Upper Hembury - Designing a GWR Branch line in East Devon

[BWsTrains]

I've been working on a backstory and design for Upper Hembury since last year and having advanced to something which worked for me I've sought some feedback from those with more experience in matters GWR. Thanks some great help and advice notably from Phil @harlequin and John @John Dew plus others I'm keen to tell the story of my mythical location in East Devon in the Western Blackdown Hills, located between Hemyock to the north and Honiton to the South. 

 

In my parallel world this small area of East Devon had slightly different topography, more extensive hills, a more vigorous River Tale and hence the thriving and prosperous small town of Upper Hembury. The attached maps set the scene.

The first shows the Branch after opening with an overlay of the LSWR hopes to connect to this town, one they'd not reached at that time.

 

Map by Rail Map Online and Google Maps with additions and modifications

 

The second map from some long lost OS archive shows the town of Upper Hembury, and the area for the GWR terminus to the East of the river. Prone to flooding by the river in winter months this restricted the available width of the approach lines for station and goods yard access.

 

 

'Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland' (with additions and changes)
https://maps.nls.uk/index.html

 

To be continued...

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by BWsTrains
restore Lost pics again

[BWsTrains]

The available space for the required facilities is shown here:

 

 

The red frame shows my available space, 4100mm x 1400mm, narrowing down to ~500mm at the mid point. The space available for the Goods Yard Sidings, fanning out wide to form a triangle from a narrow entry suggested Wallingford as a possible model and it turns out my dimensions are close to perfect for a true "at scale" design, viz.

• Free Width at end ~900mm = 224' full scale vs 230' at Wallingford
• Available length to yard entrance ~2000mm = 500' full scale vs 550' at Wallingford

My early efforts at plans had not started from a prototype, more a case of how could I best fit in sensible Station and Goods functions to the available space based on a wide variety of inputs.

 

In my recent revisit I've much more available info regarding Wallingford and GWR BLTs plans and operations in general and have used these to improve the design to meet my needs while staying as close to accepted design principles as possible. The order of these is important, Upper Hembury is for me to operate and enjoy so if Rule 1 must be applied, so it will! All the same as I describe my design, please feel free to make constructive input.

 

Colin

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by BWsTrains
restore Lost pics

[DCB]

Mis understanding. Apologes

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by DCB

[BWsTrains]

DCB, Thanks for some interesting ideas,

 

Being a typical small and short run branchline,  there were several passenger and mixed trains each day comprising a small loco and 2 coaches etc. and hence the average station was far shorter than you've shown.  Wallingford for example was about 400' or about 1500mm at scale so several items on your design are way over scale but I take your points anyway

 

For the sake of input please assume that the fair folk of Upper Hembury had a vested interest in having the Station nearer the river and Goods yards behind.  Primarily the latter, due to the position of key Merchants premises.

 

PS I should add that as my plans are well advanced but not fully posted here, please be patient as I've more to post in the next day or so. It was hard getting time to do everything at once.

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by BWsTrains
addition

[BWsTrains]

Some further background to my project is in order.

• The modelling will be in OO Code 75 Bullhead using British Finescale Turnout kits. These offered several attractions, not the least the flexibility to handle moderate curving, hence I thought they’d be well suited to my site
• I’ve had an L-girder structure of the required size built, a job I’m glad I “outsourced” to an old friend who is a builder
• Storage will be on a 7 track - 915mm long Traverser plate which has been motorised. This sits at the opposite end from the Town, concealed behind the location of the Tannery. I’ll show more about this feature later.
• DCC control for motion but Turnouts via basic Solenoid motors and CDU units. There are about 12-14 and this keeps it simple.
• Planning using Templot2

 

With the benefit of time to work on my plans I’ve been fortunate now to have access to much more detail about the evolution of a BLT over 50 or so years from commencement to my era of the 1930s. This gave me the idea to back test how my setting might have evolved and what might have influenced the final design.

 

Stage 1 – Construction 1881

The economic environment of the 1870s had been tough, business conditions peaked in Sept 1872 followed by nearly 7 years of extreme weakness before a modest recovery. In fact, the period from 1873 is known as "The Long Depression " hardly the time to go building branch-lines.

