Castle Aching

[Stephen 28]

Here, then, is Brandon, on the Great Eastern Ely-Thetford line.

 

We can see the transition from the chaired bullhead running lines to the non-chaired sidings, which are presumably spiked FB/Vignoles.

 

Where is the trap point? What would stop the covered van moving into conflict with the approaching train? Aside from the siding point, what would stop it reaching the point on the mainline?

 

Here, again, is Marks Tey, c.1900. A more substantial station. Can I discern a trap point between the running lines and the yard where marked?

Because there is a full turnout within the ridings, leading to a headshunt or kick back siding, this would provide all the protection required. As others have said, these two turnouts would operate as a crossover, interlocked with the signalling, so vehicles would eithe be confined to the sidings or free to access the running line but not both at the same time.

 

Edited for auto incorrect

Edited October 16, 2017 by Stephen 28

[Regularity]

The picture of Cromer is what you should use as the basis for your location.

Interesting in that there is a single blade, and a check rail on the other side - a bit like the Peco version. Friction in the back-to-back department would prevent runaway rolling stock from actually leaving the rails, but not sure about an engine under power - that would possibly rise up and derail.

 

As for Marks Tey, I am not sure what is there exactly, but I do no think it to be a trap point, as the turnout (no 53 crossover with no 54 FPL) leading into the down passenger loop will do very nicely there. This is supported by the signalling diagram available: https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1028

 

As you say, the purpose of the trap points is to derail something running away so that it does not foul the path of a running line, and these are used where there is not an operational need for a crossover to a headshunt, etc. A sand trap would be used where speeds might be higher, to reduce the momentum and hence impact on the stop blocks. (Not buffer stops, I have been told by railwaymen!)

Edited October 22, 2017 by Regularity

[Regularity]

Also, looking at the Cromer photo, notice that real track was not always smooth - a few kinks in the platform road - and the number of closely-spaced chair supporting the crossing vee, suggesting interlaced sleepers here rather than the more typical GER use of full timbering under the crossing.

Edit: might not be. It could be a large bolt passing through the knuckles, and the spacing block between them, keeping everything correctly spaced.

 

These sorts of picture are an absolute goldmine of information about track and signalling.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Regularity

[Edwardian]

The picture of Cromer is what you should use as the basis for your location.

Interesting in that there is a single blade, and a check rail on the other side - a bit like the Peco version. Friction in the back-to-back department would prevent runaway rolling stock from actually leaving the rails, but not sure about an engine under power - that would possibly rise up and derail.

 

As for Marks Tey, I am not sure what is there exactly, but I do no think it to be a trap point, as the turnout (no 53 crossover with no number 54 FPL) leading into the down passenger loop will do very nicely there. This is supported by the signalling diagram available: https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1028

 

As you say, the purpose of the trap points is to derail something running away so that it does foul the path of a running line, and these are used where there is not an operational need for a crossover to a headshunt, etc. A sand trap would be used where speeds might be higher, to reduce the momentum and hence impact on the stop blocks. (Not buffer stops, I have been told by railwaymen!)

 

Excellent.  So, while not obliged to follow either Great Eastern or M&GN practice, they both provide examples of what is apposite.

 

What I need, then, is a single rail trap point (1) to protect the running lines from the yard (as seen at Cromer) and (2) to protect the running line from the loops (as seen at Foulsham).

 

Thank you all for the helpful comments, corrections and explanations. Now I have the answer to where they go, their purpose and what they look like!

 

Progress!

[Compound2632]

I think most of your photos represent the Great Eastern's 'poor man's solution' for backwaters - just a single catch blade. A well-appointed railway such as the Midland would always use a full crossover so that a short trap siding protected the running line. I expect the Great Eastern would have gone for this on its main lines too. (The Midland seems to have had very set and predictable ways of laying out pointwork for goods yards and sidings - which makes designing a layout straightforward - but with the result that it couldn't really cope with single line layouts!)

[Edwardian]

I think most of your photos represent the Great Eastern's 'poor man's solution' for backwaters - just a single catch blade. A well-appointed railway such as the Midland would always use a full crossover so that a short trap siding protected the running line. I expect the Great Eastern would have gone for this on its main lines too. (The Midland seems to have had very set and predictable ways of laying out pointwork for goods yards and sidings - which makes designing a layout straightforward - but with the result that it couldn't really cope with single line layouts!)

