Jump to content
 

Dartmouth Townstal - Theoretical tunnelling out of Dartmouth


cary hill
 Share

Recommended Posts

I attach for comment an 00 gauge layout plan which is designed to portray a West Country(ex-GWR) passing station on a secondary line during the period 1948-68.

I have included design elements from a few West Country prototype locations.

The possibly slightly quirky design elements are taken from prototypes and can be justified by my "backstory" for the line which goes as follows - I assume the line was initially built with my station being a temporary terminus before there was a further construction phase which pushed the line on to it's final destination or junction. Thus there is a (disused) smaller-sized turntable and a (disused)signal box at the "left" end of the layout, which was replaced by a platform based signal box more centrally located when the line was subsequently lengthened. If there was an engine shed, this was demolished many years ago.

The largest scenic strucures will be a three road wooden train shed and a two road goods shed.

The normal motive power would be 14XX, Pannier Tanks, Prairies and occasional Moguls for the steam era joined by DMUs and D63XX hydraulics in the transition era. Coaching stock I assume to be autocoaches and B sets with an occasional strengthener coach. I think goods traffic can be varied but in line with the requirements of a busy market town.

I am provisionally reserving the right to operate the line as a diversionary route when the "mainline" is blocked, but I am still undecided as to where the trains are diverted "to" or "from". I am favouring a Devon location as being most likely, but I am unsure whether to plump for a Dartmouth - South Hams - Yealmpton - Plymouth option, although this option seems mariginally more likely than another venture onto Dartmoor.

I am conscious that the plan as drawn, which would fit down one side of a tandem length garage, is a little too long but if I can compress the length by 10% this will allow for 6' fiddle yards at each end. The plan as drawn is also too wide, but I am thinking of addressing this by a slight diagonal "tilting" of the plan and the adoption a "coffin" shaped baseboard scheme with the "head" at the left and narrowing towards the "feet" on the right. This should reduce overall width to a maximum of around 3' which is as far as I can reach.

All comments and criticisms are welcome particularly with reference to any prototypical errors and my apologies for the lurid blue colour on the plan(no idea why it is titled "Wadebridge" either) - still grappling with the software.

Thanks,

David

post-9751-020645200 1289899855_thumb.png

Edited by cary hill
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That's got a lot of potential I reckonsmile.gif.

But a few errors - the biggest being the lack of trap points in at least 4 places - e.g cattle pen siding, turntable siding (and possibly siding next to the turntable siding - see below).

The next one that really leaps out is the use of a double slip - without checking everywhere in the West of England I can't come up with a double slip in that position - single slip quite likely (to make a crossover between the two platform lines or a diamond very definitely but not a double slip}. The reason being that a double slip would introduce a facing connection and all the early track layouts in the west seem to have avoided that as much as possible although a few were later relaid as a straightforward facing connection without any sort of slip at all and no trailing point in the other road. You might find an example of a double slip in this position but in my view it would be more atypical than typical - edited ADDENDUM, I have now found a sole example of a double slip on a GW West of England branch - at Filleigh - but not quite in the same operational context.

A few facilities look odd to me but that might be down to the constraints of the programme - the cattle dock should be parallel to the siding as should the loading bank.

Finally you also have a couple of sidings in teh yard with no apparent access other than by rail - was that intentional? (it could be readily explained if that is the case but did you have them in mind to be like that?

The acid test would be - as always - to try to signal it in proper GW fashion and (the double slip apart) it passes that test with ease (but why that signal 'in the middle of everything' next to the running lines near the cattle dock).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looks like a nice plan. I would suggest that the double slip should be a diamond crossing rather than the slip. ( As Mike suggested).

 

I am also not sure about the through road in the middle of the station. This strikes me as being an unusual feature for GWR station in Devon on a single track line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looks like a nice plan. I would suggest that the double slip should be a diamond crossing rather than the slip. ( As Mike suggested).

 

I am also not sure about the through road in the middle of the station. This strikes me as being an unusual feature for GWR station in Devon on a single track line.