Conditions in the UK picked up somewhat by 1879 and the GWR turned its mind to creating a route into the Tale Valley.  Cullompton on the mainline already had considerable infrastructure, sidings, cattle yards etc and was chosen as the starting point. Merchants and businesses in Upper Hembury had long pushed for rail access and strongly supported the GWR but with strong interests in getting their business needs met.

 

The high cost of the line meant that early facilities were restricted to the basics and were not that different from those at Wallingford (1890), Platform, run around loop with two sidings to a rudimentary Cattle dock and Shed. A side bay platform aided loading of Churns, and smaller freight items. Trains were shunted off the main and there was a small signal box at the platform end. The short run of 8 miles from Cullompton only had two stops, one halt at Kerswell and another at Dunkeswell Grange. This latter to the north of the river crossing because The Grange's landowners provided access across their extensive property in exchange for the prospect of a demand stop for their personal use.

 

The plan did show the left 3200mm of the layout area, as far as the storage.

 

Sadly, at some point after Grouping, a tragic loss of data at the West London GWR HQ caused these valuable plans to for ever "lost". Rumor has it that a junior clerk forgot to feed the meter with a sixpence piece, the cooling fan stopped and two RAID drives were fried. The young lad was last seen pushing barrows at Covent Garden Market.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by BWsTrains
Update for lost data

[BWsTrains]

Stage 2 – LSWR gains Access

The economic environment of the 1870s had been tough also for the LSWR and their hopes of a route to Upper Hembury were dashed when beaten by the GWR.

 

With proven success of the new Terminus, negotiations led to eventual limited LSWR access, on the basis they constructed the line up from Sidmouth Junction to join above Dunkswell Grange. This route was shown on the original map in Post #1.

 

 

Stage 3 – Expansion of the Goods Yards and Tannery spur

 

Traffic of all types to / from Upper Hembury grew rapidly after this, and other merchants and businesses pushed for the GWR to expand the modest Goods handling facilities of that time.

 

Notable amongst these were Hamlyn's tannery located some way from town near to the river and the town creamery. It was clear to the GWR planners that the existing track configuration would not provide easy access to the upper areas of the Goods yard or ability to cope with the rapidly growing traffic. This led to the further expansions similar to those found at Wallingford by the 1930s.

 

With improved goods handling in the yards, the Platform Bay siding became useful overnight and to handle auto-train traffic with traffic needing access to the main platform line. So we have the configuration as modelled circa 1936. As the plans may well have further adjustments, the finer details of the layout have not been added at this stage.

 

Note: 2 April 2022. The original photo was lost so below I've uploaded the Templot plan which was the main component. Just labels and key buildings missing. In order from the River side:

Bay Platform

Platform line

Goods Run around

Short holding Spur

Cattle Dock

Goods shed siding

Merchants sidings *2

 

Note 4 August: the reloaded image was gone a 2nd time. Reinstated again!

 

 

  

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by BWsTrains
Replacement Plan after data loss, 2nd time and revisions

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

Stage 2 – LSWR gains Access

The economic environment of the 1870s had been tough also for the LSWR and their hopes of a route to Upper Hembury were dashed when beaten by the GWR.

 

With proven success of the new Terminus, negotiations led to eventual limited LSWR access, on the basis they constructed the line up from Sidmouth Junction to join above Dunkswell Grange. This route was shown on the original map in Post #1.

 

 

Stage 3 – Expansion of the Goods Yards and Tannery spur

 

Traffic of all types to / from Upper Hembury grew rapidly after this, and other merchants and businesses pushed for the GWR to expand the modest Goods handling facilities of that time.

 

Notable amongst these were Hamlyn’s tannery located some way from town near to the river and the town creamery. It was clear to the GWR planners that the existing track layout would not provide easy access to the upper areas of the Goods yard. In addition, existing shunting off the main would unnecessarily tie up the station line.

 

Hence steps were taken to lengthen the run around loop to improve yard access but this made  shunting from the main less practical and so the Goods Run around loop became a permitted route for incoming Goods traffic. Mixed trains remained shunted off the main.

 

With improved goods handling in the yards, the Platform Bay siding became useful overnight and to handle auto-train traffic when LSWR / SR passenger traffic needed access to the main platform. So we have the configuration as modelled circa 1936. As the plans may well have further adjustments, the finer details of the layout have not been added at this stage.

