Castle Aching

[kingfisher9147]

[CKPR]

21 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Locomotive roster ....?

 

It seems insane to be expanding this, given how much work and investment left to manage, but I am haunted by the idea that I have too much line for my locomotive stud.

 

Someone, forgive me I forget who, made the excellent point that a significant number of locos would be in the works at any one time. Given that I am intending to model a particular season in a particular year, the choice of in-works locomotives can be fixed and unchanging.  These will not need to be modelled at all unless and until Aching constable Works is modelled, and, then, would be static models in various states of disassembly; part of the scenic work, almost.

 

Here is where we are now with what is planned.  Those in green are locos are resolved to add sometime ago, but never updated the list, and the Japanese Vulcan 2-4-0T has been added.  This is the list of 32 locomotives I mentioned earlier:

 

Mainline:

1861: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1861, WNR No. 11 - 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1861: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1861, WNR No. 12 - 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1863: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1863, WNR No. 14 - 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1863: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1863, WNR No. 15 - 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1875: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1874, WNR No. 4 - 4’6”- same type as Furness D1; ordered by FR, not purchased, went to WNR

18--:  0-6-0 Sharp Stewart of 1863, WNR No. ... - 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1874: 0-6-0 Beyer Peacock of 1874, WNR No. 20 – 4’9” - Ilfracombe Goods type

1880: 0-6-0 Beyer Peacock of 1880, WNR No. 22 – 5’ - standard BP similar to McDonnell 101 Class

1864: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1864, WNR No. 16 – 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1864: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1864, WNR No. 17 – 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1872: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1872, WNR No. 18 – 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1872: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1872, WNR No. 19 – 5’6 " - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1878: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1878, WNR No. 5 – 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1878: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1878, WNR No. 6 – 5’6” - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1883: 2-4-0 Crewe Type of 1857, ex Lancaster & Carlisle, WNR No. 24 – 5’1” - 3 sold by LNWR, the other 2 went to the E&MR

1895: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart/Melton Constable of 1874, ExCMR-E&MR, WNR No. 8 – 4’7” - Purchased from M&GN

1867: 4-4-0, Neilson & Co of 1866, WNR No. 7 - 4’6½” - Smaller version of Cowan's GNoSR K Class

1880: 4-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1880, WNR No. 23 - 5’ 6 ½” - same type as Cambrian SBC and Furness K1

1883: 4-4-0 Beyer Peacock of 1883, WNR No. 25 – 5’7” - similar to LSW Adams 380 Class 'Steamroller'

1887: 4-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1887, WNR No. 26 - 5’ 6 ½” - same type as Cambrian SBC and Furness K1

1887: 4-4-0 Sharp Stewart of 1887, WNR No. ... - 5’ 6 ½” - same type as Cambrian SBC and Furness K1

Achingham Branch:

1877: 0-4-2T, Neilson & Co/SW Johnson of 1877, WNR No. 1 - same as CV&HR GER T7 derivative

1872: 0-6-0T Sharp Stewart of 1872, WNR No. 3 - as also supplied to Furness and Wrexham, Mold & Connah's Quay Railways

Wolfringham Branch:

1877: 0-6-0ST Fox Walker of 1877, WNR No. 2 - same as supplied to Great Yarmouth & Stalham Lt Ry

1899: 0-6-0T Sharp Stewart of 1874, ExCMR-E&MR, WNR No. 9 - Purchased from M&GN

Wolfringham Staithe Branch:

1872 2-4-0T Vulcan Foundry

Fakeney Branch

1862: 2-2-2T Neilson & Co of 1862, WNR No. 13 - 5’ - standard gauge version of loco supplied to the Dublin & Drogheda Ry

1901: 0-6-0T Brighton Works/W Stroudley A1 of 1874 (No. 65), WNR No. 10 - Purchased from LB&SC

Works:

1878: 0-4-0ST Beyer Peacock of 1878, WNR No. 21 - similar BP's own Gorton works shunter

Bishop's Lynn Tramway:

1887: 0-4-0ST Black Hawthorn, BLT No.1 

1887: 0-4-0ST Black Hawthorn, BLT No.2

1888: 0-4-0 Tram Kitson (freelance), BLT No.3

 

Now, there are two further things I can do:

 

(1) Add 'ghost' locos, i.e. locos that will be in the works at the time the layout is set. Here I would prefer to use more of the Sharp Stewart 'standard types' or other 'repeats' because what is the point of identifying an attractive loco prototype for the WNR in order then to discount the possibility of ever modelling it?

