Layover / Lay-by sidings on single track GWR lines?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

This is a development of a question I’m asking in the Layout and Track Planning forum. I’m working on a small layout plan for a portion of a single track steam era secondary line / branch line.  Back story will probably be an independent line absorbed into the GWR in rural England (I’m not trying to be too specific).  I have space for a possible layover / lay-by siding (as an alternative to a passing loop), but know little about them.  Two questions about if I may about prototypes for such lines:

1.  Are there many examples of lay-by sidings on single lines / longer branch lines not run on a one engine in steam basis (perhaps lines originally planned as through lines)?  If I know they existed, that’ll be good enough for me.

2.  The edge of baseboard constraint means the possible siding feels like it is kind of “the wrong side” of the running line, the siding is the lower line here:

 

 

Is this a problem?  With a conventional layover / lay-by siding on the outside of a double track line, the entry point (trailing) would diverge to the right of the running line when backing in.  Mine would be to the left. Would that be ruled out as confusing for approaching / passing trains?

 

Note, I have included a catch-point in the plan - it’s just not very clear on this diagram.

 

Hope it’s OK to ask here.  Thanks, Keith.

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
missing word

[LMS2968]

Surely if it's single track, the first train would have the token so no other train could enter the section whether or not the first train was in the siding, unless there was a signal box there with two token machines, one for each side of the siding or, I'm pretty certain, passing loop?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Surely if it's single track, the first train would have the token so no other train could enter the section whether or not the first train was in the siding, unless there was a signal box there with two token machines, one for each side of the siding or, I'm pretty certain, passing loop?

Good point, thank you.  I’d thought about needing a signal box by the entry point, but not about what that means for a train wanting to come the other way.

[Nearholmer]

There’s a near photocopy of this discussion in another thread, with a GWR bias, and it gets into the use of mid-section token machines at some places such as this.

 

 

[Trog]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Surely if it's single track, the first train would have the token so no other train could enter the section whether or not the first train was in the siding, unless there was a signal box there with two token machines, one for each side of the siding or, I'm pretty certain, passing loop?

 

No I think you could have a single machine at the siding, so that you could put your train into the siding, then use a key on the token to lock ground frame which also locks yourself into the siding. Before putting the token into the siding machine, so proving the line to be clear. At which point a token can then be issued from one of the section end machines to allow another train to use the single line. Which is probably what Nearholmer is alluding to above.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s a near photocopy of this discussion in another thread, with a GWR bias, and it gets into the use of mid-section token machines at some places such as this.

 

 

Thank you - would you have a link?

[Nearholmer]

Blowed if I can find the thread (I read it, but didn't contribute), bur the basic principles are described here (scroll down to "intermediate instrument") http://www.railsigns.uk/info/etoken1/etoken1.html

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Blowed if I can find the thread (I read it, but didn't contribute), bur the basic principles are described here (scroll down to "intermediate instrument") http://www.railsigns.uk/info/etoken1/etoken1.html

Thank you - I’ll check it out.  I’ve also realised, from a little bit of looking around, that I should have called this topic “Refuge Siding” as I’m thinking in terms of GWR practice: I knew there was another term I was looking for!

[4069]

I'll stick my neck out and say no, such a thing would not be prototypical. Intermediate sidings on single lines existed, but they were there to serve sources of traffic: factories, wharves, military camps and depots. Refuge facilities would always be, or be associated with, a passing loop, for the signalling and operating reasons that others have mentioned. There were, on the GWR, some crossing loops not at stations (Leigh Bridge and Kentford on the Minehead branch, for instance), but those facilities were provided to enable extra passenger traffic, rather than freight. But hey, rule 1 applies.

[Nearholmer]

I’m no GWR expert, but I think if you look at several branches they had the facility to ‘lock in’ goods trains at intermediate locations where there was no facility to pass passenger trains, no signal box, and no signals, using ‘intermediate instruments’.

 

I’ve got a feeling that the station goods yards at some places on the Watlington Branch fell into this bracket, looking like passing loops, but actually double-ended sidings with ‘lock in’ facility.

 

And, below is something found by two minutes googling.

 

Try to get ‘Stationmaster’ involved; he knows chapter and verse of all this stuff for the GWR.