 

In many ways the Midland seems to have been a model railway company. It only goes to show the differing standards that could obtain between different mainline companies around the turn of the century.

 

I tend to think of the West Norfolk as, in some ways less ramshackle than the Eastern & Midland was before 1893, but also lacking the resources that the GN subsequently put into the M&GN infrastructure or the Midland in the case of the locomotive fleet.

 

The standards adopted by the GER in Norfolk in the late Nineteenth Century seem about right to me.

 

Cromer is a busier station by far than CA, and busier than Hunstanton (only Birchoverham Next the Sea would be comparable as a West Norfolk station), Foulsham, on the other hand, is a minor passing station.  Both seem content with a single catch blade.  That suggests to me that this solution is within the West Norfolk's parameters.

[Old Gringo]

Although getting away from the current discussion regarding track, here's something connected to the history of part of the Midland & Great Northern Railway and its infrastructure.

 

I have just obtained a copy of a book about a section of the M. & G.N.R. and I'm sure that I discovered the title somewhere here on RMweb.  Was it mentioned in this topic, perhaps?  If so, apologies, but IMO well worth a look at and hence the (overlong!) post.

 

Purchased through an Amazon connection (Books etc., 8 Kings Road, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 3AD) "Building a Railway, Bourne to Saxby", Edited by Stewart Squires and Ken Hollanby  (including a reprint of Bourne to Saxby, by John Rhodes) was published in 2009 for the Lincoln Record Society, by Boydell & Brewer Ltd., Woodbridge, Suffolk.  Measuring 13" by 9.5" and containing 152 pages, ISBN 978-0-9015038-62,  it is a hard-backed volume with a selection of black & white, sepia and colour images.

 

The dust-flap says:

 

"Charles Stansfield Wilson (1844 - 1893) was the engineer who supervised the civil works on the railway line from Bourne to Saxby. A keen amateur photographer, he took a series of photographs during the construction phase of the line between 1890 and 1893, 72 of which were mounted in an album: this is a priceless survival indeed, as photographs of the construction of a railway in Victorian England are extremely rare.

 

"This volume presents a selection (64) of these illustrations accompanied by full and extensive captions which tell the story of the construction and detail the work of the men and machines involved.  There are pictures of the various stages of construction, of temporary and permanent engineering structures and of the locomotives themselves.

 

"The volume also includes other contemporary photographs of the Wilson family; colour photographs of what can be seen today; explanatory text describing their significance in railway and social history; a biography of Wilson; a history of the line and its construction and a new edition of the John Rhodes' 1989 history of the line; plus a select bibliography".

 

Although a not overlong work, it is very well produced and AFAIK besides "The Making of a Railway", by L.T.C. Rolt, 1971, (using the photographs taken by S.W.A. Newton  - the Newton collection is currently held by Leicester Museums), I cannot recall another volume with this number of images of the Victorian railway under construction.  Newton did for the Great Central Railway (London extension) what J.C. Bourne did for the London & Birmingham Railway and later the Great Western Railway, but, of course Bourne did it with engravings from pencil drawings.

 

Anyway, I found the Bourne to Saxby book rather good and maybe relevant to your eclectic interests James.

 

All the best,

John.

 

NB: I have no connection with any of the persons, or companies mentioned.

[DaveF]

I do feel I am learning something here.  So, at Brandon and Dunham, the yard point itself acts as the protection. 

 

The situation I have, however, is more akin to Cromer and Marks Tey, where fan of sidings branch from a running line.  In these situations, Great Eastern practice appears to have been to insert a trap point to one rail (different rail in each instance, it appears).  

 

Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation of the rather unclear Marks Tey photograph, and, of course the subsequent point might alter the situation, but I think the arrangement Cromer is the same as Castle Aching in this respect.  I also not the way a running line was protected from a loop at Foulsham.

 

 

Just a point about the Marks Tey photo.  It doesn't just show sidings off the main line.

 

The left hand curved track leading from the main line is the platform line for the Sudbury branch which curves away from the main line very sharply.

 

I think that the protection may be given by the point where the man is standing.

 

David

[Edwardian]

Just a point about the Marks Tey photo.  It doesn't just show sidings off the main line.

 

The left hand curved track leading from the main line is the platform line for the Sudbury branch which curves away from the main line very sharply.

 

I think that the protection may be given by the point where the man is standing.

