Branch Line Terminus in Restricted Space Help Needed

[JST]

9 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

That really is very nice.  Could the St Ivesish goods yard be opened out a bit by running one siding parallel with the bay platform, or at least closer to it. This would also allow the Goods shed siding to be straightened up and lengthened. It might allow the removal of the double slip in favour of back to back points. The headshunt woudl then be furhter from the running line, but it could go behind the signal box - handy the signalman's coal delivery!

 

Excellent idea!

[chuffinghell]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi John,

 

Here's my first stab at it:

• The first thing you'll notice is that I'm suggesting a bigger fillet because it allows a more continuous curve instead of a dogleg station. Is that possible?
• The platforms are long enough for 6-coach trains, with run round on the Main side plus a 4-6-0 standing proudly at the head!
• The platform looks a bit skinny but it is wider than the regulation 12ft along most of its length, and it gets wider towards the station building to try to give it a bit of "heft".
• Carriage siding can hold 6 coaches.
• I've plonked a station building on just because that's the obvious place for it - not saying you should change your plans.
• Engine shed, carriage siding and goods yard are all naturally trapped to protect the passenger lines - no need for catch points (if I've done it right).
• Engine shed connects to run round loop, which would normally be kept free so no problem with loco getting in and out
• The goods yard could be laid out in a number of different ways.
• It might just be possible to fit a turntable in the engine shed area.
• Smallest radius of 610mm is in the 1 Double slip in the goods yard. Other parts: 1 Large right, 3 Medium left, 1 Medium right, 2 curved right, 1 curved left.

 

 

A work of art as always, it flows very nicely!

[Pacific231G]

On 18/02/2020 at 04:02, DavidCBroad said:

It's a bit unusual to have a BLT site which has plenty of length but is short of width, more like a city terminus site.

Fort William is a bit of a red herring. Its a Main line station and didn't act as a terminus, the majority of trains changed locos and went back the way they came at least as far as Mallaig Junction.   Three trains a day was typical.   Sparse even by GW BLT standards.      Kingswear was bursting at the seams.  The carriage sidings were really awkward to shunt and any attempt to down size it makes it far worse. Trains had to be broken up before they could access the sidings, good fun if you enjoy shunting but if you can only move two carriages at a time it becomes horribly tedious. Getting a decent size station building will be challenging, the only way I can see is across the platform end a la Bodmin GWR, but with all that length you can afford to use 6" or so for buildings.

Seaton definitely looks like a contender, my kind of station, no sign of a headshunt or kick back siding.

While typical BLTs could be spread out, narrow ones were very far from being unusual and Seaton was certainly not unique. This would apply particularly to River or Estuary side locations, in hillier ground, to squeeze into an already well established town, where land was otherwise restricted, or just where land prices were quite high- top quality agricultural land wasn't cheap. 

Examples that come immediately to mind include Ashburton, Fairford (planned as a through station), Bembridge and Chesham (pre Underground). I don't know whether Windsor (Riverside) counts as  a BLT even though it was far more compact than Windsor GWR which definitely was  (Riverside is double track, originally had three platfrorms and even when it had goods facilities was very narrow) There were also urban examples like  Banbury (Merton Street) and a good look through my library would quickly yield many more examples. Had it ever been built, the planned site for the Oxford Terminus of the Metropolitan Railway branch from Quanton Road looks pretty narrow (I think in Peter Denny's world that it was built!)  .

 

Fort William was/is unusual as a reversing terminus (It was just a terminus until the Mallaig extension  was built) but the point of those is that you effectively double the number of train movements particularly if only part of many trains does so.  It was a sort of main line terminus but in no more space than a very modest BLT and there have been other examples of reversing termini more branch line in character such as Moorswater. Thurso is also now a reversing terminus with trains going on to Wick (though I believe that in steam days trains from Inverness used to split at Georgemas junction for Thurso and Wick rather than reversing at Thurso) 

 

Harlequin's summer hols is a great development of St. Ives with far more operational potential. As with St. Ives, I don't think the lack of a turntable is any great problem. Kingswear was at the end of quite a long line from Newton Abbott  (Did Paignton have a turntable?)  but if the line is relatively short then locos would simply work back light engine to the MPD at the junction.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Danemouth]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Kingswear was at the end of quite a long line from Newton Abbott  (Did Paignton have a turntable?)  but if the line is relatively short then locos would simply work back light engine to the MPD at the junction.