 

Actually it's quite ok Kris - as long as it has trailing points at both ends (which it has if you look carefully, although it hasn't got any trap points - which it should have). These lines were quite common on the Western and were basically a double-ended siding which was very handy for attaching and detaching vehicles for through trains or stabling the odd vehicle used at busier parts of the day for strengthening purposes; also used to help make trailing connections into yards etc - mind you I can only find evidence of one on the West of England branch lines, at Tavistock.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Actually it's quite ok Kris - as long as it has trailing points at both ends (which it has if you look carefully, although it hasn't got any trap points - which it should have). These lines were quite common on the Western and were basically a double-ended siding which was very handy for attaching and detaching vehicles for through trains or stabling the odd vehicle used at busier parts of the day for strengthening purposes; also used to help make trailing connections into yards etc - mind you I can only find evidence of one on the West of England branch lines, at Tavistock.

 

 

That's sort of what I was thinking Mike. I've seen it in other places on the GW network but it's not a noticeable feature of the Cornish or Devonian section.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's got a lot of potential I reckonsmile.gif.

But a few errors - the biggest being the lack of trap points in at least 4 places - e.g cattle pen siding, turntable siding (and possibly siding next to the turntable siding - see below).

The next one that really leaps out is the use of a double slip - without checking everywhere in the West of England I can't come up with a double slip in that position - single slip quite likely (to make a crossover between the two platform lines or a diamond very definitely but not a double slip. The reason being that a double slip would introduce a facing connection and all the early track layouts in the west seem to have avoided that as much as possible although a few were later relaid as a straightforward facing connection without any sort of slip at all and no trailing point in the other road. You might find an example of a double slip in this position but in my view it would be more atypical than typical.

A few facilities look odd to me but that might be down to the constraints of the programme - the cattle dock should be parallel to the siding as should the loading bank.

Finally you also have a couple of sidings in teh yard with no apparent access other than by rail - was that intentional? (it could be readily explained if that is the case but did you have them in mind to be like that?

The acid test would be - as always - to try to signal it in proper GW fashion and (the double slip apart) it passes that test with ease (but why that signal 'in the middle of everything' next to the running lines near the cattle dock).

 

 

Thanks for compliment and constructive criticisms and suggestions - it looks as if I have obtained a pass mark but with room for improvement!:D

 

In reply to the points raised:

  • Catchpoints - I always forget to include these vital items - so thanks for the reminder and I now know where to put them.
  • Double-slips - a recurring blindspot for me - I think you told me exactly the same thing re a previous track design of mine on this forum - I think I'm getting the 'point' and I will change it for a diamond.:D
  • Odd facilities - you are correct in suggesting that the cattle pen and loading dock should be parallel to the relevant tracks but, using the software, I haven't quite mastered the art of drawing plausible "polygons"(which I think I need to be able to do to portray these features more accurately).
  • Which two sidings do you have in mind? I haven't intentionally barred any siding from road access so it must be bad draughtsmanship on my part.
  • Re misplaced signal - bearing in mind that signalling is a bit of a" black art" to me, I assume the superfluous signal is duplicating the function of the one where the running lines become single again or should there be one signal in the "Vee" between the running line and cattle pen road i.e. more or less opposite the left-end of the cattle dock? Am I correct in assuming that I only need four single arm signals - two controlling access to the station from both directions and two similarly controlling departure from the station and that everything else would be accomplished by ground signalling?

Again thanks for the feedback.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a nice plan. I would suggest that the double slip should be a diamond crossing rather than the slip. ( As Mike suggested).

 

I am also not sure about the through road in the middle of the station. This strikes me as being an unusual feature for GWR station in Devon on a single track line.

 

 

Thanks for the reply - I see I have already been "rumbled" on the Tavistock "influence" - I couldn't find any other similar single track line examples in the far West Country, but I thought it was something a little "different" without being totally without a prototype - although apparently this is almost the case.

