Upton Hanbury - GWR mainline fantasy

[The Stationmaster]

hungerford.png

[Edit: I should have labelled the single slip crossover with a question mark but I assume it to be one, for the reasons Mike set out above.]

 

Judging by the way it has been drawn on the map I am as near certain as I can be that it would have been a single slip.  The Down Loop definitely dates from no later than WWII (when a number of loops appeared at various locations east of Newbury and might well date from the 1939 alterations).

Presumably the diamond between the refuge siding and the goods sidings was also a single slip, allowing the refuge siding to form a trap/headshunt combination.

 

Oddly it was indeed a single slip.  I say oddly because it might also have been expected to be the trap for the goods shed road but that had its own separate trap.  I therefore suspect the geometry of this 'single slip' was rather different from that in running line crossovers and that it was very much an outside slip road (perhaps similar to the one at Ledbury in exactly the same situation?).

[The Stationmaster]

The 1957 signalling diagram shows a significantly different layout.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S197.htm

That is basically the 1939 layout which dates from the alterations made when the East 'Box was closed.

Edited November 6, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Joseph_Pestell]

The 1957 signalling diagram shows a significantly different layout.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S197.htm

 

A very nice one in terms of operation of a model railway (assuming enough space). But the OP is looking at an earlier era.

[Compound2632]

Here's a bit of leisurely shunting on the mainline at Lavington:

 

lavington.jpg

 

I thought the idea of the sheet rail was to avoid hollows in the wagon sheet where pools of water could accumulate. I'm not convinced it's working out on the wagon nearest the camera.

 

When did 4-plank wagons get sheet rails, anyway? I don't remember seeing that in Atkins but I didn't look at anything after c. 1905...

 

Sorry, rather OT.

[Miss Prism]

I thought the idea of the sheet rail was to avoid hollows in the wagon sheet where pools of water could accumulate. I'm not convinced it's working out on the wagon nearest the camera.

 

The tarps didn't need to be perfectly arranged. As long as the merchanise underneath was protected, a bit of water accumulating in a pool didn't matter too much.

 

When did 4-plank wagons get sheet rails, anyway? I don't remember seeing that in Atkins but I didn't look at anything after c. 1905...

 

Dia O5 of 1902, but I'm not sure the sheet supporters were fitted on initial production. Older (non-specific-diagram) 4-plankers were retrofitted with supporters.

[Tallpaul69]

Newbury has that sort of layout, with the platforms on loops rather than the main running line.

If you can find them, the last three editions of Great Western Journal (nos 101-103) had articles on the operation of Newbury, which you might find useful even if you don't adopt the Newbury track plan?

 

Best of luck

Regard

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

Why the Berks & Hants?

 

Various places on the mainline might give better options. e.g. Challow, Uffington, Shrivenham.

 

Or, in slightly different style, some of the stations on the later cut-off lines.

[The Stationmaster]

Why the Berks & Hants?

 

Various places on the mainline might give better options. e.g. Challow, Uffington, Shrivenham.

 

Or, in slightly different style, some of the stations on the later cut-off lines.

 

The problem with going to quadruple track (Challow & Shrivenham) is that it takes up more space, particularly on the curves at the end of the layout is the OP is looking for reasonable appearance.  Uffington of course introduces a branch line to somehow lose scenically.

[Harlequin]

Here's a revised version with various tweaks, the most notable being that the incorrect down goods refuge loop is replaced by a more correct Up refuge siding. (That allowed the curve into the tunnel mouth to be much more flowing, more of a transition curve now.)

 

 

Is it a home or display layout?

It's a fantasy design but it would primarily be a home layout. It would cross my entire living space and so it would have to be removable. And if it's removable then why not remove it to another location occasionally where other people can see it?

 

Why is there no central operating well?
1. That's the only way it will fit in my house.
2. If it were to be exhibited, and the operator(s) stood behind the scenic area, they would face the audience and be able to see both the scene and the fiddleyard at a glance, assuming that the backscene is not too high. That feels like a good arrangement to me.

3. No need for duck-unders or lifting sections.
 

Operations:
I haven't thought deeply about how it would be operated yet. There are lots of possibilities of varying complexity:

• I imagine that very simple "trainset" operation would be quite satisfying.  An up train and a down train could be set running unsupervised while shunting or fiddling is carried out and that would give a lot of simple pleasure watching the mainline trains run though the landscape and pass each other at different locations.
• For more involved one-person operation some automation would be useful.
• Multiple people running a timetable would be great fun.
• I don't think I'd ever do full-automation, though. Too cold, too remote for me.