 

   

 

This looks good, Colin. My only thought is that reaching over the tannery to the traverser might be a little awkward.

[Harlequin]

Hi Colin,

I'm a bit worried about the shortness of the sidings in your yard.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Colin,

I'm a bit worried about the shortness of the sidings in your yard.

 

 

 

Moving the turnout to the creamery siding back towards the yard throat would give a much longer usable mileage siding.  Also, could the cattle dock be combined with a general and end loading dock?  That would give a purpose for the shortish spur off the loop that butts up against the cattle dock and allow for some interesting traffic.

 

I tend to agree with @St Enodoc about traverser access.  The tannery sidings could probably be shorter and still provide shunting interest.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Colin,

I'm a bit worried about the shortness of the sidings in your yard.

 

 

Yes the yard arrangement does seem a little forced (in the wrong direction) with inadequate siding length for wagon load traffic (which would include coal) and the cattle dock being a bit of a nuisance all round plus there is no end loading dock.

 

Don't forget that arriving freight trains into runround loops  was not especially common.  Officially as regular event it would have been reflected in the signalling hence. it's easy to note many placs wg here it wasn't providedfor.  But more importantly you really need to arrive your incoming freight train on the line offering the longest runround capacity and almost invariably that was the platform line where, apart from other considerations it would be much easier to shunt aside the brakevan 9unless using it as a Shunters' runner) than it would be to get rid of it with all siding access fouled by the train itself standing on the loop.

 

Mis xed Trains would in any case have to run to the platform and the wagons be shunted from there.

[BWsTrains]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

This looks good, Colin. My only thought is that reaching over the tannery to the traverser might be a little awkward.

 

Thanks,

 

sorry, what I should have disclosed is a narrow free space at the traverser end, easily wide enough for me to get in at the rear end of the tray. It is already constructed and a test shows I can easily reach and adjust items as far as the exit end. Otherwise you'd be correct because I plan a suitably high back scene in front of the tannery and reach over would be impossible.

 

Colin

 

 

 

 

[BWsTrains]

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

 

As there are several inter-related points here I won't address your individual issues but hopefully can integrate them to a new solution.

 

Sidings lengths, a good point, this has crept up on me over several recent iterations.

I'd used Wallingford as my reference where the "free length" siding metrics are as follows:
Goods Shed line (100m, 1320mm  at scale); Cattle Dock Siding (73m, 960mm at scale) Coal siding (168m, 2210mm at scale)
I feel I'm allowed a little scale compression but clearly have gone too far from original plans without spotting the shortening which came with changes.

 

Overall Configuration

There are two problems raised here, the Cattle Dock and the Creamery loading bay. The latter is addressed if I arrange for the business to be relocated to a point where access is off the Head shunt beyond the run around loop. This frees up a lot of space in the top section of the Goods yard as has been noted. I've a strong interest in retaining the feature per se.

 

Regarding the Cattle Dock I could adopt the Henley on Thames solution of having a dock beyond the platform if its presence / positioning in the yard is problematic. Otherwise I'll be interested in any suggestions regarding positioning relative to the Goods Shed sidings if for example these two were furthermost from the goods loop and hence nearer prototypical length.

 

PS Cattle movements to / from Upper Hembury would be typical of a small farming community where there were large Cattle markets and handling facilities nearby. In this case Cullompton and Honiton

 

Colin

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by BWsTrains
PS

[Harlequin]

Here's a quick sketch I did to see whether the sidings could be made longer:

 

I smoothed out the main line - it's just a simple constant curve so that there's a bit more room for the yard.

The siding points are as close as possible to the end of the loop and the goods shed and cattle dock are shifted to the right to allow loading space at the far ends (like Wallingford).

The creamery is on a kickback as Colin suggested.

I didn't include the bay but you can see it could easily be added in.

Looking at it now, I think the run round loop is plenty long enough and it might be worth shortening it so that there's room for some non railway scenery beyond the buffers.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[BWsTrains]

Hi Phil,

 

That does look very good. I like the solution of the loading dock spur.

