GWR 4-track station - operational queries

[WillCav]

Hi all,

 

I am looking at track/signal diagrams for inspiration for a layout - 1948ish GWR/early Western Region.

 

There seems to be a common 4-track layout for GWR with the Up and Down Mains both having a platform loop - so two platforms with four tracks between.

 

I assume that the Mains would be used by non-stopping express passenger trains. Would slow goods trains use the Mains to allow a stopper to pass?  Would a fast Goods over pass a stopper?

 

Thanks

 

Will 

 

[Compound2632]

At Oxford in the 1980s, all passenger trains used the platform loops - all stopped - but the 56s on the Didcot MGR trains came thundering down the middle in a swirl of coal dust - quite a sight.

[ikcdab]

2 hours ago, WillCav said:

 

I assume that the Mains would be used by non-stopping express passenger trains. Would slow goods trains use the Mains to allow a stopper to pass?  Would a fast Goods over pass a stopper

Basically yes. All combinations were possible depending on the traffic needs.

[phil_sutters]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

At Oxford in the 1980s, all passenger trains used the platform loops - all stopped - but the 56s on the Didcot MGR trains came thundering down the middle in a swirl of coal dust - quite a sight.

Still at it in the '90s

[DCB]

Oxford is a bit unusual for a GW four track two platform station, in that all regular timetabled passenger trains stopped there, ergo the platform lines were essentially passenger lines and the centre lines goods lines.

More typically the four line two platform stations served for traffic regulation in allowing express passengers to overtake stopping passenger trains. Given a signal box every three miles, and expresses running 60 mph the stopper will be delayed for 6 minutes for the express to pass, now stoppers are still (2020) scheduled to use the Dawlish Warren loops to allow expresses to overtake, colour light signals allow shorter head ways so the delay  is reduced but they still do it.   What would not normally happen is a goods overtaking a stopper, a fast freight marked "This train must run to time" might conceivably overtake a stopper but normally such would be at a junction station, or where the stopper originated or terminated,  Many or most GW passenger trains started or terminated at a through platform.  That said some stoppers had very long station stops scheduled. 

Goods using the through lines to let a stopper past is less likely as stoppers and fast freights tended to run at similar average speeds, slow goods might well use the through lines, I'm guessing but I reckon Totnes would be a likely place where it would occur being between Rattery and Dainton inclines.

Scheduling is the key.  Full size  Trains don't turn up randomly (On well run railways)   Expresses don't arrive 20 minutes early (Except on the GWR when the driver's in a hurry)  They run in the correct order, ( except occasionally they don't see Quintinshill ) and the Flying Scotchman doesn't get sidetracked to let the Bogthorp Town to Grimley  trip freight to overtake, we've all done it in our sheds and attics. 

I put four tracks between our main station platforms and  wish I hadn't.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[The Stationmaster]

The GWR 4 track arrangement at stations dated mainly from the late 19th/early 20th century and was in reality of very limited use for fast passenger trains to overtake stopping passenger trains because of teh amount of time teh stopping passenger train would have to be held (more like 10 minutes than six at locations such as Chipping Sodbury and Badminton).

 

But of course in reality the number of Class B stopping passenger trains was relatively small in any case as indeed were the number of non-stopping trains.  The big advantages of the arrangement were two fold -

1.  It allowed a looping facility for freight trains (and sometimes allowed local freight trips to work clear of the through lines), and

2.  It left a clear fast through line for non-stopping passenger trains with a slightly reduced margin when following a looped train.   Additionally it also meant that when margins were tight a freight could follow a stopping passenger train at the minimum headway and be held on the through line until it had a margin, but again only a matter of 2 or 3 minutes benefit.

 

On busier sections the only real timetabling advantage came from extended running loops for some distance between stations, e.g. Wantage Road - Challow, because provided they were long enough they created genuine overtaking possibilities for fast trains to catch and overtake trains which had been diverted to the running loops (in many instances the additional lines were given Relief Line status).    These of course came in later years driven as much as anything by overall increases in traffic driving a need for increased line capacity - and station loops did little or nothing to increase that. However interestingly at both of these places mentioned above there were still what amounted to platform loops at the two stations. 

 

As for trains running in the correct order I must admit to having a chuckle when I read David Broad's comment as it was common - even in Train Register Books going back a good many years - to see notes of 'boxer' messages that such & such train was preceding so & so train.  And yes, it did happen with passenger trains and was a common feature at one time on the various West of England routes.  On the Western strictly enforcing running in the correct order  (even if it might lead to delays) was very much a child of the privatisation era.  And it caused considerable angst among those of us who had managed a railway where regulating to minimise delays had been the order of the day.  

 

[Compound2632]

There was the notorious incident at Ashendon Junction where Paddington and Marylebone departures got out of order and the Birmingham express was sent Leicester-wards and vice-versa.

[chrisf]

On the Barry Railway, which amalgamated with the GWR at the Grouping, the station at Efail Isaf had platform loops.  This allowed passenger trains to be sidetracked so that loaded coal trains could get to Barry Docks in time to catch the next tide.  How often this actually happened is a good question.  The passenger service was sparse at the best of times and unbraked coal trains would have been discouraged from high speed running.   The Grouping took place after coal exports had peaked and it was decline all the way thereafter.