 

 

IIRC Kingswear had a turntable.

 

Dave

[KeithMacdonald]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Kingswear was at the end of quite a long line from Newton Abbott  (Did Paignton have a turntable?)  but if the line is relatively short then locos would simply work back light engine to the MPD at the junction.

 

Now taken care-of at Churston (without the branch to Brixham)

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Marlow might have the length, but is it too wide?

 

[KeithMacdonald]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I don't know whether Windsor (Riverside) counts as  a BLT even though it was far more compact than Windsor GWR which definitely was  (Riverside is double track, originally had three platfrorms and even when it had goods facilities was very narrow)

 

Windsor (Riverside)  -  it looks like a nice riverside BLT to me, it even has a turntable squeezed in. But is it narrow enough?

 

 

NLS

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.4878&lon=-0.6063&layers=168&b=1

 

 

[DCB]

Kingswear had a turntable but until around 1960 Paignton did not.   As a great many trains started from Paignton to avoid the single line section to Kingswear there was a lot of tender first running from Newton Abbott to Paignton and vice versa especially on Summer Saturdays.  Sometimes a Castle or similar would be sent down from Newton tender first on a local passenger to take a long distance train back north.   Paignton Goods yard had to be cleared on summer Fridays to allow the yard to be used for carriage storage .   Extra sidings and turntable were provided at Goodrington Sands as the diesels came into service (which did not need to be turned) and the traffic declined which was a bit sad,

St Ives handled trains much longer than its loop by double heading the trains and detaching the lead loco at the loco shed and running it on to the back of the train when the train was in the platform.   10 coach or so St Ives portions of the CRE worked in and out double headed by 45XX tanks.   They started from London at around 10.30 so wouldn't have arrived much before 5pm. I am guessing the Up train came as ECS from Ponsandane sidings by Penzance and the down stock went back there also ECS.     

 I'm pretty sure the "Bay" was a loading dock for vans, higher platform than a passenger platform

[clachnaharry]

One unusual feature of St Ives goods yard is that the only length of siding directly accessable at road level is the short stub beyond the goods shed.  Where did they unload domestic coal, I wonder?

[KeithMacdonald]

2 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

One unusual feature of St Ives goods yard is that the only length of siding directly accessable at road level is the short stub beyond the goods shed.  Where did they unload domestic coal, I wonder?

 

Here's one image of the goods yard, on Archive Images

 

http://www.archive-images.co.uk/gallery/Archive-Images-of-St-Ives-Cornwall/image/9/St_Ives_Railway_Station_c1950

 

Or was it straight onto local transport, right next to the passenger coaches?

 

http://www.penwithlocalhistorygroup.co.uk/on-this-day/?id=148

 

 

© Penwith Local History Group

"A summer Saturday at St Ives station with the Cornish Riviera arriving (courtesy of St Ives Museum)"

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, Danemouth said:

18 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Kingswear was at the end of quite a long line from Newton Abbott  (Did Paignton have a turntable?)  but if the line is relatively short then locos would simply work back light engine to the MPD at the junction.

 

IIRC Kingswear had a turntable.

 

Dave

Hi Dave

Kingswear did indeed have a turntable. The length of the line, with tender locos handling some trains, would have necessitated that, especially if the nearest turntable was otherwise Newton Abbott. I was really contrasting it with shorter branches that wouldn't have had the same need IF there was an MPD at their junction (The GWR's short but important branch to Windsor didn't need a shed because Basingstoke had one, the less important and also very short branches to Henley and Wallingford did because their junctions didn't) 

 

What I've always found curious about Kingswear was the fact that, though it had a turntable and stabling roads, its doesn't seem to have had any sort of loco shed. Newton Abbot had sub-sheds  at Ashburton, Moretonhampstead and Kingsbridge but none on the Paignton-Kingswear line.  Most branches did have engine sheds at their termini simply because the first and last passenger train of the day was normally from and to the terminus (to connect with the morning and evening main line trains typically to and from London)   

 

1 hour ago, clachnaharry said:

One unusual feature of St Ives goods yard is that the only length of siding directly accessable at road level is the short stub beyond the goods shed.  Where did they unload domestic coal, I wonder?

