Jump to content
 

Signalling a single-track GWR passing station


Recommended Posts

@Rowan I wouldn't take criticism to heart - it's usually meant well as an aid to improving the layout. Sometimes the die is cast, as I found out reading this thread - my one bit of pointwork that wouldn't have been terribly prototypical, will have to now stay. Can't change the setting out of the pointwork and it's an item that's too expensive to put to one side - I'll live and no-one else but me will see it the flesh! Whilst photos don't lie (don't they?) I shan't have to photograph it and show it on the web either. Rule 1 applies! Yay! You do what you feel is right and I'm sure it'll look good. :))))

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Just make sure your signals look 'right' and that your locos carry appropriate lamps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wild Swan's Great Western Railway Journal no 23 (summer 1997) contains an article entitled The Kingham goods. Written by Michael Clifton who was a fireman at Banbury, it describes the working of the pick-up goods from Banbury to Kingham and back on a typical day, including the detail of the shunting undertaken at each stop. If there is a better description in print of the everyday work of the thousands of pick-up goods trains that ran each day on Britain's railways, I have yet to read it, and it is particularly pertinent to you as it covers the work on a GWR cross-country line much like Ruabon-Dolgelley (Barmouth was on another railway - the Cambrian Railways - in 1910 which fell under the LNWR sphere of influence). The pick-up goods would have conveyed all the goods and mineral wagons to and from all the stations with goods facilities along the line together with any wagons destined for transfer to the Cambrian Railways at Dolgelley. Given the length of the line and the fact that there would have considerable mineral traffic (slate) from the Blaenau Festiniog branch towards Ruabon, Pick up goods workings in the area may well have been something like Ruabon-Bala, Bala-Blaenau Festiniog and Bala Junction-Barmouth, all of which would have been a reasonable day's work for a round trip. Although there were collieries in the Ruabon area, wagons of coal for domestic and local industrial purposes would have been conveyed by the pick-up goods trains, there would have been no dedicated mineral trains except, possibly, for outbound slate traffic, as there was nowhere for them to have run to. (There were no major cities along the mid-Wales coast and, even had there been, mineral trains would have been routed over LNWR and Cambrian Railways metals and not over the GWR.) Incidentally, the working of pick-up goods trains was only ever a slow, gentle process if the train had a fair booked time at the station waiting to pass (or be passed by) another train, normally shunting was carried out as rapidly as possible, very much a case of crash, bang, wallop and something that most modellers get wrong.

 

Given that you mention a cattle market close by your station it is possible that this generated some special market-day workings, either passenger or cattle, or possibly both together in market-day mixed train workings. The provision of the cattle dock to serve the market makes it even more important that the dock had direct shunting access. If that physical location of the dock was important because of direct access to the market (and I certainly don't disagree with that analysis) then the yard layout would have been reversed giving direct access from the "London" end. However given that the track layout is built (and I have to say looks quite nice from the photo), the simplest thing would to just move the cattle dock and notional(?) market to where you have "goods" marked. It is probably unlikely that traffic levels would justify any greater provision for general goods than a large lock-up shed (probably in corrugated iron) on a small platform and that could easily be located elsewhere.

 

I still think that it is unlikely that a company horse would have been provided, one would be more likely in a town location, but it is immaterial, there would have been a local carrier doing much the same work (and quite possibly with "G W R" on his cart), and his horse, or the coal man's, would have been used on a tit-for-tat basis. Incidentally the coal man (or men) probably did other work other than just delivering coal, quite possibly farm work.