 

Fiddle yards:

Down Storage represents all points west such as Plymouth, Penzance, etc. Up Storage represents easterly locations such as Reading and Paddington.

The idea, as James correctly deduced, is that trains in Down storage emerge onto the Up Main and have a reasonable distance to get up to speed before they emerge onto the stage. They then run through the scene, optionally stopping at Hanbury before continuing on, and finally taking the facing up-to-down crossover and slowing down off-scene before entering one of the Up storage roads. (The train could be allowed to complete a number circuits between first appearing and final exit.) The loco would then be turned and/or swapped either by running onto one of the turning cassettes, by loco lift or manually, ready to perform the return journey. (Of course for goods trains there would be more work to do before the return journey: loading/unloading, changing brake vans, changing the makeup of the train.

A similar sequence operates from Up storage to Down storage.

One potential problem in that sequence is that the Up train has to run on the Down track in the fiddle yard for a distance just before it enters Up storage. This could be fixed but it would be at the expense of a valuable storage road so I have left it as-is for now. A similar problem is that after arriving in the up storage (against the imaginary buffers shown as red marks) a newly released loco has to traverse the Down Main to reach to Up turning cassettes.

I have thought about turning triangles, which would be great for automation, but can't yet see a simple way to fit them in.

 

I confess I couldn't understand 34theletterbetweenB&D's fiddle yard suggestion. The current design has a lot of positives but I'd be interested to see diagrams of alternative suggestions.

 

Station layout:

There wasn't a standard plan for any of the B&H stations, they were laid out according to their specific locations and needs, but they do share a lot of common characteristics. So I feel I can justify placing the goods yard alongside the platforms as a plausible solution for the particular conditions at Upton Hanbury and it does have the characteristic features of other stations on the line (if I've got it right). From a purely practical point of view this arrangement allows the station elements not to be compressed while still having a good sized landscape section. The layout is ~10.1m (33feet) long and I can't make it any longer!!!

 

Why the Berks & Hants?

I have childhood connections to Kintbury, I love the close proximity of rail, river and canal along that line and the line would have seen a wide variety of traffic (but I confess I haven't done the research on that yet).

 

One or two signal boxes?

It feels right to have two boxes to me but I'm open to expert advice on that question!

(The box sketch above is just to get an idea of the default lie of the points - it is not intended to be a proper box diagram).

Edited November 10, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

I very much like the station arrangement - looks typical but has some slightly less common features which gives it a touch of 'intended for a specific place' which I think is just how a station layout should be evolved.  I particularly like that refuge siding behind (in front of from the viewing point) the station platform, something which isn'y t commonly modelled but did exist.  

 

I still think two signalboxes is excessive but, like Hungerford it is excusable for the earlier part pf the period you are working to although I'm sure the GWR would have dealt with it by 1939 as they did in many similar places around that time.

[clachnaharry]

Are there any prototypical examples of a refuge siding being bisected by a goods shed access line?

Edited November 10, 2018 by clachnaharry

[The Stationmaster]

Are there any prototypical examples of a refuge siding being bisected by a goods shed access line?

 

I know of one which was effectively bisected (shortened) by a branch line junction.

 

But in reality of course the goods yard would have been shunted from the other end and not via that connection (would it be better to make the single slip a double slip to allow Up trains to put off vehicles int the Down Refuge or attach them from there?) 

[clachnaharry]

The East end connections, which then require the East box look a bit unlikely to me. It's a lot of infrastructure and cost to allow the occasional drop off of a van to the goods shed outside of the normal goods working.

[Compound2632]

The East end connections, which then require the East box look a bit unlikely to me. It's a lot of infrastructure and cost to allow the occasional drop off of a van to the goods shed outside of the normal goods working.

 

It's absolutely bog standard to have the goods yard accessed by trailing connections from both running lines. What's slightly unusual (to my Midland-focused eyes) is for the goods yard to be alongside rather than beyond the passenger platforms. A box for each crossover is probably a bit of an extravagance - hey-ho what fun with the slotting! - but maybe it's dictated by the distance. There was a BoT maximum...

[mdvle]

2. If it were to be exhibited, and the operator(s) stood behind the scenic area, they would face the audience and be able to see both the scene and the fiddleyard at a glance, assuming that the backscene is not too high. That feels like a good arrangement to me.