 

The only other vaguely similar example I have come across so far is in Cornwall, where looks as if the station at Fowey had three lines between the two main platform faces and a footbridge (but no roof), although this looks to have only been applicable until the 1930's, as the second platform road seems to have been turned into a siding and all traces of the platform/footbridge removed by the mid 50's. I would quite like to attempt a plan of this too, with the china clay interest, but it is defeating me so far as the prototype all "bends" the wrong way for my purposes.

 

Thanks,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think that the sidings Mike was talking about are the ones I have highlighted in Red on your plan. I had noticed these as well but didn't mention them as Mike had already done so.

 

post-163-026536300 1289914765_thumb.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply - I see I have already been "rumbled" on the Tavistock "influence" - I couldn't find any other similar single track line examples in the far West Country, but I thought it was something a little "different" without being totally without a prototype - although apparently this is almost the case.

 

The only other vaguely similar example I have come across so far is in Cornwall, where looks as if the station at Fowey had three lines between the two main platform faces and a footbridge (but no roof), although this looks to have only been applicable until the 1930's, as the second platform road seems to have been turned into a siding and all traces of the platform/footbridge removed by the mid 50's. I would quite like to attempt a plan of this too, with the china clay interest, but it is defeating me so far as the prototype all "bends" the wrong way for my purposes.

 

Thanks,

 

David

According to the plan in 'Great Western Stations, Volume 2', Torquay had a middle siding, a loop, which lasted as such until 1965. After this, it became a single-ended siding, accessed from the Down end.

Neath (not S W England, I know) had a through road with a double-slip at the Up end, with access from both Up and Down Main part way along its length. The part of this siding between the platforms lasted until 1967, though the section beyond the double slip was taken out-of-use a few years earlier.

What was the arrangement at Frome? I believe this kept the Brunel roof until recently; indeed it may still be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the sidings Mike was talking about are the ones I have highlighted in Red on your plan. I had noticed these as well but didn't mention them as Mike had already done so.

 

post-163-026536300 1289914765_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Thanks for that Kris. Since Mike raised the point I have revisited my plan to check if I have misinterpreted the OS maps I used to design the plan but both sidings appear to be only rail accessible.

 

I assume this might be because they are used to hold loaded and ready outwardbound wagon and van traffic and also presumably any returning empties for each direction until the next up/down goods working is due. This frees up the goods shed road, the goods shed loop via a platform road and long back sidings for further shunting moves - or is that all implausible nonsense?

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for that Kris. Since Mike raised the point I have revisited my plan to check if I have misinterpreted the OS maps I used to design the plan but both sidings appear to be only rail accessible.

 

I assume this might be because they are used to hold loaded and ready outwardbound wagon and van traffic and also presumably any returning empties for each direction until the next up/down goods working is due. This frees up the goods shed road, the goods shed loop via a platform road and long back sidings for further shunting moves - or is that all implausible nonsense?

 

David

 

Correct answerbiggrin.gif

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

According to the plan in 'Great Western Stations, Volume 2', Torquay had a middle siding, a loop, which lasted as such until 1965. After this, it became a single-ended siding, accessed from the Down end.

Neath (not S W England, I know) had a through road with a double-slip at the Up end, with access from both Up and Down Main part way along its length. The part of this siding between the platforms lasted until 1967, though the section beyond the double slip was taken out-of-use a few years earlier.

What was the arrangement at Frome? I believe this kept the Brunel roof until recently; indeed it may still be there.

 

The roof at Frome is still on. Only a single platform in use there now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

According to the plan in 'Great Western Stations, Volume 2', Torquay had a middle siding, a loop, which lasted as such until 1965. After this, it became a single-ended siding, accessed from the Down end.

Neath (not S W England, I know) had a through road with a double-slip at the Up end, with access from both Up and Down Main part way along its length. The part of this siding between the platforms lasted until 1967, though the section beyond the double slip was taken out-of-use a few years earlier.

What was the arrangement at Frome? I believe this kept the Brunel roof until recently; indeed it may still be there.

 

The middle siding at Neath only ever had trailing access from the running lines so it could not be used as a through line - fairly typical GW arrangement - and the double slip in the middle siding was part of the trailing crossover between the Main Lines.