 

There is very little more I can add at present. I've uploaded your design into Templot and aside some nuances due to the turnouts I have on hand, it comes out as an excellent fit over yours. I've added the bay and Creamery and will post a final design here once the additional stock becomes available from British Finescale.

 

Thanks very much for your considerable effort.

 

Colin

[The Stationmaster]

Need for some careful thinking about the purpose of sidings I think.  And why a 'headshunt' - they were somewhat like hen's teeth at GWR branch termini for the simple reason that shunts were done from the running line which offered far more room than any possible headshunt could offer, plus of course you inevitably had to shunt a Mixed Train from the running line because it was at the station platform.  In reality the only time you might need a long siding or spur to access a yard was if you had to do a double shuffle to get the train clear of the running line and (some) yard sidings were connected on the 'wrong' side of the running line connection (as at Henley where even in the pre 1956 layout it was the only way to access the extremely long mileage siding).    On the average GWR branchline, especially the more bucolic, ones you certainly didn't need a headshunt to shunt the yard because the sparsity of the service and gaps in the passenger train timetable left ample time for a freight trip to do all the shunting that was needed.  And on many minor branches the  signalling system in any case prevented more than one train from being at the terminus at any one time (e.g. Wallingford).

 

So when it comes to goods yard sidings it was all about traffic and squeezing into the space available what was needed to handle that traffic - hence the long mileage siding at Henley which even in the early 1960s could be sometimes seen containing more than 20 wagons while of course the goods shed siding would most likely have no more than 5 wagons on a very busy day.  It's all about getting the relative proportions of traffic right (for the period being modelled).   And never forget that mileage sidings need road access over as much as possible of their length because what goes into or comes out of those wagons will come from or go to a cart or trailer or road vehicle of some sort or in a few cases (as infrequently as possible at smaller stations) be put to ground for later loading to a road vehicle.  So mileage sidings need working space next to them otherwise they are useless - a common fault on model railway layout plans.

 

You need also to think about the way places were shunted and here we do hit a problem because of teh small scale of model railways.  On quieter branches there would be only one freight trip daily possibly supplemented by some Mixed Trains and tail traffic (if the right sort of vehicles were available for the latter.  Unless passenger trains had long turn round times - and some did of course - the only loco available to shunt the yard was that on the freight trip.  its job was simple - shunt out and remove to form into the departing train any outwards loaded vehicles, and empties that weren't needed for loading (e.g. coal wagons).   Then shunt to the appropriate siding or goods shed road any inwards loaded wagons.  If any of those wagons needed to be moved a few feet or a couple of lengths later on the local staff did it using pinch bars - for example  for 'spotting' in aa good shed which was too short to hold all the inwards wagons etc - at larger depots a capstan would be used to do that.  Simple rule goods yard were not sorting sidings or marshalling yards - they were then to handle traffic onto and off wagons - and shunting interfered with or stopped that work.

[Harlequin]

Just to be clear, there is no headshunt in my sketch. The kickback siding is for the creamery.

The mileage siding at the top is as long as I could make it and has clear access along its whole length.

 

[BWsTrains]

Thanks very much for the various feedback, most helpful.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts on appropriate signal positioning for the layout configuration as proposed by Harlequin, i.e. with the kickback spur being to the creamery. My only addition to Phil's design would be to reinstate the the bay platform siding. Would access to this be signaled by a ground signal?

 

Regards,

 

Colin

Edited February 19, 2022 by BWsTrains

[BWsTrains]

There is one further issue just come to my attention after reading @Stationmaster 's most informative Mileage Sidings post from a few years back. It seems more appropriate to follow up the issue here, in particular the final point which caught my attention:

 

On 10/05/2016 at 02:37, The Stationmaster said:

Rolling stock distribution would then route issue orders for empties (if required or order them away to meet orders elsewhere - surplus empties would inevitably be got shot of from mileage/full loads yards for the simple reason that they got in the way and if you didn't have an arising need for them you didn't want them hanging around.

 

It occurred to me that there would be good sense in having a shorter siding available if possible to "get shot of the empties" from the mileage yard. Often I guess the Cattle Dock yard in my setting would suit but it does help explain the presence of a short siding off the Mileage in the 1910 Wallingford plan, extended by the 1930s

 

[Gordon A]

On 16/02/2022 at 23:36, Harlequin said:

Here's a quick sketch I did to see whether the sidings could be made longer:

 

I smoothed out the main line - it's just a simple constant curve so that there's a bit more room for the yard.