 

David

 

David, thank you for that, which makes perfect sense.

 

 

Although getting away from the current discussion regarding track, here's something connected to the history of part of the Midland & Great Northern Railway and its infrastructure.

 

 

I have just obtained a copy of a book about a section of the M. & G.N.R. and I'm sure that I discovered the title somewhere here on RMweb.  Was it mentioned in this topic, perhaps?  If so, apologies, but IMO well worth a look at and hence the (overlong!) post.

 

 

Purchased through an Amazon connection (Books etc., 8 Kings Road, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 3AD) "Building a Railway, Bourne to Saxby", Edited by Stewart Squires and Ken Hollanby  (including a reprint of Bourne to Saxby, by John Rhodes) was published in 2009 for the Lincoln Record Society, by Boydell & Brewer Ltd., Woodbridge, Suffolk.  Measuring 13" by 9.5" and containing 152 pages, ISBN 978-0-9015038-62,  it is a hard-backed volume with a selection of black & white, sepia and colour images.

 

 

The dust-flap says:

 

"Charles Stansfield Wilson (1844 - 1893) was the engineer who supervised the civil works on the railway line from Bourne to Saxby. A keen amateur photographer, he took a series of photographs during the construction phase of the line between 1890 and 1893, 72 of which were mounted in an album: this is a priceless survival indeed, as photographs of the construction of a railway in Victorian England are extremely rare.

 

 

"This volume presents a selection (64) of these illustrations accompanied by full and extensive captions which tell the story of the construction and detail the work of the men and machines involved.  There are pictures of the various stages of construction, of temporary and permanent engineering structures and of the locomotives themselves.

 

 

"The volume also includes other contemporary photographs of the Wilson family; colour photographs of what can be seen today; explanatory text describing their significance in railway and social history; a biography of Wilson; a history of the line and its construction and a new edition of the John Rhodes' 1989 history of the line; plus a select bibliography".

 

 

Although a not overlong work, it is very well produced and AFAIK besides "The Making of a Railway", by L.T.C. Rolt, 1971, (using the photographs taken by S.W.A. Newton  - the Newton collection is currently held by Leicester Museums), I cannot recall another volume with this number of images of the Victorian railway under construction.  Newton did for the Great Central Railway (London extension) what J.C. Bourne did for the London & Birmingham Railway and later the Great Western Railway, but, of course Bourne did it with engravings from pencil drawings.

 

 

Anyway, I found the Bourne to Saxby book rather good and maybe relevant to your eclectic interests James.

 

 

All the best,

 

John.

 

 

PS: I have no connection with any of the persons, or companies mentioned.

 

 

John, thank you for that.  It is not a volume I have, or recall having heard of, though it sounds like a 'must' for me if I can find one.  It promises to be most interesting and useful, and I will see if a copy may be procured O must also check out the Rolt volume).

 

As I understand it, the line west from Lynn to Bourne was GN (as lessee) in Eastern & Midland days, but became part of the M&GN on its formation on 1893.  To link Bourne with the Midland at Saxby, the Midland built a branch eastward to Little Bytham, where it crossed the ECML GN section, and the M&GN built west from Bourne to Little Bytham, so the end-on junction was at Little Bytham.  The change from Midland green to Joint yellow occurs at this point in the RCH 1904 Atlas. Of course, it makes sense if, despite the demarcation, it was in effect built as a single stretch, Bourne to Saxby, as the title of the book implies.

 

As there was no Midland or Joint station at Little Bytham, the Midland locomotives would have had to run at least as far as Bourne, or perhaps in some cases further on, to Spalding, before handing over to a Joint locomotive.  Until, however, sufficient of the Johnson 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s were in service to make up the M&GN motive power deficit, Midland and, indeed, GNR locomorives would still be seen working the western section as far as Lynn. 

 

This prompts me to consider Midland motive power; some more thoughts for when we're further along.

 

As previously discussed, it would be quite in order to run through services to the West Norfolk from the Midlands via the M&GN. 

 

The traffic from the Midlands would utilise Midland Railway stock and would be hauled by a M&GN locomotive, e.g. the Johnson 1808/C Class 4-4-0. IIRC, the Joint's locos would take over somewhere like Bourne, but Midland engines continued to run on the M&GN's western section.