 

(2) Add further locomotive models? Gulp. Well, there are a couple of 0-4-2 prototypes I am interested in, I am seduced by the idea of the Sharp Ottomans for the LT&SR and I could return to the idea of the 1880s Sharp 2-4-2 Radial tank, and, perhaps, even an 0-6-2T version for goods work?  

 

This could lead to something like this in addition to the locos listed above, with actual additions in Dark Green and 'ghost' locos in Light Green

 

187-- 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

187-- 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

187-- 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

1874: 0-6-0 Beyer Peacock of 1874, 4’9” - Ilfracombe Goods type

1898: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as LT&SR 49 Class

1898: 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as LT&SR 49 Class

188--: 0-6-2T Sharp Stewart 

188--: 0-6-2T Sharp Stewart

188--: 0-6-2T Sharp Stewart

1876: 0-4-2 Sharp Stewart - same as Thetford & Watton

1879: 0-4-2 Beyer Peacock - same as Nederlands-Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij

1879: 0-4-2 Beyer Peacock - same as Nederlands-Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij

187--: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

187--: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

187--: 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

1884:  2-4-2T Sharp Stewart 

1884:  2-4-2T Sharp Stewart 

1884:  2-4-2T Sharp Stewart 

 

This would involve (eventually) modelling a further 8 locos (groan), but gets the overall total to 50, of which 10 (20%) are in the Works at the time the layout is set.

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

It might be  worth working  out  a set of putative locomotive links/ rosters/diagrams, which are cross-referenced with the proposed timetable workings and other jobs requiring a locomotive (shunting, piloting, trip workings, ECS, etc). Within their capabilities and taking account of the need for coaling & watering, as well as needing to be in the right place for crew changes,  locomotives would be used in the most efficient way possible. Similarly,  engines would  be 'spare' on a specific link rather than with regards to the fleet as a whole [at any one time, the M&CR had a handful of 'reserve'  locomotives (e.g. 'R1', 'R4', etc), which I think had to do with not scrapping old locomotives for which some work could still be found, possibly as a spare engine on a link]. Hence, the fleet composition is planned around the duties as set out in the links, rather than the other way round. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by CKPR

[ChrisN]

As was suggested earlier, have you actually made a timetable?  If you know the mileage between stations then you can work out how long a journey would take.  You would start with the through coach trains and work from there.  The branches could be left until later.  (If there were not obvious connections between trains that is in someway prototypical as the railway companies seemed quite bad at that sort of thing, in some cases.)  This would give you an idea of the actual numbers of locos the timetable would need, from which you can derive how many you need.  Even with the sparse timetable I have I need 9 locos and about twenty odd carriages for it to work.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, CKPR said:

 

It might be  worth working  out  a set of putative locomotive links/ rosters/diagrams, which are cross-referenced with the proposed timetable workings and other jobs requiring a locomotive (shunting, piloting, trip workings, ECS, etc). Within their capabilities and taking account of the need for coaling & watering, as well as being in the right place for crew changes,  locomotives would be used in the most efficient way possible. Similarly,  engines would 'spare' on a specific link rather than with regards to the fleet as a whole [ at any one time, the M&CR had a handful of 'reserve'  locomotives (e.g. 'R1', 'R4', etc), which I think had to do with not scrapping old locomotives for which some work could still be found, possibly as a spare engine on a link]. Hence, the fleet composition is planned around the duties as set out in the links rather than the other way round. 

 

37 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

As was suggested earlier, have you actually made a timetable?  If you know the mileage between stations then you can work out how long a journey would take.  You would start with the through coach trains and work from there.  The branches could be left until later.  (If there were not obvious connections between trains that is in someway prototypical as the railway companies seemed quite bad at that sort of thing, in some cases.)  This would give you an idea of the actual numbers of locos the timetable would need, from which you can derive how many you need.  Even with the sparse timetable I have I need 9 locos and about twenty odd carriages for it to work.

