NER query over junctions

[MarshLane]

Evening all,

I am pottering about with layout ideas (as I frequently do) and am tempted by something either pre-grouping NER or 1930s LNER.  Having been doing some back of an envelope-style doodling with a (very) loose basis on Thornaby, I concluded that for slow moving freight traffic out of the yards (off-scene to the right of the diagram below) or for freight that is approaching, whereby the yard may not be ready to accept it, there was the potential for the left hand junction to become somewhat clogged.  

 

This set me thinking, in the early 1900s, would the NER have looked at investing in some form of flyover for goods traffic, as I have illustrated, so that it did not impede on the main line / slow lines, or is it more likely to have accepted the occasional problem and stayed with flat (and consequently cheaper) junction arrangements?

 

 

I am still learning about NER and its practices so any thoughts, feedback, input and (polite!) suggests are welcomed....

 

Rich

Edited February 24, 2021 by MarshLane

[Compound2632]

To my eyes - which are not that well NER-attuned - this looks like the sort of arrangement found on the London approaches of the three northern main lines. Whatever, it looks spectacular!

[MarshLane]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

To my eyes - which are not that well NER-attuned - this looks like the sort of arrangement found on the London approaches of the three northern main lines. Whatever, it looks spectacular!

Thanks Stephen,

I had originally drawn it with flat junctions and just felt that there were too many points of conflict in what is intended to be a busy area with general freight, industrial goods and mineral traffic moving around, hence the flyovers seemed to make sense, but I am doubting that NER would have gone down that route.  Question is, can anyone suggest what they would have done?

 

Plan

The general principals is that if the layout gets built (!) the Down and Up Goods lines behind the station would feed into the general yard, while the Down and Up Minerals lines would a) feed back to the main lines for through traffic and b) feed into the mineral yard keeping minerals traffic clear of the main yard prior to 'tipping' at the Port or heading back to one of the collieries.  I have decided to concentrate on building some locos/rolling stock before building any baseboards/track, but its never to early to start planning is it!

 

Background

To put some context to it, in reality Thornaby was alongside the huge Erimus Marshalling Yard, that was built by the NER from 1910 - subsequently amended by BR into Tees Yard.  The loco depot was at Newport, near Middlesborough, and the section of line was very busy with traffic to/from the various local iron works as well as the Docks with coal for export. Indeed only a few miles west of Thornaby was, I believe, the busiest signal box on the NER system - and its on the original Stockton & Darlington route!

 

Rich

[Paul Cram]

Look at Bowesfield junction. It is on the approach to Thornaby and the start of the simpasture branch. It is all on the level and has 3 routes. I north to Stockton, The Simpasture branch and 1 south to Darlington/Northallerton

Edited February 24, 2021 by Paul Cram

[Worsdell forever]

As Paul has said, it would be all on the flat. Trains would just have had to wait, but, they would have got really good at getting things going pretty quickly, they just got on with the job.

 

Here's Bowesfield junction, three routes coming in from the west, Stockton goods yard and the mainline to the east, a marshalling yard and a couple of industries thrown in as well. it must have been organised chaos!

 

https://maps.nls.uk/view/125623681

[MarshLane]

6 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

Look at Bowesfield junction. It is on the approach to Thornaby and the start of the simpasture branch. It is all on the level and has 3 routes. I north to Stockton, The Simpasture branch and 1 south to Darlington/Northallerton

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.14333333333333&lat=54.55361&lon=-1.32005&layers=168&b=1

 

Thanks Paul - I'd look at the NLS maps for Thornaby and Middlesborough but never went that little further west to Bowesfield.  That confirms my thought that the NER would have kept things simple and cheaper by keeping all routes on the flat.   Still it makes for a more interesting job for the signaller!

[MarshLane]

@Worsdell forever Thanks, I think we posted at the same time!

 

 

Yes it makes the junction far simpler I suppose, and cheaper to maintain/operate - the same goes for a model I suppose. But, I know which one I prefer - not in keeping with historical practice tho!!  Maybe some more doodling on the back of an envelope is needed....

 

Rich

 

[mpeffers]

Unfortunately not an NER expert either - I did briefly think of Northallerton, but it’s not really the same scenario.

 

It looks possibly a bit over-complicated to my eye...? What happens if you take the passenger lines over the goods rather than the other way around? I assume this would be better from a space/cost/performance perspective.

 

According to Wikipedia, at least the LSWR installed a grade separated junction in the 1890s, so it wouldn’t have been novel to the UK but everything on the flat feels instinctively more likely. Your main route would have to be very busy to struggle to path goods trains through the junction without disrupting the flow. If there was limited arrivals capacity, probably the incoming goods trains would be stacked in Goods Loops on approach to wait their turn?

[Compound2632]

The alternative might be to keep the plan but change the location - Silkstream Junction springs to mind. Midland too, which is an obvious point in its favour!

[MarshLane]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The alternative might be to keep the plan but change the location - Silkstream Junction springs to mind. Midland too, which is an obvious point in its favour!

 

Well the location is open to change .... but what a superb map and more to the point an amazing drawing!  How those that did these achieved all that detail without a single mistake amazes me. I have never seen the details of Mortimer Street Junction at Kentish Town, that must have been a nightmare for the signallers and control staff....

Edited February 24, 2021 by MarshLane
Corrected place name

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, MarshLane said:

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.14333333333333&lat=54.55361&lon=-1.32005&layers=168&b=1

 

Thanks Paul - I'd look at the NLS maps for Thornaby and Middlesborough but never went that little further west to Bowesfield.  That confirms my thought that the NER would have kept things simple and cheaper by keeping all routes on the flat.   Still it makes for a more interesting job for the signaller!

I have a few train registers from Bowesfield (much more recent than NER days of course).  That area certainly used a lot of special bell codes for train routing.

[MarshLane]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I have a few train registers from Bowesfield (much more recent than NER days of course).  That area certainly used a lot of special bell codes for train routing.

 

Hi Michael,

Interesting to hear, although not surprising I suppose.  Do you have any details at all?

 

Rich

[Michael Hodgson]

They're buried away somewhere and anyway it's difficult to decipher from a register what each code means.