 

None of this is intended as a criticism but merely as information, which you say you were lacking, to help you get your layout, and its operation, as right as possible. Your avatar suggests that you are based in Malaysia, in which case you are particularly brave to even try. I only live across the Channel in Belgium and even that makes modelling Britain's railways very difficult despite many well-filled "goody" boxes. I do, though, have the advantage of being old enough to remember pick-up goods trains (and even before the 1955 ASLEF strike destroyed much of the railways' general goods traffic).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Philou said:

@Rowan I wouldn't take criticism to heart - it's usually meant well as an aid to improving the layout. Sometimes the die is cast, as I found out reading this thread - my one bit of pointwork that wouldn't have been terribly prototypical, will have to now stay. Can't change the setting out of the pointwork and it's an item that's too expensive to put to one side - I'll live and no-one else but me will see it the flesh! Whilst photos don't lie (don't they?) I shan't have to photograph it and show it on the web either. Rule 1 applies! Yay! You do what you feel is right and I'm sure it'll look good. :))))

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Just make sure your signals look 'right' and that your locos carry appropriate lamps.

Thank you @Philou for your supportive message.

 

I have looked into the impact of a 'Highley' type point configuration on my layout. Even if I demolished the whole model and started again to include it, it is a non-starter. The point configuration would occupy 53", leaving a mere 39" for the freight drop-off line, enough for a loco, 2 or 3 wagons plus a brake van. The total width of the 3 tracks also increases by 4", cramping the goods yard area to the point where to include one becomes impossible. All in all, although incorrect to the prototype, I am satisfied my track plan is the best compromise given the space available. As previously stated, perhaps the only modification I will make is to change the platform bay line to narrow gauge. Visually, this would make more sense but I doubt it accords with the prototype.

 

And I will make sure the signals look right.

Merci. Cordialement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A potted history of the Raubon/Barmouth line.

 

The line joins the GWR Shrewsbury/Chester line, part of the London Paddington/Birkenhead line, at Ruabon.

 

The line was built in 5 sections by 4 different companies: Vale of Llangollen Railway Company, Llangollen and Corwen Railway Company, Bala and Dolgelly Railway company and the final Dolgelly to Barmouth section by the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway Company. With regard to the sections built by  the  Vale of Llangollen, Llangollen and Corwen and Bala and Dolgelly railway companies, all 4 sections were run by GWR from the outset. The 3 companies were absorbed by GWR in 1896, 1896 and 1877 respectively. Construction of the final section bankrupted the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway Company and the company was taken over by Cambrian Railways in whose ownership it remained until the creation of 'The Big Four' when it passed to GWR. Cambrian Railways completed construction and the section opened in 1868. I do not know whether running of this small section was by Cambrian Railways or GWR. Incidentally, from my researches, Bala Junction was a junction in the middle of nowhere consisting solely of a transfer platform with not even a roadway connection.

 

The benefit to both GWR and Cambrian of the line was it provided a more direct route to the beaches of the Llyn Peninsular, which both companies wished to develop to meet the growing recreational needs of the rapidly expanding industrial centres. The alternative route was Cambrian Railways more tortuous, mid-Wales one from Oswestry to Aberystwyth and Barmouth via Machynlleth (Dovey Junction), a similar junction station to Bala Junction save Dovey Junction had a roadway connection.

 

The problem I have had throughout the development of Maes y Coed is most information, be it from books, Internet searches or personal recollections, is based upon post nationalisation practices. Much water passed under the bridge between 1910 and 1947 - what was valid for post 1947 may not necessarily be valid for 1910.

Edited by Rowan
correcting a grammatical error
Link to post
Share on other sites

The late Bill Rear in his Foxline Book "The Llangollen Line" stated that the line was only GWR until it reached Dolgelley (OK if you are Welsh, Dolgellau), where the Cambrian took over and insisted on providing the motive power, all changed in 1922 of course.

All you probably need to know about Bala Junction is probably contained in another Foxline Book "Bala Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog"

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

The late Bill Rear in his Foxline Book "The Llangollen Line" stated that the line was only GWR until it reached Dolgelley (OK if you are Welsh, Dolgellau), where the Cambrian took over and insisted on providing the motive power, all changed in 1922 of course.