 

I have been thinking along these lines, but probably need help here.

 

 

It seems to me that the principal passenger diagrams, including roughly estimated approx. distances, are:

 

- Norwich West to Birchoverham Market (via Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea  - 70 miles

 

- Bury Mildenhall Road to Birchoverham Market (via Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea  - 65 miles

 

- Cambridge* to Birchoverham Market (via Ely, Magdalen Rd/Trinity Hallsend and Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - 60 miles

 

These services have the ability to  stop for connections and, if necessary change loco, at AC and BM.

 

In addition, we can have a number of shorter or stopping mainline services, often including through running on a branch**, e.g:

 

- Birchoverham Market - Castle Aching  - Achingham

 

- Birchoverham Market - Aching Constable - Castle Aching

 

- Castle Aching - Market - Fakeney

 

- Trinity Hallsend - Aching Constable - Castle Aching

 

This is where it becomes complicated, because such a diagram could reverse, or, quite likely, transform into another route. 

 

For example, a service from Trinity Hallsend via AC to CA might, upon reaching CA, become the CA service to Fakeney via BM.  Later it, or some other service, arrives at CA and becomes the TH service.

 

This, I'm afraid, is all a little complicated for a Bear of Very Little Brain.  

 

* Well, everyone else got to go there.

** BLT to junction only services we can discount as dealt with by branch tank engines.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling

[ChrisN]

50 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

I have been thinking along these lines, but probably need help here.

 

 

It seems to me that the principal passenger diagrams, including roughly estimated approx. distances, are:

 

- Norwich West to Birchoverham Market (via Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea  - 70 miles

 

- Bury Mildenhall Road to Birchoverham Market (via Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea  - 65 miles

 

- Cambridge* to Birchoverham Market (via Ely, Magdalen Rd/Trinity Hallsend and Aching Constable) and sometimes going on to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea - 60 miles

 

These services have the ability to  stop for connections and, if necessary change loco, at AC and BM.

 

In addition, we can have a number of shorter or stopping mainline services, often including through running on a branch**, e.g:

 

- Birchoverham Market - Castle Aching  - Achingham

 

- Birchoverham Market - Aching Constable - Castle Aching

 

- Castle Aching - Market - Fakeney

 

- Trinity Hallsend - Aching Constable - Castle Aching

 

This is where it becomes complicated, because such a diagram could reverse, or, quite likely, transform into another route. 

 

For example, a service from Trinity Hallsend via AC to CA might, upon reaching CA, become the CA service to Fakeney via BM.  Later it, or some other service, arrives at CA and becomes the TH service.

 

This, I'm afraid, is all a little complicated for a Bear of Very Little Brain.  

 

* Well, everyone else got to go there.

** BLT to junction only services we can discount as dealt with by branch tank engines.

 

 

 

James,

Distances between stations are needed.  Imagined frequency of service for passenger trains.  When through trains from branches will run, and where are the through coaches arriving at your system and where are they going.  Also, are pick up goods daily, or Monday, Wednesday and Friday or some such combination.  (Or a 'Runs as Required'.)  

 

I have mentioned the numbers of trains down the Coast Line, which was not a lot, but on the Dolgelley to Barmouth line, which did connect end on with the GWR to Ruabon, so was not exactly a branch, there were five passenger trains each day, and one from Barmouth Junction to Dolgelley and a goods between these two stations.

 

This is only if you are trying to be really accurate.  If you guess, who is to say you are wrong.