 

The western section was regarded as terminating at Lynn, but, as the connection with the West Norfolk is not very far along the M&GN mainline east of Lynn (I place it to the west of the M&GN's Massingham station), in cases where a Joint locomotive did not take over at Bourne or Spalding, and a Midland locomotive remained on the service as far as South Lynn, it is reasonable to suppose that, if the service were in fact bound for the West Norfolk's lines, the Midland loco would remain in charge. Thus, I believe it is feasible (a relative concept given a fictitious line serving fictitious locations, of course) that a Midland locomotive might turn up to Castle Aching on a Midlands service in 1905 from time to time.

 

And, courtesy of Mr Essery, I think I have found the perfect candidate.  69A is here pictured at South Lynn (the M&GN station).  As the caption confirms, the combination of lamp irons and number places her in the 1903-1907 period, so ideal for CA in 1905. Incidentally, here she is described as on an Up service, which I assume is back home to Midland territory, having been turned, watered and filled her tender with coal at Lynn, but someone please correct me if that is wrong.

 

I like 2-4-0s.  They seem to be the ideal type for a line like the West Norfolk, and I plan to have eventually 2 WNR 2-4-0s and 2 GER.  Any opportunity to have a Midland one is not to missed, not least because anything penned by Johnson is amongst the most graceful engines ever designed. 

 

And thus, my question, primarily directed at my Learned Friend, Compound, must be whether this loco can be derived from the Ratio Johnson 2-4-0?

Edited October 16, 2017 by Edwardian

[Nearholmer]

A form of protection that seems to have been quite common, and surprisingly long-lasting in backwaters, but which I don't think has been mentioned, was the use of fixed scotches.

 

These were lumps of wood or iron that pivoted in various ways to foul the railhead, performing the same function as a trap point. They could be interlocked just as with points, and many were operated from the 'box, by rodding.

 

The even poorer mans version, if you like, although I tend to the view that the Midland, like all huge organisations, had it's blind-spots when it came to safety; spending vast sums on track configurations while pursuing a locomotive policy that invited trouble, for instance.

[Adams442T]

Hi James, there appears to be two selections of the Bourne to Saxby volumes available from the dreaded Amazon, one has 17 used and new offers available!

 

I'll have to check further on the L.T.C Rolt volume.  Yes, they have 9, hardcover from £7.00, and paperback, 10 from £6.38, a bargain!

[Edwardian]

Hi James, there appears to be two selections of the Bourne to Saxby volumes available from the dreaded Amazon, one has 17 used and new offers available!

 

I'll have to check further on the L.T.C Rolt volume.  Yes, they have 9, hardcover from £7.00, and paperback, 10 from £6.38, a bargain!

 

Thanks.  I have just found a hardback of the Bourne to Saxby volume, second hand "near fine" condition on Abe Books for £15 including postage, which was a good deal less than what I saw on Amazon and Bay of Fleas, so will push the boat out and send for it.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Edwardian

[Northroader]

Great minds and all that, I was thinking before lunch about the type of movable protection Kevin has mentioned, and produced a sketch, as I can’t think of a photo for one of these. You could use one at the end of your goods siding/s instead of a trap point quite realistically. It would be simpler to install and operate, and has a nice old fashioned look to it.

[Edwardian]

Great minds and all that, I was thinking before lunch about the type of movable protection Kevin has mentioned, and produced a sketch, as I can’t think of a photo for one of these. You could use one at the end of your goods siding/s instead of a trap point quite realistically. It would be simpler to install and operate, and has a nice old fashioned look to it.A5112CE4-2BAC-4C47-BC68-C331A69F3ADC.jpeg

 

Ingenious.  A simple pivot.  Thanks to you both. That is one to model, whether at CA or not, I'm not sure, but it's too good a feature not to model.  

 

Anyway, in the meantime, we appear cut off from the outside world.  Well, people are still posting on RMWeb and the BBC are still broadcasting, so the fact that the world beyond our property has disappeared into a sepia void does not betoken the end of the World.  Which is reassuring.

 

I've seen plenty of fog in my time, but it has generally been white, not brown!

[BG John]

Here's a rather worse for wear one at Cranmore on the East Somerset Railway, so presumably GWR, in 1987.

[Edwardian]

Here's a rather worse for wear one at Cranmore on the East Somerset Railway, so presumably GWR, in 1987.

S2342.JPG

 

Brilliant, John.  I notice it is placed over the point blades.

[Northroader]

You got fog, we got a pink sun! John, that’s the sort of thing I’m thinking of, great picture.