 

So, if this ever gets built either by you or someone else only suggestion would be to make sure the end modules have a suitable cut point so that some straight extensions could be used to open up the middle if ever operated in public.

 

Otherwise to my amateur eyes looks like it would be a very nice layout.

[Harlequin]

Are there any prototypical examples of a refuge siding being bisected by a goods shed access line?

I think you are really asking, "Is it acceptable/useful for the goods access line to cross the down refuge?"

 

Well, it would only be a problem if there was a train standing in the refuge, fouling the crossing when access to the goods yard via the same crossing was needed.

 

There's room for a 4-6-0 loco + ~20 wagons + brake van to stand behind the down platform without fouling the crossing. If the conflict did occur it would be a logistical problem for the signalman to handle and he has lots of options.

 

Firstly, the signalman would be able to predict the conflict and try to avoid it. Or use the down crossing instead, or set the up goods back into the up refuge until the down refuge cleared, or send the train in the down refuge out, possibly slowing faster mainline traffic but fixing his local problem, or hold back all Up traffic until the conflict was cleared, etc., etc...

 

So, I think having the down refuge extension for those occasions when a very long slow down train needs to stand aside is a valid, useful, extra bit of flexibility for the signalman.

 

The East end connections, which then require the East box look a bit unlikely to me. It's a lot of infrastructure and cost to allow the occasional drop off of a van to the goods shed outside of the normal goods working.

 

The east end connections (sounds like something from a gangster movie) are very common in their basic arrangement, as The Stationmaster and Compound2632 have pointed out, and are very similar to Hungerford, which you yourself cited as an example.

[The Stationmaster]

It's absolutely bog standard to have the goods yard accessed by trailing connections from both running lines. What's slightly unusual (to my Midland-focused eyes) is for the goods yard to be alongside rather than beyond the passenger platforms. A box for each crossover is probably a bit of an extravagance - hey-ho what fun with the slotting! - but maybe it's dictated by the distance. There was a BoT maximum...

 

I wholly agree that the layout itself isn't really unusual in having crossovers and a slip connection to the yard at both ends - part of conveying that 'a bit bigger than usual on the route' atmosphere to the track layout.  In a slightly different way the 'goods yard alongside the station' arrangement did exist on the B&H line albeit at only one station so not impossible in this version and as I've already said it helps the impression of a track layout developed for a specific place but having various typical features which support its overall 'believeability'.

 

Having two signalboxes is really very much an era thing and some survived at places like this into the 1930s (and possibly later?) although by then the GWR was well into rationalising down to a single box, even on some branchlines, in order to reduce operating costs.  

 

incidentally I doubt there would be any slotting at all between the two 'boxes with the possible exception of the distant signals.  There was an example on the B&H Extension at Savernake with 'boxes at both ends, 469 yards apart and considerable flexibility permitted for various unusual (for a block section) types of movements between them and the only thing which was slotted was Savernake East's Down Distant Signal; Savernake West's Up Distant Signal was not slotted by Savernake East (it was on a rising gradient).  In the Down direction Savernake East's Section Signal was literally at one end of the station platform, only 340 yards from the West 'box - which had its Down Home Signal at the other end of that platform.

[clachnaharry]

I agree that a connection to the goods yard from both ends is not unusual, but I think it's the limitations of this one, only accessing the goods yard road, that looks odd to me. If the single slip crossing the relief was changed to a double this would open things up. As it stands, I can't see how the single slip would be used. The dock road can provide a trap more economically.

Edited November 11, 2018 by clachnaharry

[imt]

Phil,

 

Your usual brilliant piece of work, amended for input by the experts.  I would agree with Mike that a double slip at the right hand end of the loop to allow a set back into the Down refuge might be a good idea, but I see your point about the signalman being there to handle such occurrences (maybe the traffic manager might be some help?).  Given the possibilities of the layout - including such as the loco running round the goods to take some wagons off and push them into the Up refuge - I don't see the problem. Like so much of your stuff - wish I had space and then I'd build it (T-scale anybody?).

[Harlequin]

Thanks everyone. I will think about a double slip crossing the down refuge and the number of signal boxes that might have been in use.