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, kingfisher9147 said:

Here is some useful information for you. Out of Midland railway society journal no. 76 summer 2021

 

Article by Stephen Lea. The wagon stock data in Table 1 needs to be handled with some care (as discussed in the text) because of the different proportions of company to private owner wagons used for mineral traffic on each line (as discussed here a page or two back); likewise the freight traffic figures are tons not ton-miles, which needs to be remembered when looking at the figures for the North Eastern.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Compound2632
ton-miles not ton/miles

[CKPR]

I'll try to find an article in an old 'Cumbrian Railways' on the M&CR's locomotive links as it showed how multi-purpose some duties were. From memory, one link involved engines working parcels & milk, mineral empties, passenger trains, then being used for shunting or trip working before working more passenger and goods trains whilst another link involved working one or two trains between Maryport and Carlisle with long layovers in the middle of the shift (with the crew booking off and on or working on another link?). With the M&CR being worked from both ends and with a third hub at Cockermouth, getting stock in the right place at the right time in an efficient manner must have been a priority. Light engine and ECS moves seem to be a last resort, with many locomotives moving empties as their first and last workings of the day - one movement on the Mealsgate branch seems to indicate moving mineral empties, ECS and mail in the same train! 

Edited September 14, 2021 by CKPR

[Edwardian]

17 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

My first thought would be that it is unnecessary, and possibly distracting, to build the loco fleet too far ahead of the building of the scenic layout. You only need a reasonable representation of what is likely to turn-up at CA itself, until you build somewhere else.

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

All good points and my thoughts here are:

 

1. Have everything planned,  not least so that the locos modelled fit in a coherent whole 

 

2. While things are available and I 'm still earning, buy the stuff necessary to complete the roster 

 

4. Build the stuff I need or at least can legitimately use on the initial iteration of the layout 

 

But, as all should be capable of realisation eventually,  not to go too mad!

 

So, to run Castle Aching (which naturally includes all Achingham traffic, whether that station is modelled or not), I had thought:

 

1. Branch Passenger 0-4-2T and 4-set

2. Branch Goods 0-6-0T (though whether this is necessary as goods can always be through services to the Achingham branch via CA?)

3. Mainline Passenger locomotives bringing services ex Birchoverham Market to CA and/or Achingham, using mainline 4-wheeled coaches 

4. Mainline Passenger locomotives bringing services ex Trinity Hallsend to CA and/or , using mainline 4-wheeled coaches

5. Mainline Goods locomotives bringing daily goods for CA and Achingham

6. Branch Passenger 0-6-0ST bringing passenger or mixed trains from the Wolfringham branch (assuming these do not all terminate at Aching Constable).

7. Branch Mineral 0-6-0T+T bringing coal train from Wolfringham Staithe to CA (for CA and Achingham), which reverses to take rest of train to BM.  This could use either the the Wolfringham branch mineral loco or the CA branch 0-6-0T

8. GER locos with passenger trains off the West Norlfork Ext. Ry/Lynn & Hunstanton via Wolferton (i.e. these run to CA on the WN, not, as otherwise is the case, to Lynn).  Mainline GER through services are ex-Trinity Hallsend and go via Aching Constable to the Birchoverhams, missing out CA.

 

Now, a couple of locomotives could be allocated to each of diagrams 3, 4 , 5 (WNR) and 8 (GE). That would give a total minimum of 12 locomotives, say: 

 

1. 0-4-2T, Neilson & Co/SW Johnson of 1877, WNR No. 1 - same as CV&HR GER T7 derivative

2. 0-6-0T Sharp Stewart of 1872, WNR No. 3 - as also supplied to Furness and Wrexham, Mold & Connah's Quay Railways

3. 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

3. 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

4. 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

4. 2-4-0 Crewe Type of 1857, ex Lancaster & Carlisle, WNR No. 24 – 5’1” ex-LNWR

5. 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

5. 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart, 4’6” - same type as Cambrian SGC and Furness D1

6. 0-6-0ST Fox Walker of 1877, WNR No. 2 - same as supplied to Great Yarmouth & Stalham Lt Ry

7. 0-6-0T Sharp Stewart of 1874, ExCMR-E&MR, WNR No. 9 - Purchased from M&GN

8. 2-4-0 GER No.1 Class

8. 0-4-4T GER 134 Class

 

In fact, to allow allow more alternative locomotives, ideally I'd increase the allocation on diagrams 3, 4 and 5 to allow changes of the locomotives on these services; I'd through in, say:

 

3. 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart, 5’6" - same type as Cambrian SPC and Furness E1

4. 0-4-2 Sharp Stewart - same as Thetford & Watton

5. 0-6-0 Beyer Peacock of 1874, WNR No. 20 – 4’9” - Ilfracombe Goods type

8. 0-6-0 GER Y14 (fitted) 'Blue Goods'

 

So, up to 16 locomotives.