At first sight It is curious that there wasn't a dedicated coal siding as it was often the most important rail import into any British community, As a resort St. Ives would have needed quite a lot of domestic coal. However, looking at various photos of the station it's clear that the "bay" line was mainly a goods siding. It was originally simply a mileage siding as this photo from around 1890 shows  clearly.

It also shows at least ten wagons parked on the line opposite the platform usually regarded as a carriage siding. As the open wagons appear to be empty, these have presumably been shunted from the goods yard.  I can't though see any signs of the usual coal merchants' staithes at the back of the goods yard. 

The Cornwall Railway Society have a lot of more recent photos  on the St.Ives page  of their very useful website

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/st-ives-branch.html

and several of these clearly show coal wagons in the "bay"

 

 

[Flying Pig]

This picture from the (extensive) page linked by @Pacific231G shows a mineral wagon in the bay/siding, along with a merchandise wagon apparently carrying snow (a perishable load, hence the fitted wagon): 

 

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/pic9-coal-wagon-in-the-bay-snow-at-st-ives-laurence-hansford-copy_1_orig.jpg

 

With such limited siding space, unloading presumably had to be pretty snappy by coal merchant standards and there's obviously no room for stacking coal in the yard. @Harlequin's plan is lavish in comparison, but moving the siding alonside the bay as suggested above and copying the St Ives goods yard would capture much of the character of the prototype.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Dave

Kingswear did indeed have a turntable. The length of the line, with tender locos handling some trains, would have necessitated that, especially if the nearest turntable was otherwise Newton Abbott. I was really contrasting it with shorter branches that wouldn't have had the same need IF there was an MPD at their junction (The GWR's short but important branch to Windsor didn't need a shed because Basingstoke had one, the less important and also very short branches to Henley and Wallingford did because their junctions didn't) 

 

What I've always found curious about Kingswear was the fact that, though it had a turntable and stabling roads, its doesn't seem to have had any sort of loco shed. Newton Abbot had sub-sheds  at Ashburton, Moretonhampstead and Kingsbridge but none on the Paignton-Kingswear line.  Most branches did have engine sheds at their termini simply because the first and last passenger train of the day was normally from and to the terminus (to connect with the morning and evening main line trains typically to and from London)   

 

At first sight It is curious that there wasn't a dedicated coal siding as it was often the most important rail import into any British community, As a resort St. Ives would have needed quite a lot of domestic coal. However, looking at various photos of the station it's clear that the "bay" line was mainly a goods siding. It was originally simply a mileage siding as this photo from around 1890 shows  clearly.

It also shows at least ten wagons parked on the line opposite the platform usually regarded as a carriage siding. As the open wagons appear to be empty, these have presumably been shunted from the goods yard.  I can't though see any signs of the usual coal merchants' staithes at the back of the goods yard. 

The Cornwall Railway Society have a lot of more recent photos  on the St.Ives page  of their very useful website

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/st-ives-branch.html

and several of these clearly show coal wagons in the "bay"

 

 

I think you meant slough in relation to there being no engine shed at Windsor    Windsor of course never had a turntable there being a triangle not far away at Slough in the event of tender engines needing to be turned so there would have been such interesting sights as the likes of  MM 5XPs ('Jubilees') and 4 Fs running light engine on the branch off excursion workings.  Henley did have a turntable and several radial stabling roads with pits running off it - again partly for excursion work but also from the days when it had more through trains to Paddington and the engines on them worked down and then back to London.

 

Kingswear I think was probably close enough to Newton Abbot not to bother with a shed although it was further from that shed that some branch termini which did have sheds!

 

The interesting question about St Ives must be how did coal get there?  With plenty of shipping working between Cornwall and South Wales I would have though it might have provided the cheapest route for getting coal to St Ives and the traffic only moved to rail as coastal shipping decreased.  Incidentally as 'Flying Pig' has already said the 'bay' at St Ives wasn't a bay as such but was actually a siding so would obviously be used for freight traffic.