The siding points are as close as possible to the end of the loop and the goods shed and cattle dock are shifted to the right to allow loading space at the far ends (like Wallingford).

The creamery is on a kickback as Colin suggested.

I didn't include the bay but you can see it could easily be added in.

Looking at it now, I think the run round loop is plenty long enough and it might be worth shortening it so that there's room for some non railway scenery beyond the buffers.

 

 

Good to see trap points being included. 

But why the trap point in the head shunt?  Any potential run away wagon will only end up in a siding.

[Harlequin]

19 minutes ago, Gordon A said:

 

Good to see trap points being included. 

But why the trap point in the head shunt?  Any potential run away wagon will only end up in a siding.

Thanks.

The kickback siding is a private siding for the creamery and so my thinking was that the trap there is belt and braces to protect railway staff working in the yard from runaways that might be caused by the creamery workers.

 

[Harlequin]

10 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

There is one further issue just come to my attention after reading @Stationmaster 's most informative Mileage Sidings post from a few years back. It seems more appropriate to follow up the issue here, in particular the final point which caught my attention:

 

 

It occurred to me that there would be good sense in having a shorter siding available if possible to "get shot of the empties" from the mileage yard. Often I guess the Cattle Dock yard in my setting would suit but it does help explain the presence of a short siding off the Mileage in the 1910 Wallingford plan, extended by the 1930s

 

 

I wouldn't worry about getting shot of the empties but I do worry that adding another siding would make the yard too complex and reduce the length of the back siding again.

 

In the real world empties would probably be left where they were - maybe just shuffled along using a pinchbar if needed. If they ever needed to be moved to different sidings I guess they would wait for loco and if there's a loco present then why not remove them from the station completely? if there were times when empties needed to be retained in the yard for some reason then the head of the cattle dock siding has some space and even the head of the goods shed siding could be used.

 

See what Mike says.

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

There is one further issue just come to my attention after reading @Stationmaster 's most informative Mileage Sidings post from a few years back. It seems more appropriate to follow up the issue here, in particular the final point which caught my attention:

 

 

It occurred to me that there would be good sense in having a shorter siding available if possible to "get shot of the empties" from the mileage yard. Often I guess the Cattle Dock yard in my setting would suit but it does help explain the presence of a short siding off the Mileage in the 1910 Wallingford plan, extended by the 1930s

 

Not at a small station like this.  Let's go into it a bit more deeply - every working day (;.e. Monday - Saturday;  Saturday counted as a 'weekday') every station would submit a rolling stock report by no later tha 10.00 every morning.  The report would detail how many wagons they had in hand of each type including how many were empty.  The station would also estimate how many empty wagons it need for loading in the following 24 hours and if it had more empties on hand than t needed they would be ordered away (go shot of) but if it needed any additoonal empties they would be ordered in.

 

The times of branch trips varied quite alot but on many quieter branches they dropped into a late morning/middle of the day time band (when there was most likely to be a gap in the passenger service anyway).  any more urgent freight moves could be covered by making some of teh passenger trains Mixed Trains (they had to be authorised in the Service Timetable as the number allowed was subject to strict conditions - you couldn't just run one if you felt like it).  Wagons, particularly for m mileage traffic tended to be unloaded at varying paces depending on all sorts of factors and despite the threat of demurrage chatges (for railway owned wagons) or siding rent (for PO wagons some customers were happy to accept the cost of a few shillings a day if it helped them deal with their work ayt theor own pace.  What this could mean is that in a mileage siding, in particular but it could also happen in a goods shed, emptoies could be blocked by inwards wagons still partly underload or be blocking outwards loaded wagons ready to leave or blocking space need for newly arrived inwards loaded wagons.  So first of the trip engine was to shunt out what had to be got out before it could shunt in any newly arrived traffic wagons and put them aside beofre shunting in the new arrivals and you didn't need anything in the way of extra sidings to do that - especially on the plan drawn by 'Harlequin'.