The overall roof at Frome is still there although it was not designed by Brunel (but it does have a distinct Brunellian air about it).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi David

 

The Taunton to Barnstaple line utilized GW moguls for a fair number of the trains as well as the more ubiquitous tank engines plus in BR times some of the other lots engines made guest appearances on summer Saturdays, most notably T9's and N's .

 

HTH

 

S.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First, the good news. Even without reading your post a quick glance at the track plan told me "early west country branch with Brunellian overall roof", so you're on target for suggesting the atmosphere you want. I've read through the suggestions and agree with them, and have only 2 to add.

 

1) The Up home (assuming trains go down to the terminus and up to the junction) might be a bit awkward for sighting, that close to the road bridge abutments (bearing in mind the GW placed their signals assuming right-hand drive locos). 2 possible alternatives are

i) Move it "outside" the bridge, which would aid conspicuity. It could then be made even easier to spot by either painting a white square behind it on the bridge or giving it a "sky arm", a post tall enough to give the arm a clear sky background. The downside be that a train stood there might be out of sight of the signalbox, and unable to observe hand signals for shunting movements (making additional ground-discs necessary)

ii) Leave it where it is and improve its visibility by either giving it a co-acting sky arm visible to approaching trains a good way off, or providing a banner somewhere beyond the bridge (which might not even be on the modelled portion of railway, but we'd know it was there...)

 

2) The position of your old, out of use signalbox is a bit odd, remote from the station and only just in operating range of its associated pointwork. If I was signalling the layout from a clean sheet I would (depending on period) either put a single box where your platform box is, or have two, one at 6'8" along x 1'"8 in and the other at 17' x 1'. In the days before track circuits, boxes were placed as close to the points they controlled as possible, to a) shorten rodding runs making points easier to operate and less vulnerable to changes in temperature and B) more importantly, give the signalman as good a view as possible of any shunting operations over points he controlled- it's surprisingly easy, in the absence of sophisticated safety equipment, to swing the road under a movement. With a terminus you only have to worry about the points at one end of the layout so my first suggested position would have sufficed for the layout at that stage, but when the extension opens you hit a snag. Originally BoT regulations would not allow a facing point to be further from it's controlling signalbox than 110 yards, that's 1320mm or 4'4" in 4mm scale, and you had to have a good view of every point under your direct control. Some stations managed a long loop from a single box by placing it halfway along the loop, but that would be impractical in this case- that lovely overall roof would spoil the view. The only alternatives are i) control the country end points from a ground frame (usually beneath the GWR's dignity, though they did resort to it on odd occasions, such as Yelverton), or provide a second box at the location suggested, on the opposite side of the line to the first. Companies did that, where practical, to allow both sides of the train to be frequently examined for defects by signalmen as they passed by. Your platform box would date from much later, when improvements in rodding allowed the maximum reach to be increased to 180, then eventually 300 yards (for mechanical points- electric points have no limit), enabling the company to manage with 1 box instead of 2.

SO the upshot of all that waffle is that if you really want both old and new boxes the best place for the old one would be at the country end of the station, on the up side (I would expect that the original town-end box would have been demolished on abolition, since it would get in the way of shunting and yard work). Since this box would have been smaller, having less pointwork to control, this gives you an opportunity to strongly suggest location and age by modelling a small pokey structure from an earlier age, say a GWR type 1 or something stone-built by the Bristol and Exeter.

 

Hope you find the above useful, or at least mildly interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

First, the good news. Even without reading your post a quick glance at the track plan told me "early west country branch with Brunellian overall roof", so you're on target for suggesting the atmosphere you want. I've read through the suggestions and agree with them, and have only 2 to add.

 

1) The Up home (assuming trains go down to the terminus and up to the junction) might be a bit awkward for sighting, that close to the road bridge abutments (bearing in mind the GW placed their signals assuming right-hand drive locos). 2 possible alternatives are

 

Or the post could be short enough to allow the signal to be seen through the bridge hole - as was the case in umpteen places. And indeed numerous examples of GWR signals placed on the left of the line to which they applied. Moving the signal further away from the points (as did sometimes happen) introduces a need for track circuits and they were none too common on West Country branch lines.