[Pacific231G]

Something I'm wondering about apropos of St.Ives is the function of bays. They're very popular on model BLTs as passenger platforms but were they much used that way in reality?   I notice from signalman Hitchen's sketch  http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/_926024_orig.jpg that both the bay and the goods shed siding were trapped. Was it permitted for a line used by passenger trains, therefore a running line,  to be trapped?  More to the point it only has a shunting signal controlling its exit.

The photos only show goods wagons, parcels vans, an inspection saoloon and camping coaches in the bay but no actual passenger trains. Neither the long siding after the releasing crossover nor the run round loop appear to be trapped so does that mean that stock couldn't be parked on them?  correction, according to the diagrams in R H Clark's book the loop was trapped though I can't see the trap point in any of the photos.

 

Hitchen's account confirms the dual role of the bay/siding

"The main work involved the regular passenger service to and from St. Erth plus the occasional goods. The major traffic was the outward shipment of fish with coal inwards. Coal wagons were unloaded on the non passenger side of the bay platform."

That's interesting because the other account, from what appears to be a newspaper for railway workers, implies that by 1954 Fish traffic had all but gone.

"At the peak period, passengers- with a high proportion of trippers- average 2,000 daily. Freight and Parcels traffic handled is mainly inwards foodstuffs and the usual varied merchandise for ordinary town trade. Fish traffic used to be pretty heavy. But fisherfolk at St. Ives are finding it increasingly rewarding to take visitors on pleasure outings." 

The detail from the Cornwall Railways Society webpage is particularly useful for insights into how such a terminius was operated. For example, the loading gauge is on the run round loop so outward goods trains would have started from there having obtained their staff or token (anyone know which ?) from the box. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think you meant slough in relation to there being no engine shed at Windsor    Windsor of course never had a turntable there being a triangle not far away at Slough in the event of tender engines needing to be turned so there would have been such interesting sights as the likes of  MM 5XPs ('Jubilees') and 4 Fs running light engine on the branch off excursion workings.  Henley did have a turntable and several radial stabling roads with pits running off it - again partly for excursion work but also from the days when it had more through trains to Paddington and the engines on them worked down and then back to London.

 

Kingswear I think was probably close enough to Newton Abbot not to bother with a shed although it was further from that shed that some branch termini which did have sheds!

 

The interesting question about St Ives must be how did coal get there?  With plenty of shipping working between Cornwall and South Wales I would have though it might have provided the cheapest route for getting coal to St Ives and the traffic only moved to rail as coastal shipping decreased.  Incidentally as 'Flying Pig' has already said the 'bay' at St Ives wasn't a bay as such but was actually a siding so would obviously be used for freight traffic.

Hi Mike

Quite right. I did of course mean Slough. I think we all discussed  engine sheds or not at BLTs a while ago and it does seem hard to figure out a rule of thumb. There must have been a balance between the costs of maintaing a sub-shed and lodging crews against and those of unproductively long light engine movements to and from the nearest MPD. If the early morning train from Kingswear was a through train to Paddington then it would have needed a main line locomotive rather than a resident branch loco so the need for a shed would have disappeared.  (Until 1924, Kingswear did have a small engine shed slightly separate from the turntable and stabling roads) .

 

From JST's point of view, given the MPD at the junction,  it makes it realistic to not have an engine shed at the terminus. They're attractive features but don't provide as much operational interest as say a private siding. 

 

I hadn't thought about coastal shipping supplying St. Ives with coal but it makes perfect sense and a lot cheaper from S. Wales than the long run by train. There were several hundred yards of SG track on the quayside at St. Ives, completely separate from the GWR's faciliites, and apparently used for a couple of mobile cranes. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

This whole business of 'bays' being used for non-passenger traffic, and the off-side being used for unloading, including of minerals, seems to be totally overlooked by railway modellers, and I have confess that I only got clued-up to it by studying Seaton, with its very overtly multi-purpose bay, in depth.

 

It did go on into the 1980s, I've realised, at a few places where a lot of newspapers and post was unloaded direct to lorries/vans backed-up alongside the track. I think Sevenoaks even had a strange little off-side platform/shed on the down platform loop.