 

Now none of this is half as bad as it sounds as it will not involve masses of wagons= for example in 1933 Yealmpton forwarded 222 tons of 'general goods',  and received 2276 tons of coal; 354 tons of other minerals; and 1591 tons of 'general goods',  and handled 38 wagons of livestock.  Wallingford was massively busier in the same year

 

 

11 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

Thanks very much for the various feedback, most helpful.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts on appropriate signal positioning for the layout configuration as proposed by Harlequin, i.e. with the kickback spur being to the creamery. My only addition to Phil's design would be to reinstate the the bay platform siding. Would access to this be signaled by a ground signal?

 

Regards,

 

Colin

The signalling does to some extent depend on the sort of train service you wish to run.  standing asude the LSWR/SR 'incursion'. somewhere as simple as Hembury would, like Wallingford, be worked on the One Engine In Steam principle meaning you could only ever have one train there at a time and the provision of signals would be as simple as that at Wallingford, i.e there would be hardly any semaaphore running signals (just a Home Signal and platform starting signal)  with the sort of covered ground frame the GWR ambitiously called 'a signal box' plus, possibly,  a second, open air, ground frame to work the run round release crossover (although at Wallingfird that was worked from the signal box.  Wallingford had a few ground disc signals but not for the points immediately adjacent to the signal box (as would be the case at a ground frame).

 

If the service pattern demanded the time would have a more sophisticated (i.e more expensive to install and maintain) signalling system although TrainStaff & Ticket wouldn't add much cost but with passenger trains running it would most likely be Electric Train Staff.  ths e signalling itself would also then be more sophisticated (= a few more signals) and you could have more than one train at the terminus at any one time.

 

The private sidings to the tannery and airy would have gates (basically ordinary field type gates) at the boundary between private ownership and railway company ownership.  the tannery trap point would be worked from the signal box in all possible signalling scenarios but the creamery trap point would be worked by a separate single lever ground frame (or maybe even an ordinary hand point lever) as it is outside the signal box controlled area.

[BWsTrains]

 

On 17/02/2022 at 10:36, Harlequin said:

Here's a quick sketch I did to see whether the sidings could be made longer:

 

I smoothed out the main line - it's just a simple constant curve so that there's a bit more room for the yard.

The siding points are as close as possible to the end of the loop and the goods shed and cattle dock are shifted to the right to allow loading space at the far ends (like Wallingford).

The creamery is on a kickback as Colin suggested.

I didn't include the bay but you can see it could easily be added in.

Looking at it now, I think the run round loop is plenty long enough and it might be worth shortening it so that there's room for some non railway scenery beyond the buffers.

 

 

The lost input from Harlequin of 17/2/2022, most but not all other uploads are being reinstated. Now on the second try as the first reload was lost again.

 

 

Final parts I need from British Finescale are still pending, so I'm holding off posting my final plan until then.

Edited July 8, 2022 by BWsTrains
Reinstating image 2nd time + update

[BWsTrains]

On 19/02/2022 at 22:51, The Stationmaster said:

Not at a small station like this.  Let's go into it a bit more deeply - every working day (;.e. Monday - Saturday;  Saturday counted as a 'weekday') every station would submit a rolling stock report by no later tha 10.00 every morning.  The report would detail how many wagons they had in hand of each type including how many were empty.  The station would also estimate how many empty wagons it need for loading in the following 24 hours and if it had more empties on hand than t needed they would be ordered away (go shot of) but if it needed any additoonal empties they would be ordered in.

 

The times of branch trips varied quite alot but on many quieter branches they dropped into a late morning/middle of the day time band (when there was most likely to be a gap in the passenger service anyway).  any more urgent freight moves could be covered by making some of teh passenger trains Mixed Trains (they had to be authorised in the Service Timetable as the number allowed was subject to strict conditions - you couldn't just run one if you felt like it).  Wagons, particularly for m mileage traffic tended to be unloaded at varying paces depending on all sorts of factors and despite the threat of demurrage chatges (for railway owned wagons) or siding rent (for PO wagons some customers were happy to accept the cost of a few shillings a day if it helped them deal with their work ayt theor own pace.  What this could mean is that in a mileage siding, in particular but it could also happen in a goods shed, emptoies could be blocked by inwards wagons still partly underload or be blocking outwards loaded wagons ready to leave or blocking space need for newly arrived inwards loaded wagons.  So first of the trip engine was to shunt out what had to be got out before it could shunt in any newly arrived traffic wagons and put them aside beofre shunting in the new arrivals and you didn't need anything in the way of extra sidings to do that - especially on the plan drawn by 'Harlequin'.