 

 

2) The position of your old, out of use signalbox is a bit odd, remote from the station and only just in operating range of its associated pointwork.

 

Maybe all the pointwork at that end moved when the line was extended - perhaps in order to keep it nearer to the new 'box on the platform?

 

 

Some stations managed a long loop from a single box by placing it halfway along the loop, but that would be impractical in this case- that lovely overall roof would spoil the view.

 

They seem to have managed ok at Tavistock for 70 years, with virtually the same arrangement as in the plan in the OPwink.gif

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall roof at Frome is still there although it was not designed by Brunel (but it does have a distinct Brunellian air about it).

 

 

The roof at Frome was designed by Hannaford but it only ever had two tracks under it.

 

The OP's plan did scream "Tavistock" as soon as I saw it! I would add to all the comments about traps, changing the double slip to a simple diamond etc, and would add that losing the turntable would make it more realistic and give scope for an increase in goods yard space by extending the loop to the left. Perhaps use part of the space for a private siding instead?

 

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the post could be short enough to allow the signal to be seen through the bridge hole - as was the case in umpteen places. And indeed numerous examples of GWR signals placed on the left of the line to which they applied. Moving the signal further away from the points (as did sometimes happen) introduces a need for track circuits and they were none too common on West Country branch lines.

 

 

 

 

Maybe all the pointwork at that end moved when the line was extended - perhaps in order to keep it nearer to the new 'box on the platform?

 

 

 

 

They seem to have managed ok at Tavistock for 70 years, with virtually the same arrangement as in the plan in the OPwink.gif

 

 

 

 

Apologies for slow response (shift change night-to-earlies over the weekend meant time and brain function were in limited supply). Taking those points in order:

 

A short post peeping through would also be a valid alternative, if the location allowed (too far to the left and the bridge abutment would mask the arm, too far to the right fouls the structure gauge) though I wouldn't fancy being a driver on that line- place yourself on the footplate of an up goods, class J or K, and imagine having creep your way towards that signal with all that weight behind you . I hope I didn't come over too didactic (I did use the word "might" in my first post) and sound like I was asserting that these things Must Be Done, but the combination of overbridge, restricted view ahead (the presence of a cutting is implied by the overbridge) sharp right hand curve and a right hand drive loco flags up signal sighting as a potential issue. My suggested alternatives were exactly that, suggestions. The quickest, easiest answer wouid simply be for the layout builder to get down to drivers' eye level, squint along the track and see for himself, and I think it would be time well spent

 

Second point, moving the pointwork at the town end: Possible, yes but plausible, no. Why on earth would any railway go to the time and trouble of a relay and resignalling and while doing so shorten a passing loop by a good few feet? The presence of the bridges at either end of the station suggest that this is not naturally level ground-every square foot flat enough to lay track on has been expensively dug out, and in that situation they wouldn't have built one inch more than they thought they needed. Then, having expensively won those extra few feet of loop length, would they casually throw them away? I doubt it, at least during the era in which this line is set (ask me again in the early 70s if the line survives).

In the end, I have to admit my gut reaction to the "old" box was that it just looked wrong. I've done my best to explain why it does, and you've done your best to provide a logical rationale for why it would be there; a well reasoned rationale but one that just doesn't convince me- that box still looks wrong to me. It's not my railway, but if it was and I was faced with the choice of explaining away something questionable or doing away with it I know which I'd pick given the choice.