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

48 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There was the notorious incident at Ashendon Junction where Paddington and Marylebone departures got out of order and the Birmingham express was sent Leicester-wards and vice-versa.

That's not the only place where that happened.  Mind you, despite modern things like train describers errors can still happen although they're probably not all as spectacular as EMUs turning right at Reading Spur Junction onto the non-electrified line towards the GWML (which was a not uncommon event at one time - 'Western Aviator' might have been familiar with some of those and most of  them were down to Driver errors - as at Ashendon Jcn of course).

[WillCav]

Thank you Compound, ikcdab, Phil, David, Stationmaster and Chris for taking the time to reply.

 

Wow - lots to think about. Stationmaster must be psychic - I was looking at the stations on the Badminton line.  Other ones I am looking at are Wellington and Cullompton.  Exminster is similar but has platforms on all 4 passenger rated through lines.  If I choose any of these, I will simplify the sidings and maybe add a branch bay.

 

David's mention of Dawlish Warren made me smile - I was in timetabling in 2002 and I used that move a few times!  You say that you regretted a four track arrangement- can I ask why?

 

Many thanks again for your responses.

 

Will

[Joseph_Pestell]

Shrivenham is another interesting example with some well placed road bridges for scenic breaks on a layout.

[Wheatley]

Have a read of Adrian Vaughn's "Signalman's Morning/Twilight/Nightmare" trilogy, the firdt two descibe the day to day workings along the Vale of the White Horse in some detail including regulating on four track stretches. 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, chrisf said:

On the Barry Railway, which amalgamated with the GWR at the Grouping, the station at Efail Isaf had platform loops.  This allowed passenger trains to be sidetracked so that loaded coal trains could get to Barry Docks in time to catch the next tide.  How often this actually happened is a good question.  The passenger service was sparse at the best of times and unbraked coal trains would have been discouraged from high speed running.   The Grouping took place after coal exports had peaked and it was decline all the way thereafter.

 

Chris

This was also a feature of the Barry’s Vale of Glamorgan line at Aberthaw, Llantwit Major, and Southerndown Road.  The coal traffic was not expected to run at high speed, but there were operational advantages to it having clear non stop runs, and the passenger and ordinary goods traffic were not heavy.  Some Cardiff Railway stations were laid out like this as well, though the traffic never really materialised.  
 

The Barry main line, and the VoG, not to mention Barry Docks, were built in response to delays to the coal traffic at Cardiff; Cardiff responded with a new dock, the Queen Alexandra, bit never really got to grips with the provision of sufficient hydraulic power to operate all the hoists simultaneously at full capacity.  One can understand the priority given to coal traffic on railways built directly as a response to delays to coal traffic at a time when the traffic was increasing continually and ships were getting bigger.  
 

As alluded to, the Bristol Channel ports are tidal and their sea locks can only be used for about 2 hours each side of high water, less for the bigger ships.  Inward bound shipping locked in on rising tides, and outward, loaded and lower in the water in the case of coal, on the ebb, and if a vessel missed it’s tide expenses incurred to the shipowners (not that these were a class of person one needs to feel much sympathy for) were considerable.  So the coal had to run to time and be dealt with efficiently at the ports.  

[DCB]

1 hour ago, WillCav said:

David's mention of Dawlish Warren made me smile - I was in timetabling in 2002 and I used that move a few times!  You say that you regretted a four track arrangement- can I ask why?

 

Many thanks again for your responses.

 

Will

We have four lines between the two island platforms, and loops behind giving four platforms and two through lines, with a double track junction just beyond the station. bit like Swindon pre HSTs. Its handy for testing locos as the  main lines stay clear most of the time, but in practice I find a couple of express trains fill the two loops and sit there while goods trains rumble through on the main or draw up to allow the banker to buffer up.   Another downside is the platforms are a foot or 18" shorter than they would be without through lines.  Badminton line stations sound good, but the local passenger service was a bit sparse, and modern RTR might struggle to hit the high 90s achieved through Little Somerford in steam days.

[WillCav]

Thanks Joseph,

 

Just looked at Shrivenham on National Library of Scotland website - 25" to the mile shows loads of detail! 1923 map is two-track but quadrupled by 1947. That's another possibility - some doodling is required...

 

Will

[The Pilotman]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That's not the only place where that happened.  Mind you, despite modern things like train describers errors can still happen although they're probably not all as spectacular as EMUs turning right at Reading Spur Junction onto the non-electrified line towards the GWML (which was a not uncommon event at one time - 'Western Aviator' might have been familiar with some of those and most of  them were down to Driver errors - as at Ashendon Jcn of course).

Hey Mike, leave me out of this! 

[WillCav]

Thanks to everyone replying.

 

I may have got an idea now, based on Shrivenham.

 

Should I be putting trap points at each end of the platform loops? And if so, what types (single rail / two rail switch panel / full point)? They seem to be provided on the Badminton line but not on the Up at Shrivenham for example. Modern day practice wouldn't have them but I'm basing my layout in 1948.