 

Now none of this is half as bad as it sounds as it will not involve masses of wagons= for example in 1933 Yealmpton forwarded 222 tons of 'general goods',  and received 2276 tons of coal; 354 tons of other minerals; and 1591 tons of 'general goods',  and handled 38 wagons of livestock.  Wallingford was massively busier in the same year

 

The signalling does to some extent depend on the sort of train service you wish to run.  standing aside the LSWR/SR 'incursion'. somewhere as simple as Hembury would, like Wallingford, be worked on the One Engine In Steam principle meaning you could only ever have one train there at a time and the provision of signals would be as simple as that at Wallingford, i.e there would be hardly any semaphore running signals (just a Home Signal and platform starting signal)  with the sort of covered ground frame the GWR ambitiously called 'a signal box' plus, possibly,  a second, open air, ground frame to work the run round release crossover (although at Wallingfird that was worked from the signal box.  Wallingford had a few ground disc signals but not for the points immediately adjacent to the signal box (as would be the case at a ground frame).

 

If the service pattern demanded the time would have a more sophisticated (i.e more expensive to install and maintain) signalling system although Train Staff & Ticket wouldn't add much cost but with passenger trains running it would most likely be Electric Train Staff.  this signalling itself would also then be more sophisticated (= a few more signals) and you could have more than one train at the terminus at any one time.

 

The private sidings to the tannery and airy would have gates (basically ordinary field type gates) at the boundary between private ownership and railway company ownership.  the tannery trap point would be worked from the signal box in all possible signalling scenarios but the creamery trap point would be worked by a separate single lever ground frame (or maybe even an ordinary hand point lever) as it is outside the signal box controlled area.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Apologies, I've been remiss for an extended time in not thanking you for this most helpful information.

 

It's been a while since I came back here, the unfortunate / unavoidable delays suffered by Wayne in releasing further British Finescale turnout designs have slowed my progress. What I have decided is that my operating regime will fall into what you describe as "more sophisticated" (as per your comments which I've highlighted above) with the possibility of GWR and SR traffic at the same time. To this end I've added a bay suitable to hold an Autotrain.

 

The track plan for the relevant section is shown below. I envisaged that a single Home Signal as at Wallingford would be at the Station limits, in my case near the southern edge of my modelled area. Hence my interest revolves around the placement of suitable Platform Starter Signals for the main passenger and bay traffic.

 

Having seen your input regarding the Granby Cynwyd configuration, my setting is a mirror of those track positions with the bay to the right of the main. I'm totally unsure if my signals should be placed to the left of the relevant lines, or right as shown to avoid any ambiguity as to which signal is allocated to which line. 

 

My plan shows the baseboard joists (brown lines) but not the main "L" girder which is 40mm wide and follows the 1000mm line hence fouling the area where I could place a bracket double starter signal at the station exit. The Dapol single arm signals have a much smaller headspace requirement and I understand they will fit.

 

Your guidance on this would be appreciated.

PS what are "Electric Train Staff", is this one of those annoying auto-spellcheck mis-corrections?

 

Regards,

 

Colin

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by BWsTrains
add'n

[BWsTrains]

I've spent some time exploring this topic :

where both @The Stationmasterand @RailWestprovided useful guidance which is relevant to my questions. The two important issues I picked up were:

 

Placement / type of Platform starters.
It seems two individual single starters to the left of the tracks controlled is best, rather than a bracket double and hence here a revised layout plan with positions.

 

Control of  Traffic flow from the Goods Sidings / Run around loop

Here, one or more Ground signals appear to be the favoured option for this traffic management.

 

Most of the Goods Yard signalling for the yard branches I think I get but would very much appreciate the views of the more experienced on the trickier bits. These include entry to the main which to me should be located directly opposite my Signal Box.

 

Your thoughts and input would be appreciated,

 

Colin

 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by BWsTrains