 

Your reference to Tavistock is 100% accurate, but I think misses my point. I'm not cricticising the location of his intended platform box, far from it.. As I said-"If I was signalling the layout from a clean sheet I would ........ put a single box where your platform box is". What I was trying to say was that a single box at the mid point of the loop (IE inside the overall roof) would have been completely impractical for sighting reasons, as part of a rationale for the station having 2 boxes at one part of its life. The OP's plan is set in the time between nationalisation and Beeching, but the author wants (as indicated by the existence of his suggested out-of-use) box to suggest the location's history by modelling the remains of earlier eras. The history of this location, according to the OP, would divide naturally into 3 phases: 1) as built as a terminus 2) as first rebuilt as a through line and 3) as modernised with the single platform box, the model being set in phase 3 but with the remains of earlier phases visible. Phase 1 signalling we have already dealt with- 1 box at the town end (though we differ on its location), phase 3 is as drawn (1 operational box on the up platform). I was explaining why I thought phase 2 signalling would almost certainly have required 2 boxes, giving a rationale for an "out of use" box to be modelled at what appears to me to be a more suitable location.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

A short post peeping through would also be a valid alternative, if the location allowed (too far to the left and the bridge abutment would mask the arm, too far to the right fouls the structure gauge) though I wouldn't fancy being a driver on that line- place yourself on the footplate of an up goods, class J or K, and imagine having creep your way towards that signal with all that weight behind you . I hope I didn't come over too didactic (I did use the word "might" in my first post) and sound like I was asserting that these things Must Be Done, but the combination of overbridge, restricted view ahead (the presence of a cutting is implied by the overbridge) sharp right hand curve and a right hand drive loco flags up signal sighting as a potential issue. My suggested alternatives were exactly that, suggestions. The quickest, easiest answer wouid simply be for the layout builder to get down to drivers' eye level, squint along the track and see for himself, and I think it would be time well spent

 

And I could equally have suggested a post with a centre pivot arm sited to the right of the line - however I tended to go for what in my experience would have been most likely in that location. After all the approach to the similarly situated signal at Tavistock was coming off a left hand curve in a fairly overgrown deep cutting - and in any event a Driver ought to be approaching the signal on the basis that it would be at 'danger' having passed the Distant Signal at 'Caution' {and where the Incline Instructions applied the train would no doubt have had sufficient brakes down for the driver to keep it under control).

 

 

 

 

Second point, moving the pointwork at the town end: Possible, yes but plausible, no. Why on earth would any railway go to the time and trouble of a relay and resignalling and while doing so shorten a passing loop by a good few feet? The presence of the bridges at either end of the station suggest that this is not naturally level ground-every square foot flat enough to lay track on has been expensively dug out, and in that situation they wouldn't have built one inch more than they thought they needed. Then, having expensively won those extra few feet of loop length, would they casually throw them away? I doubt it, at least during the era in which this line is set (ask me again in the early 70s if the line survives).

In the end, I have to admit my gut reaction to the "old" box was that it just looked wrong. I've done my best to explain why it does, and you've done your best to provide a logical rationale for why it would be there; a well reasoned rationale but one that just doesn't convince me- that box still looks wrong to me. It's not my railway, but if it was and I was faced with the choice of explaining away something questionable or doing away with it I know which I'd pick given the choice.

 

But there were of course places where considerable changes were made when lines were doubled (or after the gauge was narrowed) - and if the 'box had been elsewhere it would in all likelihood have been demolished to create clear sight lines from the new 'box. But railway modelling is also - in my view at any rate - about creating a scene or impression so, provided it isn't totally ridiculous buildings can, and should, be placed to help create visual images.

 

 

 

Your reference to Tavistock is 100% accurate, but I think misses my point. I'm not cricticising the location of his intended platform box, far from it.. As I said-"If I was signalling the layout from a clean sheet I would ........ put a single box where your platform box is". What I was trying to say was that a single box at the mid point of the loop (IE inside the overall roof) would have been completely impractical for sighting reasons, as part of a rationale for the station having 2 boxes at one part of its life. The OP's plan is set in the time between nationalisation and Beeching, but the author wants (as indicated by the existence of his suggested out-of-use) box to suggest the location's history by modelling the remains of earlier eras. The history of this location, according to the OP, would divide naturally into 3 phases: 1) as built as a terminus 2) as first rebuilt as a through line and 3) as modernised with the single platform box, the model being set in phase 3 but with the remains of earlier phases visible. Phase 1 signalling we have already dealt with- 1 box at the town end (though we differ on its location), phase 3 is as drawn (1 operational box on the up platform). I was explaining why I thought phase 2 signalling would almost certainly have required 2 boxes, giving a rationale for an "out of use" box to be modelled at what appears to me to be a more suitable location.