 

I'm definitely going to incorporate it on the small 00 layout that I'm working on currently.

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Kingswear did indeed have a turntable. The length of the line, with tender locos handling some trains, would have necessitated that, especially if the nearest turntable was otherwise Newton Abbott. I was really contrasting it with shorter branches that wouldn't have had the same need IF there was an MPD at their junction (The GWR's short but important branch to Windsor didn't need a shed because Basingstoke had one, the less important and also very short branches to Henley and Wallingford did because their junctions didn't) 

 

What I've always found curious about Kingswear was the fact that, though it had a turntable and stabling roads, its doesn't seem to have had any sort of loco shed. Newton Abbot had sub-sheds  at Ashburton, Moretonhampstead and Kingsbridge but none on the Paignton-Kingswear line.

 

Kingswear had an engine shed until 14th July 1924.

 

Brixham also had an engine shed, though again it was closed relatively early.

 

Just a guess, but the Kingswear was likely close enough to Newton Abbot that the travel time to get the first engine in place was insignificant compared to the cost of an engine shed, and the lack of space given that it likely really needed more than a single engine for busy day starts.  Which gets to the second guess, there was enough traffic on the Kingwear "branch" that it would really need a more significant facility than the space allowed for.

[JST]

I think the answer with Kingswear and a number off these other branches may be that the traffic was considerable on summer Saturdays but not on a winter weekday. Hence the facilities had to cope with the busy times.

[Nearholmer]

I know nuffink when it comes to the GWR, but I believe that on the Seaton branch a pair of engines went down to the terminus to haul the Saturday 'big train(s)' out. The stock may actually have been stabled at the junction, so possibly an entire ECS train, rather than light engines. Given that the train(s) had to reverse at the junction in order to go to Waterloo, I think they might have been tank engines, with the big tender engine backing on at the junction. Reverse process in the late afternoon with the Down train(s).

 

Must have cost a fortune in under-utilised carriages, engine time, fuel and crews!

[JST]

Enter Dr Beeching!

[Nearholmer]

I was thinking of his smiling visage as I typed. Between his beady eye and the arising of cheap air travel, holidays to the West Country have never been the same since.

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Must have cost a fortune in under-utilised carriages, engine time, fuel and crews!

 

Agreed, but I'm assuming it's a relative term?

e.g.

Quote

Welford signal box was graded as Class 5 and the weekly pay rate for a signalman here in 1934 was 51/9d (£2.58p).

http://lambournvalleyrailway.info/stations+crossings/welfordpark/welfordpark.htm

 

What was the pay rate in Devon & Cornwall and the cost of coal back then?

As compared to the cost of building a new shed or turntable.

[Nearholmer]

The key point is that however cr*p the wages were, and they were cr*p, which is why most of the railway went on strike in 1954 (I think), they summed-up to more than the value of the tickets sold, to an ever-ballooning extent.

 

i wasn’t really seeking to compare with building a turntable and a bigger loco shed ..... that would have been even more uneconomic. I was musing on the general uneconomicalness of the operation in the round ...... having infrastructure, plant and staff to meet a spike of demand that occurs on maybe twelve Saturdays each year is always going to either be loss-making, cause massively high premium fares at peak, or involve upping fares for everyone to soak up the costs.

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I was musing on the general uneconomicalness of the operation in the round ...... having infrastructure, plant and staff to meet a spike of demand that occurs on maybe twelve Saturdays each year is always going to either be loss-making, cause massively high premium fares at peak, or involve upping fares for everyone to soak up the costs.

 

I completely agree - and wonder what's changed.

Looking now for prices one month ahead:

• Easyjet Bristol to Edinburgh is £32 and takes 1 hr 15 mins
• By rail, Bristol to Edinburgh is £189 and takes 6 hrs

 

[Nearholmer]

I’m always utterly sceptical about air-travel times, which seem to be measured, wheels-off-the-ground to wheels-on-the-ground, departing from the middle of nowhere, after having to get up at four o’clock in the morning for a ten o’clock flight, but the price difference does seem stark.