation must be possible (even if two - layout + train table - is preferable) - which by default means that person needs to be at the train table end a lot of the time - but hopefully not all of the time

As far as I can think it through, that means EITHER some kind of complex duplication of physical switches and loads of wiring; OR a plug in control panel that can be plugged in to more than one place OR on a long enough cable to be moved. That seems to push towards some kind of bus arrangement, and seeing as I'm convinced on DCC for train control, it makes sense for that to be the DCC bus ... doesn't it ?

 

Thinking out loud, absolute ideal would be a physical switch panel of some kind acting as an additional "throttle" for a DCC system, which could be plugged in with a LocoNet type plug at several potential locations. I had imagined this is what the DCC Concepts levers might have done, but it looks like they're actually just fancy analogue switches?

 

Justin

 

EDIT - just realised the DCC Concepts Alpha Encoder unit does what I'd been describing!

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/cobalt-alpha-main-unit/

Edited March 22, 2021 by justin1985

[Nigelcliffe]

4 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

 

Very good question Nigel - I have been giving it some thought, but not really at a firm conclusion yet.

 

I used to think DCC point control sounded like an unnecessary complication, but then I had always been thinking of "cameo" type layouts! I think these are my real requirements:

 

• Operate from the front (at home)
• AND Operate from the rear (at exhibitions - IF it does)
• One person operation must be possible (even if two - layout + train table - is preferable) - which by default means that person needs to be at the train table end a lot of the time - but hopefully not all of the time

As far as I can think it through, that means EITHER some kind of complex duplication of physical switches and loads of wiring; OR a plug in control panel that can be plugged in to more than one place OR on a long enough cable to be moved. That seems to push towards some kind of bus arrangement, and seeing as I'm convinced on DCC for train control, it makes sense for that to be the DCC bus ... doesn't it ?

 

Thinking out loud, absolute ideal would be a physical switch panel of some kind acting as an additional "throttle" for a DCC system, which could be plugged in with a LocoNet type plug at several potential locations. I had imagined this is what the DCC Concepts levers might have done, but it looks like they're actually just fancy analogue switches?

 

Justin

 

Designing a panel which can be both front and back operated is possible, but takes some effort.  Otherwise its either "back to front" or "upside down".    Lever frames are particularly awkward in this regard.  

 

See example I did for Coldfair Green a few years ago - designed to be either front or rear use of an end-to-end layout.  Note lack of writing, or other "orientation dependent" features.   The metal brackets at each end were symmetrical - remove (one bolt each), rotate end-to-end, and panel hangs on rear of layout with a slight slope to its top.  

 

That panel internals is a CML DTM30 (a LocoNet device) to interface the buttons and LEDs onto LocoNet.  The panel doesn't have any interlocking of elements (because the layout doesn't need much), though there is some limited protection of the level crossing (button on far right), using feedback from the layout that the gates have completed their movement.     I'm confident I could put locking rules into a similar panel, possibly requiring one more processing module to implement the rules.  

 

 

You can do similar panels with a multi-way connection for movement between locations, and thus no bus system.   And sometimes its just quicker/simpler to make two panels, and decide which to connect (or if its push button, connect both). 

 

 

In terms of "which bus" for turnout control, then I think you've about four to consider: 

DCC - fairly simple, lots of devices.  But its "one way", you can't get information back from those devices as to their state/position.   That's a fairly big negative for anyone who's used the bi-directional options.

LocoNet - long established commercial bus.  Lots of commerical and hobby grade devices to support it.  Bi-directional (hence the panel above can indicate whether gates are moving, static or not, and also panel changes if anything else moves a turnout). 

MERG CBUS - does broadly what LocoNet can do (MERG lot will now pile in and argue).  But have to build everything from MERG supplied bits and pieces.   

Computer-ish bus like IC2 - used extensively in the hobby electronics area (arduino etc.). Very low cost, can do a fair bit.  MERG now have an option in this space which does less than CBUS, but far easier to understand what its doing within its limitations.  

 

There are many more, but in the UK that seems the sane starting place. 

 

 

DCC Concepts levers are a fancy fairly expensive electrical switches, nothing else.   

If wanting a lever frame, build the Scalefour Society lever frame kit.  Its MUCH nicer to handle, can be connected to any control system, can be interlocked (mechanical or electronic).   

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

[Donw]

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Servo motors need something to control them (fair enough).  The ESU unit is pretty cheap for a DCC controlled device.   Alternative devices include Megapoints, and Harman (a DCC decoder). 

Megapoints are cost-effective if not using DCC or multi-plexed wiring between them (ie. one wire from switch to servo is not overly expensive).  Gets fairly expensive if multiplexed.  

 

Merg is an option, much cheaper, but DIY electronics.   (Though somewhat bewildering range of options for anyone new to it ). 

 

I think the first question is "what sort of control is wanted".   ie. if wanting a screen interface, then JMRI will be fine, the locking rules are relatively simple.     However, if wanting a physical switch interface, then it depends and low-tech may give all that's needed at lower cost and lower hassle. 

 

All of this comes down to lots of trade-offs in wires or electronic complexity.     Though I'm a regular user of JMRI, I don't think software is necessarily the way to go in all situations.  (When covid allows it again), I'm working on a large layout, and there we're wiring one switch to one servo motor - we don't need the complexity of extra multiplexed electronics.  

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

Nigel what servo driver are you using for the one switch to one sevo method. Is it one of the ERG options?

 

Don

[Nigelcliffe]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

 

Nigel what servo driver are you using for the one switch to one sevo method. Is it one of the ERG options?