 

I quite agree that the midpoint of a loop often is sometimes the 'ideal' site for a signalbox but frequently other factors come into play - as no doubt they did at Tavistock where the 'box was not sited in such a way but was in fact placed nearer to the overall roof than a spot mid-way between the loop ends. However to have put it in that 'ideal site' at Tavistock would have sat it in the middle of the cattle pen siding south of the platform end (and further from the overall roof, not 'under it') and there was no room on the opposite side of the line due to the number of sidings adjacent to the running line, a feature shared with the proposed layout - hence, I would presume, the site chosen. And such things can always be explained away in one's (imaginary) history of the railway your layout sets out to portray.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the interesting debate on the signalling of my proposed layout:) .:D

 

I hope what I am going to post below does not invalidate any of it.

 

l have been giving a bit more thought to the "location" of my layout , along the following lines, after referring to a couple of relevant histories, doing a lot of Google mapping/street viewing and some examination of nature of the contours in the Dartmouth area.

 

I doubt there is much that is remotely "original" in what follows and where it is "original" there is probably no economic or business justification for it in the "real world" whatsovever :-

 

Assumptions:

 

 

 

  • The construction of the original South Hams Railway proposal was started from the Plymouth/Plympton end in 1860's to run through "the whole of the fertile and picturesque and almost inaccesible county(Devon) between Torquay and Plymouth" as it says in one of my reference sources.
  • The Kingswear branch was completed in 1864 as history tells us.
  • The good citizens of the Dartmouth still wanted the railway on their "side" of the Dart as soon as possible, despite the apparent lack of a suitable station "location" at the time - I think there was still some land to be reclaimed at this time - so in connection with this the D & T did bridge the Dart at the 70' height required by the Admiralty(?) up river.
  • The station(1866-70?) was somewhat inconveniently built along the bank of Old Mill Creek to the North of Dartmouth(behind the Naval College hill) with Sandquay Wood helping to provide the wood for the original wooden bridge(swing bridge section for boatyards?) over the creek. This location appears to be approximately 1.3 miles by road from the centre of Dartmouth and does provide a reasonable set of contours for a "shelved" station site and a possible continuation inland. I will assume the town corporation built a better access road than Old Mill Lane.
  • The station was originally one of those long thin affairs with a ticket platform and main platform later much altered.
  • The costs of bridging the Dart and other associated construction costs caused a delay of many years in progress further westwards hence the relics of the station's former terminal status.
  • Very slow progress made towards Kingsbridge from the west - I see no particular reason for Kingsbridge to be reached until 1893, as with Brent-Kingsbridge branch. The "Salcombe" branch could also be completed at that time.
  • Final pieces in the "jigsaw" with adoption of the outstanding" bits" of the South Hams Railway including the construction of the Dartmouth- Totnes link, the final linking of Kingsbridge and Dartmouth (1902?) and the long overdue provision of a small Dartmouth Town terminus station.The Town station is located approximately where the Modern carpark, park and part of the boat float are. I think there was a proposal at the one stage to build Dartmouth station at bit further inland in the Townstal area. I will assume the construction of a very short line from the original Dartmouth(now Junction) station to the more "convenient" Town station.
  • The junction station is significantly remodelled retaining the overall roof to cope with, amongst other things, royal visits to the Naval College just up the hill, because the Town extension is a "light railway"and cannot accomodate large engines.

A couple of rough diagrams/maps are attached to support the above ramblings.

 

As a result of the above I have "flipped" my original design so that the viewing side is looking from creekside up the hill, I have again attempted to signal the layout including ground signals and hopefully incorporating the catch points as suggested earlier in the thread. I have moved the disused signal box to the "London" end but left the disused turntable where it was for the time being.