 

I honestly don’t think ‘Rule 1’ comes into it: it is perfectly prototypical to provide a facility to ‘lock in’ a goods train at an intermediate point between block posts. Whether there were any purely for refuge, Stationmaster will, I bet, know. If I was to go looking, I’d hunt on the ex-Cambrian and other ‘thin’ lines in rural Wales first.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, 4069 said:

I'll stick my neck out and say no, such a thing would not be prototypical. Intermediate sidings on single lines existed, but they were there to serve sources of traffic: factories, wharves, military camps and depots. Refuge facilities would always be, or be associated with, a passing loop, for the signalling and operating reasons that others have mentioned. There were, on the GWR, some crossing loops not at stations (Leigh Bridge and Kentford on the Minehead branch, for instance), but those facilities were provided to enable extra passenger traffic, rather than freight. But hey, rule 1 applies.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m no GWR expert, but I think if you look at several branches they had the facility to ‘lock in’ goods trains at intermediate locations where there was no facility to pass passenger trains, no signal box, and no signals, using ‘intermediate instruments’.

 

I’ve got a feeling that the station goods yards at some places on the Watlington Branch fell into this bracket, looking like passing loops, but actually double-ended sidings with ‘lock in’ facility.

 

And, below is something found by two minutes googling.

 

Try to get ‘Stationmaster’ involved; he knows chapter and verse of all this stuff for the GWR.

 

I honestly don’t think ‘Rule 1’ comes into it: it is perfectly prototypical to provide a facility to ‘lock in’ a goods train at an intermediate point between block posts. Whether there were any purely for refuge, Stationmaster will, I bet, know. If I was to go looking, I’d hunt on the ex-Cambrian and other ‘thin’ lines in rural Wales first.

 

 

Thank you both - if I’m reading correctly, the poster found by Nearholmer Looks to me like the kind of example 4069 points towards, in this case a factory.  The lock-in arrangement neatly fits with the description given on the link Nearholmer posted yesterday to railsigns.uk which made for interesting reading.

In terms of translating the idea of a Refuge Siding into a model railway feature, I’m thinking it would be quite interesting to have one.

[jim.snowdon]

35 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Thank you both - if I’m reading correctly, the poster found by Nearholmer Looks to me like the kind of example 4069 points towards, in this case a factory.  The lock-in arrangement neatly fits with the description given on the link Nearholmer posted yesterday to railsigns.uk which made for interesting reading.

In terms of translating the idea of a Refuge Siding into a model railway feature, I’m thinking it would be quite interesting to have one.

It is important to understand the context. The notice is dated 1941, and the arrangements are described as temporary. The exigencies of war applied, and either the whole installation was temporary (even if the factory wasn't) or permanent arrangements were in hand to regularise the situation. I have no knowledge of what the factory may have been, but it is quite possible for a railway connection to have been put in merely to deliver construction materials, and then removed.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

I think we need to separate two different things here.

 

First it was quite feasible to lock in a train at an intermediate siding on a single line provided there was suitable instrument to put the token into and thus clear the section and enable a token to be released for another train.   The Kingsdown Road GF is an example of that as it allows a train to proceed to an industrial siding (which might mean quite extensive internal sidings) and thereby allow other trains to use that single line section while it is performing its work in that siding etc).  In this case  a train is being locked in for traffic reasons and not necessarily for regulating the passage of trains over a single line section.  It was also rather unusual - see comments below.

 

Second we need to consider how a single line was used when dealing with various levels of traffic.  This is rather different from the first situation because what we are interested in here is increasing the capacity of the single line section.  To do that implies the provision of an additional block post to create an extra block section and thus allow two trains into what was once a possibly long section of single line - Leigh Bridge was an example of this.  But we then need to consider how this was done - to shunt a train into a siding for any purpose requires it to be brought to a stand at the points, the Guard to possibly have to walk the full length of the train to operate the ground frame, the train will have to propel into or out of the siding depending on its original direction of travel and then the ground frame needs to be locked and the token inserted into the nearest machine.  All that will take time and the Guard can't be in two places at once so whichever way round the train is it will involve him walking the full length of the train at least once and probably twice.  