 

Don

 

That layout is Megapoints commercial units controlled by rotary switches on a panel.   Layout owner isn't that interested in technology, so going down self-build MERG kits was thought a step too far.  (I could build them, but if we parted, he'd have a huge layout and risks over maintenance).  

Mechanically, wire-in-tube in straight runs from rear edge of layout to turnouts, with all servos along rear edge of layout (under a retaining wall bit of scenery).  So, easy access for setup and adjustment.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Donw]

I bought one of those to use with a lever frame some years ago. Looked very good in testing  but a house move suspended the project. I like the easy adjustment without needing extra kit. you can bring the adjustment controls out for easy access. 

Having the servos along the back is a good idea if you can access them well enough. I did that with tortoises on a layout. But you have to beware of wider boards on an 0 gauge layout especially if in a loft room with sloping ceilings. With the Tortoises I used brass rod in plastruct tubing to run to the turnouts. I soldered a short piece of tube across the rod and fed the Tortoise operating wire through it allowed any thermal expansion to be absorbed.

 

If I were planning an exhibition layout my choice would be to use DCC to operate the controls  as you can manage with only one bus.  But I would probably build a lever frame with electronics that would send the commands to the DCC system and out onto the tracks. Probably using an Arduino Mega but that could take a fair bit of working out. Especially if you add interlocking. Otherwise you can create a panel in JMRI to work with most DCC systems. Would suit me as I don't find touch screens work well for me.

 

Don

 

[justin1985]

On the trap point question, it occurred to me to take look on the NLS collection of OS maps when I was looking at that for something else today. I'd previously been mainly referring to a paper copy that was amongst Bill's notes, which the notes on the back reveal to be a 1927 revision.

 

I can't believe I hadn't noticed this change before ...

 

The NLS 1902 survey / 1904 publication map actually shows quite a different arrangement with both sidings having full catch points with stub sidings (in the case of the Cambridge line, more of a full headshunt). More significantly the Cambridge line has a much simpler arrangement with two back to back plain turnouts of much sharper radius.

 

The Bury line is also only connected to the up platform line, but its branch siding is directly accessible from both platform lines! The branch siding perhaps begins to make a little more sense in this layout: if it is accessible from both platform roads when the branch itself isn't, then it makes a bit more sense as a way of exchanging traffic between the lines.

 

Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland. Full map: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=19.344505969847457&lat=52.06739&lon=0.71208&layers=168&b=1

 

The 1927 map, which Bill's planning reflects with some degree of compression:

 

 

The diagram on Signalbox.org, attributed to 1912 (but a 1982 re-drawing) shows an intermediate state with the additional diamonds in place on both branches, but the stub siding still in place on the Bury branch siding: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1064 

 

Short of digging through the relevant GER ledgers to references to expenditure on track layout changes when the Essex Record Office reopens, I don't think it will be possible to pin down the date of the changes any more precisely. No one has ever published a "proper" (Oakwood or Wild Swan type) history of this line - only ever picture books and pamphlets! 

 

The era I want to focus on modelling is what I'd define as "Georgian" (George V) - c.1910-1935 - so I think the 1912 signal box diagram is my best guide, really.

 

Upshot of all this? No actual change to my plans! The only change that the earlier track plan would seem to need would be the Bury line stub siding catch point, and I don't have room for that, so single catch points it is. Still, it was interesting to me, and I think it does help to make a little more sense of the sidings and how they might have operated. 

 

Justin

 

[Donw]

1 hour ago, justin1985 said:

On the trap point question, it occurred to me to take look on the NLS collection of OS maps when I was looking at that for something else today. I'd previously been mainly referring to a paper copy that was amongst Bill's notes, which the notes on the back reveal to be a 1927 revision.

 

I can't believe I hadn't noticed this change before ...

 

The NLS 1902 survey / 1904 publication map actually shows quite a different arrangement with both sidings having full catch points with stub sidings (in the case of the Cambridge line, more of a full headshunt). More significantly the Cambridge line has a much simpler arrangement with two back to back plain turnouts of much sharper radius.

 

The Bury line is also only connected to the up platform line, but its branch siding is directly accessible from both platform lines! The branch siding perhaps begins to make a little more sense in this layout: if it is accessible from both platform roads when the branch itself isn't, then it makes a bit more sense as a way of exchanging traffic between the lines.

 

Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland. Full map: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=19.344505969847457&lat=52.06739&lon=0.71208&layers=168&b=1

 

The 1927 map, which Bill's planning reflects with some degree of compression:

 

 

The diagram on Signalbox.org, attributed to 1912 (but a 1982 re-drawing) shows an intermediate state with the additional diamonds in place on both branches, but the stub siding still in place on the Bury branch siding: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1064 

 

Short of digging through the relevant GER ledgers to references to expenditure on track layout changes when the Essex Record Office reopens, I don't think it will be possible to pin down the date of the changes any more precisely. No one has ever published a "proper" (Oakwood or Wild Swan type) history of this line - only ever picture books and pamphlets! 

 

The era I want to focus on modelling is what I'd define as "Georgian" (George V) - c.1910-1935 - so I think the 1912 signal box diagram is my best guide, really.

 

Upshot of all this? No actual change to my plans! The only change that the earlier track plan would seem to need would be the Bury line stub siding catch point, and I don't have room for that, so single catch points it is. Still, it was interesting to me, and I think it does help to make a little more sense of the sidings and how they might have operated. 

 

Justin

 

 

It is all quite fascinating Justin and at least you are now well armed to deal with a knowitall who says it wasn't like that.

 

Don

[Ian Morgan]

The Ordnance Survey were not always totally accurate when it came to actual track layout. You need some photographic or other documentary proof sometimes.