 

I think I am well on the way to relocating "Tavistock" to the Dart estuary but any comments and criticisms in connection with either my "over the top" South Hams railway network or the revised layout plan will, as always, be much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

David

 

post-9751-065097600 1291129751_thumb.jpgpost-9751-003832700 1291129795_thumb.jpg

post-9751-084829400 1291146043_thumb.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like this.

  • In Tavistock my diagrams say that your double slip was a single slip - alllowing access from centre road to platform road. There was no facing connection to the goods yard from the platform line.
  • These diagrams are from Clark, R.H. (1979). An Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stataion, Layouts and Illustrations, Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford Publishing Co. pp180-181, and also includes a signal box diagram. Plenty of ground signals!
  • And you are probably aware of Turner, C, (1996) Post War Tavistock In: Great Western Railway Journal No 17 Winter 1996. Didcot, Wild Swan. pp 2-14. Also front and back cover illustrations

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, looks like it has a lot of operating potential. If you are looking for an idea for rail-served industry on the back siding then either a Creamery or a china clay dries would be very prototypical for the west-country and allow you to run some distinctive goods stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... or a china clay dries would be very prototypical for the west-country and allow you to run some distinctive goods stock....

 

Unless you're drastically going to change the geology of Devon there's no chance of China Clay around Dartmouth, the nearest actual dry being 20+ miles away at Marsh Mills. It's cattle country. so a creamery would be applicable, as would engineering type industry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like this.

  • In Tavistock my diagrams say that your double slip was a single slip - alllowing access from centre road to platform road. There was no facing connection to the goods yard from the platform line.
  • These diagrams are from Clark, R.H. (1979). An Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stataion, Layouts and Illustrations, Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford Publishing Co. pp180-181, and also includes a signal box diagram. Plenty of ground signals!
  • And you are probably aware of Turner, C, (1996) Post War Tavistock In: Great Western Railway Journal No 17 Winter 1996. Didcot, Wild Swan. pp 2-14. Also front and back cover illustrations

 

I freely admit that both of the sources you refer to have been heavily utilised in getting to my present stage. I think the track layout at Tavistock is a slightly unconventional variation on the theme of GWR passing stations. I don't see the need to wander too far from the prototype if it has the right "appeal" and also fits my available garage space without drastic compression. I have merely moved the "location" 30 miles(?) to the south-east to suit my own ends.

 

I have forgotten to correct the double slip error despite a previous "warning" earlier in the thread - hopefully it is not a case of three strikes and you're out.:D

 

Thanks,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're drastically going to change the geology of Devon there's no chance of China Clay around Dartmouth, the nearest actual dry being 20+ miles away at Marsh Mills. It's cattle country. so a creamery would be applicable, as would engineering type industry.

 

I tend to agree that China Clay traffic is out - I feel I can mess with geographical location of "Tavistock" ,as I have ,but altering the geology is a "bridge too far" for me. I am looking for a "signature" building or industry for the "country end" of the plan.

 

A map study of the former industrial premises round the corner (on River Dart) reveals an engineering works, paint works, and a naval facility existed at various times in the Sandquay/Coombe area of Dartmouth. :D

 

I have my eye on an old stone factory/warehouse building, with several floors, located at the southern end of Dartmouth(Warfleet Creek). It appears it may have been a brewery and pottery at various times in the past - it looks like it may now have been converted into flats from Google street car views. It looks like a good candidate for a " transplant ", particularly as there is an attractive tall stone bridge further down the same road carrying a higher level road over a slipway into Warfleet Creek, which might make a good rail overbridge.

 

I haven't completely fixed in my mind how high my station will be above Old MIll Creek, although I assume that, if the Dart was crossed by 70' high bridge, the railway might still be at a similar height in the station area. The creek looks very tidal and seems to be sandy/silted. So I think a large (marine) engineering works may be "out", although there is a present day boatyard on the other Creek bank. I suspect there is a possible clue in the name "Old Mill Creek" - it doesn't have to be a quaint (water) mill? I could keep the Creamery option in reserve if nothing more "original" can be imagined.

 

I probably need to do a few sketches or make a small mock-up to resolve the height issue first.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

David

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...