All you probably need to know about Bala Junction is probably contained in another Foxline Book "Bala Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog"

Thanks @Stephen Freeman. In that case I am sure you will appreciate the mythical settlement of Maes y Coed is located somewhere between Ruabon and Dolgellau ;-)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Rowan said:

Thank you for your observations @bécasse. May I respectfully point out my original post on this thread clearly stated my model was of a fictitious small country station somewhere along the GWR Ruabon/Barmouth line in 1910. I also included a photograph which showed the track had been laid with ballasting substantially complete.

 

1) In 1910, such stations would have kept their own Shires both for shunting wagons and for the delivery of goods.

2) The cattle line/dock would only have, at best, usage once a week on market day. In the completed model, the cattle dock is immediately adjacent to the cattle market, all of which gains access from a lane (yet to be modelled) that runs along the left-hand end of the model.

3) The model does not and will not include a train for general freight or perishable freight. The only non-coal freight activity will be a milk siphon C coupled to the passenger train.

4) I do not know this for sure as I can find no details of the working practices of a drop-off freight train, head code K, which stops at intermediate stations. Bearing in mind the plethora of small stations it would be required to stop at between Ruabon and Barmouth, I would guess it highly unlikely it would do more than drop off and collect the few empty coal wagons scheduled for each station. Shunting the wagons to their final places would be left to the station using whatever means they had available.

 

My final point in my last post was, to a degree, stating the obvious - to adversely criticise someone's model once those elements under consideration are substantially complete will achieve nothing but dishearten the modeller. Even if those criticisms are valid, there comes a point when they cease to be constructive.

I wonder?  Local freight trips were normally formed with vehicles in station order for detaching while attachments were usually made 'rough' or were collected - along with outwards traffic - on a later trip or train.

 

There seems to be an awful amount of confusion in the model railway world about shunting and this is hardly surprising as handling local trip freights is  a along lost art.  Shunting was almost invariably quick - carried out more often at a run than atnwalking pace - and with vehicles suitably pre-formed the job at any smaller station could be dealt with quickly.  The problem of course on a model railway is that even with the latest gizmos and electronic hep it is very difficult  to loose shunt.  Due also to the lack of mass and inertia in the vast majority of model wagons.  Double shunting and, should it be needed, fly shunting are virtually impossible although towing has been suuccessfully modelled but I don't think using a prop has been done.  But whatever and however there is no way that model railway shunting can come anywhere near the pace of the wirk in the real world.

 

Moving a single wagon around was a simple matter using pinch bars - the problem usually wasn't so much getting it moving but stopping it once it was moving.  Far simpler, quicker, and cheaper, than using a horse with the necessary special harness attachments needed to haul wagons plus the space in which to do it.  Moving a raft of wagons was obviously much eaier using a horse but if the horses were out doing their cartage work they wouldn't be available when shunting around of wagons was needed.

 

I can't quite understand why you won't have a train for 'general freight' because that was exactly what most freight trips conveyed and you even have a siding labelled for such traffic.  Pre Great War it would have been unusual for wayside stations not to handle general freight traffic - the reduction to coal class traffic only was very much a modernisation era thing although in some places it had happened during the 1950s (and occasionally, even, back in the 1930s

 

In the June 1891 Service TT the only Class K freight between Ruabon and Barmouth spent 10 minutes each at Glyndyfrdwy and Corwen plus about. an hour at Llangollen.  The various other freights, mostly Class D (of that time) , which served the intermediate stations, spent no more than 10 minutes at them and in most case less time - sometimes as little as 5 minutes.  These sort of times were not unusual for trip freights back then and for decades subsequently and were clearly regarded as adequate to deal with the traffic.

 

The layout is also simple to shunt - clear empties from the goods and coal sidings then place the inward loads - easy job especially as the inward wagons would in any case be loose shunted.  Exact order of pulling out and placing the emoties depends solely on what other work the trip will be doing..  