[BG John]

Here's another view.

 

You can just see it in this photo, by the elbow of the photographer in the foreground. I don't know how correct the location is, as it may have been there more for interest than to be functional.

[Edwardian]

Here's another view.

S2353.JPG

 

You can just see it in this photo, by the elbow of the photographer in the foreground. I don't know how correct the location is, as it may have been there more for interest than to be functional.

S2351.JPG

 

Great pictures of a really interesting feature.

 

Lovely 2-bolt chairs too!

[Regularity]

Great minds and all that, I was thinking before lunch about the type of movable protection Kevin has mentioned, and produced a sketch, as I can’t think of a photo for one of these. You could use one at the end of your goods siding/s instead of a trap point quite realistically. It would be simpler to install and operate, and has a nice old fashioned look to it.A5112CE4-2BAC-4C47-BC68-C331A69F3ADC.jpeg

Notice that the stop is arranged such that wagons rolling against it will force it closed, and not open. Some countries and possibly companies had arrangements where the block flipped over, with a pivot parallel to and outside the rail.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Regularity

[Edwardian]

Notice that the stop us arranged such that wagons rolling against it will force it closed, and not open. Some countries and possibly companies had arrangements where the block flipped over, with a pivot parallel to and outside the rail.

 

Ah, yes!  Clever, that.

 

I think I would like to go with the GE single blade arrangement, as at Cromer, but I am now eager to incorporate this feature somewhere. I will see what Don W has to say, because it is his life I seem to be complicating at present.  

[Nearholmer]

It looks to be in a half-sensible location, in that it traps the outlet of two roads, and is about as far from what it was protecting as could be.

 

I'm not sure it is remotely operated or interlocked, though, which some certainly were.

 

There were (are?) other designs, which flip a lump of iron up onto the railhead. I have a feeling that they are or were the normal/preferred form of trap on some European railways

Edited October 16, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Donw]

I think you are getting the idea now Edwardian. These things became necessary after 1889 when following the Armagh accident the 1889 Railways Act gave the Board of Trade the autority to insist on interlocking of points and signals as well as the adoption of absolute block working on passenger lines. There is no mention of traps per se but the interlocking would be such that unless a trap or siding point was set to divert any vehicles from the main line the signals allowing a passenger train on to that piece of main line could not be operated. Additionally once the signal was operated it would either directly or indirectly hold the trap or siding point to protect the passenger train whilst it completed its move.

This was one of the most important acts to make the railways safe and included theprovision of automatic continuous brakes on passenger trains. The interlocking and absolute block made changes necessary to many station layouts but took some time to implement At Dolgelley the changes were made in 1894.

 

The question of a signal controlling access to and from the siding depends really on the situation. In the absence of a signal a move can be authorised by a flag from the signalman. However where a place is reasonably busy a signal would be likely. I think either a short arm signal or a ground signal to allow access out and a Bracket signal controlling access to the various lines I think a short arm on their to signal entry in. Possibly overkill but I like signals and following the 1889 act may well have been thought necessary

 

Don

[Compound2632]

David, thank you for that, which makes perfect sense.

 

 

John, thank you for that.  It is not a volume I have, or recall having heard of, though it sounds like a 'must' for me if I can find one.  It promises to be most interesting and useful, and I will see if a copy may be procured O must also check out the Rolt volume).

 

As I understand it, the line west from Lynn to Bourne was GN (as lessee) in Eastern & Midland days, but became part of the M&GN on its formation on 1893.  To link Bourne with the Midland at Saxby, the Midland built a branch eastward to Little Bytham, where it crossed the ECML GN section, and the M&GN built west from Bourne to Little Bytham, so the end-on junction was at Little Bytham.  The change from Midland green to Joint yellow occurs at this point in the RCH 1904 Atlas. Of course, it makes sense if, despite the demarcation, it was in effect built as a single stretch, Bourne to Saxby, as the title of the book implies.

 

As there was no Midland or Joint station at Little Bytham, the Midland locomotives would have had to run at least as far as Bourne, or perhaps in some cases further on, to Spalding, before handing over to a Joint locomotive.  Until, however, sufficient of the Johnson 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s were in service to make up the M&GN motive power deficit, Midland and, indeed, GNR locomorives would still be seen working the western section as far as Lynn. 

 

This prompts me to consider Midland motive power; some more thoughts for when we're further along.