 

With all that time taken simply to cross two trains it would probably have been quicker for a train to run through the section instead of messing about shunting into and out of a refuge siding.   So the answer would be either an intermediate signalbox and depending on traffic pattern etc the likely provision of an intermediate crossing loop - which really would increase line capacity.  So the OP's idea isn't really on because it does nothing to really create extra line capacity, too much faffing about!

 

Now back to Kingsdown Road - where there is a lot more to things than that Notice tells us much about.  One key point was that trains working there usually had a Guard and a Shunter so it could be much quicker to get in and out.  Secondly what was included in that Notice didn't last all that long because a signal box was provided at Kingsdown Road from 17 February 1942.  The signal box was a token station and thus it split into two separate sections the original Highworth Branch Jcn - Highworth section but unlike, say, Leigh Bridge, there was no crossing loop.  Things changed in 1958 when although the signal box was left in position the connection towards the factory was altered back to ground frame operation (no doubt with a shut-in facility) which meant the signal box need no longer be manned to deal with trains to the factory.  The final change (total closure apart) was when the line beyond Kingsdown Road towards Highworth was completely closed in 1962 at which time both the signal box and ground frame ceased to be required.

 

South Marston Factory and was in fact a 'shadow' factory producing aircraft which was latterly owned by Vickers-Armstrong- Supermarine and they built aircraft there until c.1960.   The adjacent airfield and part of the factory site is now part of the BMW-Mini factory empire but the rail connection has long gone.

[Nearholmer]

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

I think Mike's comment, ". . . too much faffing about!" is a hint there.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you for the contributions above - as always, the chance to learn something of interest.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

 

I think the received wisdom, and absence of examples, suggests pure refuge sidings were not a feature found (or desired) on single track GWR lines, so I’d be stretching things to include one.  I’m grateful to The Stationmaster for a full response. The salient points for me are as picked out here:

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think we need to separate two different things here.

 

First it was quite feasible to lock in a train at an intermediate siding on a single line provided there was suitable instrument to put the token into and thus clear the section and enable a token to be released for another train.
 

With all that time taken simply to cross two trains it would probably have been quicker for a train to run through the section instead of messing about shunting into and out of a refuge siding.   So the answer would be either an intermediate signalbox and depending on traffic pattern etc the likely provision of an intermediate crossing loop - which really would increase line capacity.  So the OP's idea isn't really on because it does nothing to really create extra line capacity, too much faffing about!

I might just have to add another industry (or equivalent) to the plan.

 

No further questions, m’lud.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

Not as far as I can trace although there might possibly have been sidings used to cross trains in very early days although single lines with crossing loops were around in the 1850s.  The only specifically titled refuge siding I have been able to run to earth so far on a GWR single line was at Yelverton but it was at the station which had a crossing loop and I suspect it was probably used for Princetown branch traffic as much as for any other reason.

[Rivercider]

20 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

A big question, though, seems to be whether or not the GWR had any intermediate sidings specifically, and solely for refuge (locking in) purposes, sidings which served no other purpose.

The March 1960 Sectional Appendix for the Exeter Traffic District,  Table S1 lists Intermediate Sidings at which trains may be shunted for other trains to pass. Both Watchet and Washford on the Minehead Branch have sidings specifically referred to as a 'Refuge Siding', though at both locations they were not solely for refuge purposes.

 

Christow on the Teign Valley line also had a siding referred to a Refuge Siding, which also had a weighbridge, there was though also a normal passing loop at the station.

 

cheers

[The Stationmaster]

29 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

The March 1960 Sectional Appendix for the Exeter Traffic District,  Table S1 lists Intermediate Sidings at which trains may be shunted for other trains to pass. Both Watchet and Washford on the Minehead Branch have sidings specifically referred to as a 'Refuge Siding', though at both locations they were not solely for refuge purposes.

 

Christow on the Teign Valley line also had a siding referred to a Refuge Siding, which also had a weighbridge, there was though also a normal passing loop at the station.

 

cheers

In the case of both Watchet (from 1926 onwards) and Washford (from 1952 onwards) the original loops were retained when the signal box was closed and a ground frame was provided at each end of the loop.   In both cases shut-in facilities were provided which enabled a freight train to be held in the loop if necessary for another train to pass or if it was working there - sidings being off the loop at both places.

 

I wonder if the refuge siding at Christow was the remnant of the quarry branch which went out of use c.1931?