 

Only potential problem is inwards empty cattle wagons but they can be pinch-barred back off the goods siding and pinch-barred back onto it once loaded ready for collection whichever train they'll be forwarded on.  But equally provided there is headroom on the goods siding the engine of the outwards train could collect then and, if needed, run round them to attach to its train - an easy task to be done in 10 minutes or a little less time in the real world.

 

But we go back every time to the simple fact that shunting on a model railway takes much longer than it ever did in the rea; world.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/09/2023 at 12:00, The Stationmaster said:

Highley is a siding - as noted - and not a loop and  it also has no ground signals so is odd in that respect.  Trains would normally only enter the siding by setting back into it and would not enter it head on.

 

Penrhyndeudraeth is interesting as the loop only acts as a loop in one direction which reduces the signal forest somewhat.  As 'Ramblin Rich' has explained dummy single tongue traps can be added without altering any existing trackwork.

 

A three way point, of any sort, in a running line waaway from a major terminus was a pretty rare event to say the least.  Very rarely needed as there was lenty of room to avoid them when virtually all rural stations were built or later expanded.

I may be reading your comments incorrectly but Highley does have ground signals. Siding No2 doesn't but that's because trains from Siding 2 are controlled by the same ground signals for siding 1.

 

The ground signals at the northern (down) end are interesting in that the ground signal at that end is a yellow signal so enabling unfettered access to the head-shunt but is also the section signal from the sidings to the down line to Bridgnorth.

 

What is different to the present signalling arrangement and that shown on the plan is there is now a ground signal at the Down Home that gives access to the sidings. The signal at the colliery siding has been removed.

 

The trap point shown was actually in the colliery side of that particular siding which led to the colliery sidings that now houses the museum at Highley.

 

Three-way points are never to be found in running lines; goods yards and sidings only. Tandem turnouts are found in running lines, and examples can be seen on the line serving Embsay Station. Interestingly there was also a three-way turnout in the yard at Embsay.

Edited by meil
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The SRS diagram shows  no ground signals reading into the looped siding and neither does John Hinson's 1969 diagram.  Yes there were ground signals inside but on those two diagrams none reading in from the running line.  The photo of what appears to be an original diagram on the SVR site shows only a ground signal reading in from the Down Home but none reading in from the Up Home.  In GWR days, and no doubt for many years after there would obvioulsy have been no yellow arm discs at Highley.

 

Clearly from the GWR style diagram show on the SVR website the layout was only signalled to permit an Up train to set back into the loop from the Down Home.  That facility was not signalled at the opposite end.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But we go back every time to the simple fact that shunting on a model railway takes much longer than it ever did in the real world.


As an aside, in US model railroading the opposite can apply - switching a model layout can be far quicker than in reality:
 

When a train arrives at a rail-served industry, the Conductor has to step down from the train and walk to the spur, where they may have to unlock and switch the turnout, unlock an industry gate and remove the derail (the equivalent of our trap points), and all this before even uncoupling the freight car being switched from the train (and then from the locomotive once spotted in place).  Railserved industries can have specific doorways (etc.) where cars must be positioned exactly too.

 

Additionally, when coupling up, brakes need to be attached and tested before the locomotive can move off.  The derail then has to be reset, the gate locked and the mainline turnout switched back before the Conductor re-boards the train.

 

There can be similar safety procedures to follow at undated grade crossings (level crossings) on industrial branches.

 

For modellers, the challenge is how to slow it all down - there are advocates of switching layouts that actually have small padlocks attached to the layout fascia to simulate the various unlocking and locking manoeuvres, for example.  I’ve seen real-time videos where it takes ten or more minutes to spot just one or two freight cars on a micro-layout.

 

Fortunately, the quality of American outline locomotives generally makes for impressive slow speed running, which helps.

 

All this then plays into layout design.  All good fun, Keith.
 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Stationmaster Thank you for your post. It was most enlightening (and I'm not being sarcastic). I had correctly guessed some of the mechanics of drop-off/pick up but your post filled in the gaps.