 

As previously discussed, it would be quite in order to run through services to the West Norfolk from the Midlands via the M&GN. 

 

The traffic from the Midlands would utilise Midland Railway stock and would be hauled by a M&GN locomotive, e.g. the Johnson 1808/C Class 4-4-0. IIRC, the Joint's locos would take over somewhere like Bourne, but Midland engines continued to run on the M&GN's western section.

 

The western section was regarded as terminating at Lynn, but, as the connection with the West Norfolk is not very far along the M&GN mainline east of Lynn (I place it to the west of the M&GN's Massingham station), in cases where a Joint locomotive did not take over at Bourne or Spalding, and a Midland locomotive remained on the service as far as South Lynn, it is reasonable to suppose that, if the service were in fact bound for the West Norfolk's lines, the Midland loco would remain in charge. Thus, I believe it is feasible (a relative concept given a fictitious line serving fictitious locations, of course) that a Midland locomotive might turn up to Castle Aching on a Midlands service in 1905 from time to time.

 

And, courtesy of Mr Essery, I think I have found the perfect candidate.  69A is here pictured at South Lynn (the M&GN station).  As the caption confirms, the combination of lamp irons and number places her in the 1903-1907 period, so ideal for CA in 1905. Incidentally, here she is described as on an Up service, which I assume is back home to Midland territory, having been turned, watered and filled her tender with coal at Lynn, but someone please correct me if that is wrong.

 

I like 2-4-0s.  They seem to be the ideal type for a line like the West Norfolk, and I plan to have eventually 2 WNR 2-4-0s and 2 GER.  Any opportunity to have a Midland one is not to missed, not least because anything penned by Johnson is amongst the most graceful engines ever designed. 

 

And thus, my question, primarily directed at my Learned Friend, Compound, must be whether this loco can be derived from the Ratio Johnson 2-4-0?

 

Reading this thread has had be going through what limited literature on the M&GN I have. It seems to be accepted that once the Joint had enough Johnson 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s, they worked all trains east of Bourne, though prior to that, Midland engines worked to and were stationed at Lynn (and likewise for the Great Northern from Peterborough. Evidently there were some through workings - excursions? - which were the exception to this rule.

 

No 69A was a member of the 890 Class, a class of 62 engines, 20 built by Neilsons and 42 at Derby over the period 1871-75, i.e. begun by Kirtley and completed by Johnson. They started off in a variety of styles - earlier engines having almost a Crewe look to them. By 1895 they had all been rebuilt and conformed to the 'house style'; with 6' 8 1/2" drivers there was little to distinguish them visually from the 1400 Class upon which the Ratio kit is based. So in a word, yes.

 

There were a series of articles in Midland Record on the various classes of 'transitional' 2-4-0s, by the genuinely learned David Hunt. I'll dig them out and see what you'd actually have to do to the kit.

 

EDIT: Ten new posts were made to this thread while I was typing that...

Edited October 16, 2017 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

I think you are getting the idea now Edwardian. These things became necessary after 1889 when following the Armagh accident the 1889 Railways Act gave the Board of Trade the autority to insist on interlocking of points and signals as well as the adoption of absolute block working on passenger lines. There is no mention of traps per se but the interlocking would be such that unless a trap or siding point was set to divert any vehicles from the main line the signals allowing a passenger train on to that piece of main line could not be operated. Additionally once the signal was operated it would either directly or indirectly hold the trap or siding point to protect the passenger train whilst it completed its move.

This was one of the most important acts to make the railways safe and included theprovision of automatic continuous brakes on passenger trains. The interlocking and absolute block made changes necessary to many station layouts but took some time to implement At Dolgelley the changes were made in 1894.

 

The question of a signal controlling access to and from the siding depends really on the situation. In the absence of a signal a move can be authorised by a flag from the signalman. However where a place is reasonably busy a signal would be likely. I think either a short arm signal or a ground signal to allow access out and a Bracket signal controlling access to the various lines I think a short arm on their to signal entry in. Possibly overkill but I like signals and following the 1889 act may well have been thought necessary

 

Don

 

All sounds good, thanks.  I genuinely look forward to investigating the signalling.  I understand that I would need a signal of some sort to release the trap.

 

I assume a ground signal for the trap on the loop, but I will welcome guidance in due course.

 

Do let me know what you think of the single-blade GE-style trap.