 

Here's a small interesting thing that occurred to me: I think this is the first layout I've ever designed where a Distant signal can legitimately be placed in the scenic area! :-)

[The Stationmaster]

The point about planning any track layout is that you have to start from two basic premises, viz the space available and how you require it to be worked.  These two will interact in, very often, a series of compromises until you get to where you have a workable layout to suit the required traffic flows.  For the modeller the second of these is in effect simplified by looking at what was there in the real world and understanding (hopefully) how a particular layout was intended to be used.  All the modeller then does - as has been done here - is try to fit such features into the space available or an idealised space.

 

Almost invariably local goods yards or sidings were shunted by a freight trip travelling either one way or the other and very few local yards could be fully shunted by trains in either direction but numerous yards, even very small ones, had the facility to drop or collect a few wagons from/by trains running in either direction - this is exactly what happened on the B&H.   On the layout in question the goods yard can very obviously only be fully shunted by a Down train because in order to fully shunt the yard and subsequently depart an Up train would have to have its engine runround twice - which would take time and cost/waste money.  But the way Phil has planned the layout still allows an Up train to detach or pick up a small number of wagons - exactly as was timetabled at a B&H Extension station I have previously looked at in considerable detail and as probably happened at other stations on the route.

 

In other words the current layout plan meets relevant traffic movement criteria to service the goods yard although I remain of the view that a double slip could be more useful than the single slip in the Down Refuge as it would allow an Up train the extra facility of putting off into/picking up from the Down refuge as well as the goods  shed road.  Another alternative - sorry Phil - would be to alter the side on which the single slip road lies in the Down Refuge thereby giving the Up train a facility to access either road - maybe that might be a better alternative than a double slip.

 

Incidentally whichever arrangement is used of the three I'm now talking about the connection from the goods shed road towards the single slip would inevitably have to be signalbox worked in order to provide trapping - as Phil has already indicated on his drawings.

[Harlequin]

Hi Mike,

 

If you have time, could you describe a typical sequence of movements that might occur when a down train shunts the yard? I suspect there are nuances that would be very interesting to know about.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

If you have time, could you describe a typical sequence of movements that might occur when a down train shunts the yard? I suspect there are nuances that would be very interesting to know about.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

Doing some delving Phil as the Pre-war and post war workings were very different (not unusual in that respect) and there doesn't appear to be a local trip of any sort west of Newbury/east of Savernake in the 1938 Service timetables so only through trains working at Hungerford including the 02,.25 Reading - Bristol which was probably the main service.

[The Stationmaster]

Right - to the freight services.  these are for Summer 1938 but were probably little altered over the years.  However it should be noted that the post-war (WWII) situation was very different and it looks as if traffic to/from Hungerford was routed in a different way then.  note also that I have used 'modern' WTT symbols and terminology except in respect of the term 'daily')

 

So 1938 Down freight trains (and these ran daily unless shown otherwise (n.b. 'daily' meant Monday - Saturday in those days).

 

02.25 MX Reading - Bristol (departed at 01.45 on Sats), Class K.  Called at all stations from Kintbury to Devizes, at Hungerford 05.35 - 06*15.  Regulated to 06*15 on the relevant days for the 02.55 WFO Old Oak Common/05.15 TThO Hayes to Westbury  Class H Stone Empties.

 

04.00 MO Q Reading West Jvcn - Bristol East depot.  Runs as required, MO equivalent of the 02.25 MX from Reading.  At Hungerford 06.00 - 06.25

 

18.25 Didcot - Westbury Class J.  Called at Hungerford if required, c.19.30  

 

Up Freight Trains

 

01.45 MX Bristol East Depot - Reading West Jcn Class J  06.55 - 07.20 at Hungerford

 

02.00 MO Q Bristol East Depot - Reading West Jcn. Runs as required.  At Hungerford 06.55 - 07.20

 

17.05 Holt Jcn - Reading West Jcn. At Hungerford 20.52 - 21.12

 

Interestingly there were no shunting engines shown to be at Hungerford so any iocal shunting would have been carried out by train engines or by ground staff using pinchbars etc.  An interesting comparison is that part of the shunting time at Newbury allocated to one particular included provision for it to shunt at Kintbury if required.

Edited November 19, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Harlequin]

Thanks Mike, that's great.

 

I understand the train classes but I don't know what MO and MX mean. (I can tell that's a real newbie question! I'm sure it's explained in one of my books but can't find it yet...)

 

And what does "Regulated to" mean?

 

Would there have been Marshalling Instructions in the STT for Hungerford, requiring pickups to be ordered in particular ways for each of those trains (in addition to the general rules for goods train formation)?