 

I don't have a problem with changing the coal train to general freight - they both carry the same 'K' head code. All the wagons you see in the photo of Maes y Coed are from a model made some 20 years ago and some are a little tired. I have yet to start upgrading this aspect of the model and many of the wagons are incorrect for 1910. The problem I have is finding wagon kits (preferred) or RTR ones, which are period correct.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


As an aside, in US model railroading the opposite can apply - switching a model layout can be far quicker than in reality:
 

When a train arrives at a rail-served industry, the Conductor has to step down from the train and walk to the spur, where they may have to unlock and switch the turnout, unlock an industry gate and remove the derail (the equivalent of our trap points), and all this before even uncoupling the freight car being switched from the train (and then from the locomotive once spotted in place).  Railserved industries can have specific doorways (etc.) where cars must be positioned exactly too.

 

Additionally, when coupling up, brakes need to be attached and tested before the locomotive can move off.  The derail then has to be reset, the gate locked and the mainline turnout switched back before the Conductor re-boards the train.

 

There can be similar safety procedures to follow at undated grade crossings (level crossings) on industrial branches.

 

For modellers, the challenge is how to slow it all down - there are advocates of switching layouts that actually have small padlocks attached to the layout fascia to simulate the various unlocking and locking manoeuvres, for example.  I’ve seen real-time videos where it takes ten or more minutes to spot just one or two freight cars on a micro-layout.

 

Fortunately, the quality of American outline locomotives generally makes for impressive slow speed running, which helps.

 

All this then plays into layout design.  All good fun, Keith.
 

Some of that explains one reason why British railways were far from keen on continuous braked wagons - they took extra time to deal deal with.  And of course all trip freights ran as Class K/9 so no messing about with continuous brakes.   You didn't need to keep the engine etc attached if spotting a wagon in a particular place - just give is a shive and keep the brake under careful control to stop it where needed - no problem for experienced Shunters

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/10/2023 at 18:04, Stephen Freeman said:

The late Bill Rear in his Foxline Book "The Llangollen Line" stated that the line was only GWR until it reached Dolgelley (OK if you are Welsh, Dolgellau), where the Cambrian took over and insisted on providing the motive power, all changed in 1922 of course.

All you probably need to know about Bala Junction is probably contained in another Foxline Book "Bala Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog"

@Stephen Freeman

I was contemplating my navel when something occurred to me regarding your post. You wouldn't happen to know if, pre 1922, all that happened at Dolgellau was the loco change? The reason I ask is, if only the loco was changed, there would have been some trains where rakes of GWR carriages were pulled by Cambrian locos west of Dolgellau and vice versa east of Dolgellau.

 

Dolgellau Station had full GWR station facilities on the 'up' line platform. These were replicated in their entirety by Cambrian Railways on the 'down' line platform. Whilst this is, by no means, definitive, logic says more than the loco was changed. From the physical description of the layout of Dolgellau Station, not only did passengers have to alight the train, they had to exit the station! They had to then cross a bridge and enter the Cambrian Railways facilities on the opposite platform, buy a separate ticket before boarding the Cambrian Railways train for their onward journey and vice verso if travelling east.

 

It would be really helpful to have a definitive answer.

Edited by Rowan
Updated to include additional information.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For much of the Victorian period Dolgelley was an absolute frontier station, the Cambrian worked to the west, the Great Western to the east, with through passengers having to change trains. Towards the end of the Victorian period, and more so during the Edwardian period, through carriages started to operate, mostly of GWR origin but with at least one CR corridor composite working (with other GWR stock) to/from London Paddington. These carriages were transferred between GWR and CR trains at Dolgelley. There would have been occasional through excursion trains and these would have changed locos at Dolgelley - it isn't impossible that some excursions off the GWR to Barmouth were worked through using a suitable GWR loco and a CR conductor between Dolgelley and Barmouth, but this is only speculation and I have seen no photographic evidence.