 

Thanks

 

Will

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Shrivenham is another interesting example with some well placed road bridges for scenic breaks on a layout.

Shrivenham was something of an oddity comp[ared with the other bits of quadrupling/station loop arrangements between Didcot and Swindon.  Post the 1932 alterations there was a Doen Goods Running Loop all the way from Ashbury Crossing which was joined by a facing crossover off the Down Main just east of the station to become teh Down Platform Line.

 

The Up side was even more unusual because there was no outlet from the Up Platform Line back onto the Up Main and the Up Platform Line (with that name) continued to Ashbury Crossing where passenger trains crossed back onto the Up Main and the Up Platform Line became a Goods Running Loop thence to Knighton Crossing.  

 

All of these 1930s widenings between Swindon and Didcot were effectively individually standing stages in the ultimate plan to extend quadruple track all the way through from Foxhall Jcn to Wootton Bassett.  But by the early/mid 1960s things were going the other way with the intermediate stations closing, freight traffic declining and all the running loops/additional lines between Steventon and Highworth Branch Jcn being removed.  The quadruple section between Wantage Road and Challow. was reduced to double track in  April 1965 but in the early 1990s I had it returned to quadruple track -  which opened  in 1993 and all  four lines there are now electrified.  The various additional lines between Knighton Crossing and Ashbury Crossing/Shrivenham went or were initially reduced to dead end sidings in 1966.   I did partially develop a schem for recreating an addtional Up running line from Shrivenham to Knighton in the early 1990s but its construction depended entirely on new imported coal traffic Avonmouth via Didcot to the Midlands and that never happened so it was never needed.  If it had happened it was planned - like Wantage Road - Challow  to be capable of working as a dynamic overtaking facility with no need for a 60mph  freight to be brought to stand if it was being overtaken by a 125mph passenger train.  But all of that is a long way away from the idea of station loops  

[melmerby]

Ardley & Haddenham stations on the GWR Princes Risboro' to Banbury line were 4 track on a two track main line developed as part of the GCR London Extension.

The loops are quite a bit longer than the basic platform needs, presumably to hold goods trains when needed. There were also long sidings off both ends of the platform loops as well.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by melmerby

[Joseph_Pestell]

16 minutes ago, WillCav said:

Thanks to everyone replying.

 

I may have got an idea now, based on Shrivenham.

 

Should I be putting trap points at each end of the platform loops? And if so, what types (single rail / two rail switch panel / full point)? They seem to be provided on the Badminton line but not on the Up at Shrivenham for example. Modern day practice wouldn't have them but I'm basing my layout in 1948.

 

Thanks

 

Will

 

The reason that I suggested Shrivenham is that the road overbridge means that you don't need to model both ends of the station. And that will save you a lot of space.

[caradoc]

48 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Ardley & Haddenham stations on the GWR Princes Risboro' to Banbury line were 4 track on a two track main line developed as part of the GCR London Extension.

 

As was of course Bicester (North) too, meaning that sometimes when a coach was slipped it had to be retrieved by the loco of another train and shunted to the platform ! Only on the GWR.......

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by caradoc
Clarification

[WillCav]

39 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

The reason that I suggested Shrivenham is that the road overbridge means that you don't need to model both ends of the station. And that will save you a lot of space.

That's a good point - I could even have the end of the fiddle yard having two exit roads linked directly to the down main and down platform loop.

 

Thanks

Will

[WillCav]

Thanks for all the additional examples - lots to choose from.

 

Will

[tomparryharry]

Upper Boat (Cardiff Railway) is the only 4-track Welsh station that springs to mind. The Taff Vale built its relief lines as separate goods lines, although these were fully capable of accepting passenger traffic in its own right. When Maesmawr 'box got rationalised in 1970, the up relief kept its facing point locks, and a full trap. 

 

Both Cardiff & Newport have a 4 track configuration. Watching 3 EE type 3's hauling the Port Talbot-Llanwern MGRs  is-was a sight worth seeing. 

 

Litchard (Bridgend) might need some research. 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Upper Boat (Cardiff Railway) is the only 4-track Welsh station that springs to mind. The Taff Vale built its relief lines as separate goods lines, although these were fully capable of accepting passenger traffic in its own right. When Maesmawr 'box got rationalised in 1970, the up relief kept its facing point locks, and a full trap. 

 

Both Cardiff & Newport have a 4 track configuration. Watching 3 EE type 3's hauling the Port Talbot-Llanwern MGRs  is-was a sight worth seeing. 

 

Litchard (Bridgend) might need some research. 

The Relief Lines in the Taff/Rhondda Valleys were worked on Goods Permissive Block so they  needed to be clear of all trains before they could be 'converted' to Absolute Block for use by passenger trains.  The last freight train to travel through the section had to carry a Block Conversion Ticket in order to convert the section to Absolute Block for use by passenger trains.

 

Back in 1973 I spent a very warm and sunny Sunday at Maesmawr supervising a crane job plus being the RO i/c Single Line Working between there and Radyr Jcn.  Quite a busy day as it turned out doing the two jobs so well worth the 14 hours pay for 8 hours work