 

Goods wagons would have been transferred between the two companies at Dolgelley but, as I have indicated before, the Cambrian would have tried to route originating traffic via Welshpool to maximise its revenue and the LNWR would have tried to do the same in the opposite direction. Special through rates would have been offered for regular traffic to help influence the choice of traders. (This wasn't limited to this particular location, of course, but happened all over the pre-grouping, and to a lesser extent post-grouping, railway network.)

 

There is a topic elsewhere on RMweb which (when you have ploughed through its multitudinous pages) contains a lot of useful information about traffic on the line in the pre-Great War period, in particular that the GWR unsurprisingly operated class F express goods trains to/from Dolgelley, these would have conveyed traffic for Dolgelley itself, the CR and also for the Dolgelley-originating GWR pick-up goods.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@bécasse Thanks for the re-direct. Although 0 gauge, I am sure there will be a lot of useful information. I have bookmarked the thread so I can slowly go through the multitude of pages. Apologies to everyone for posting on this thread, which has gone way off topic. Sorry guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/10/2023 at 11:36, The Stationmaster said:

I wonder?  Local freight trips were normally formed with vehicles in station order for detaching while attachments were usually made 'rough' or were collected - along with outwards traffic - on a later trip or train.

 

There seems to be an awful amount of confusion in the model railway world about shunting and this is hardly surprising as handling local trip freights is  a along lost art.  Shunting was almost invariably quick - carried out more often at a run than atnwalking pace - and with vehicles suitably pre-formed the job at any smaller station could be dealt with quickly.  The problem of course on a model railway is that even with the latest gizmos and electronic hep it is very difficult  to loose shunt.  Due also to the lack of mass and inertia in the vast majority of model wagons.  Double shunting and, should it be needed, fly shunting are virtually impossible although towing has been suuccessfully modelled but I don't think using a prop has been done.  But whatever and however there is no way that model railway shunting can come anywhere near the pace of the wirk in the real world.

 

Moving a single wagon around was a simple matter using pinch bars - the problem usually wasn't so much getting it moving but stopping it once it was moving.  Far simpler, quicker, and cheaper, than using a horse with the necessary special harness attachments needed to haul wagons plus the space in which to do it.  Moving a raft of wagons was obviously much eaier using a horse but if the horses were out doing their cartage work they wouldn't be available when shunting around of wagons was needed.

 

I can't quite understand why you won't have a train for 'general freight' because that was exactly what most freight trips conveyed and you even have a siding labelled for such traffic.  Pre Great War it would have been unusual for wayside stations not to handle general freight traffic - the reduction to coal class traffic only was very much a modernisation era thing although in some places it had happened during the 1950s (and occasionally, even, back in the 1930s

 

 

Only potential problem is inwards empty cattle wagons but they can be pinch-barred back off the goods siding and pinch-barred back onto it once loaded ready for collection whichever train they'll be forwarded on.  But equally provided there is headroom on the goods siding the engine of the outwards train could collect then and, if needed, run round them to attach to its train - an easy task to be done in 10 minutes or a little less time in the real world.

 

But we go back every time to the simple fact that shunting on a model railway takes much longer than it ever did in the rea; world.

Collecting outward wagon on a later trip gives modellers a problem because our sidings are compressed in length and there isn't really the space available for incoming and outgoing in the yard at the same time. 

 

It is certainly true that prototypical practice is now so far in the past that many, especially those without experience of railway work, cannot recall it and have to rely on descriptions by others.

 

Rope shunting is difficult on a model because the hooks are often not present on models so using the buffer as an anchor point may be the only way of doing it.  I have done it in O gauge though, and also pole shunting which is actually easier because of the difficulty of tying a string to a wagon!  In both cases of course it is important that you don't have any signals, telegraph poles or even little people in the gap between adjacent roads.

 

The time spent on shunting on a model is indeed disproportionate because we grossly compress time and distance between stations, but it still takes a fair bit of time to couple, uncouple, propel wagons etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...