 

And I'd add:

 

8. Livestock specials

9. Occasional permanent way and inspection /i:

 

For these, I would add, say:

 

9. 4-4-0, Neilson & Co of 1866, WNR No. 7 - 4’6½” - Smaller version of Cowan's GNoSR K Class

10. 2-4-0 Sharp Stewart/Melton Constable of 1874, ExCMR-E&MR, WNR No. 8 – 4’7” - Purchased from M&GN

 

So, now 18 locomotives 

 

Most of the plotting and timetabling we need to do largely affects diagrams 3 and 4, and means more or fewer locomotives, but with alternative locos planned tom be available, that gives me a certain amount of flexibility.

 

Pending working out distances and timetables, does that seem to be reasonable provision?

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Gosh, I hadn’t realised that all those services came all the way to CA.

 

I think we’re back to the worry that I expressed before about having all roads lead to Rome, which turns out to be a terminus with a single platform, and not all that many sidings, and the timetabling and track-occupancy implications thereof.

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Gosh, I hadn’t realised that all those services came all the way to CA.

 

I think we’re back to the worry that I expressed before about having all roads lead to Rome, which turns out to be a terminus with a single platform, and not all that many sidings, and the timetabling and track-occupancy implications thereof.

 

Yes, but I do have to balance the worthy but dull approach with the varied and interesting approach!

 

You'll end up with an 'Ashburton', if you're not careful! 

 

CA regular daily services:

 

Branch passenger arrivals: 4

Through goods arrivals plus shunting as required: 1 

Through passenger arrivals (from BM and TH to CA): 2

Through passenger arrivals (from Achingham to CA): 2

Through passenger arrivals from GER: 1

Wolfringham  passenger arrivals: 2

Wolfringham  mineral arrivals: 1*

 

Branch passenger departures: 4

Through goods departures plus shunting as required: 1 

Through passenger departures (from CA to Achingham): 2

Through passenger departures (from CA to BM and TH): 2

Through passenger departures to GER: 1

Wolfringham  passenger departures: 2

Wolfringham  mineral departures: 1*

 

I do admit this is ambitious.

 

Take a day of, say, 6am to 10pm (16 hours).  Admittedly services would not be evenly spread over this period, however, I do not think that 26 in/out movements over 16 hours is impossible. The Wolfringahm services might require some shunting, so that adds to the daily goods shunting on the arrivals from BM and return from Achingham.  

 

Take that as one movement per hour and 2 additional movements per hour over the busiest 10 hours (say 8am to 6pm), so three movements in or out during a peak hour.  In reality, that middle period of the day would be busier, so, perhaps, at least 4 movements in or out in an hour.  I don't say I'm not pushing my luck.  Two trains arriving and departing within the same hour?!? it's all go at CA!

 

* those these would be weekly or RaR.  The rest of the time the mineral loco handles traffic off the Norfolk Minerals, which does not need to go via CA.  So, a livestock special could be substituted on market days.  Inspection and PW trains would run on Sundays.  I suggest no through services on a Sunday.

 

EDIT:

 

The Modeller's Dilemma

 

1. The Level of Service Desired

 

 

2. The Extent of Facilities Provided

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Edwardian
Pictures

[Edwardian]

On my never-ending quest for suitable locomotives for UK freelance lines, welcome to the Nederlands-Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij (Netherlands India Railway).

 

The line opened on 10 August 1867 in Central Java from Semarang station south-east to Tanggung, a distance of 25 kms. By 21 May 1873, the line had been extended via Kedungjati and Gundih to Solo (Surakarta) in Central Java and thence to Yogyakarta, a distance of 205kms. The Kedungjati branch to Willem I opened the same year. In the 1890s the NIS also started to build 3' 6" gauge tramways. 

 

Between 1869 and 1901, the line purchased a series of very attractive Standard Gauge Beyer Peacock 0-4-2s, as follows:

 

Works No.   Year    NIS No.    Notes
825                1869    10
826                1869    11
827                1869    12 
926                1869    15
927                1869    16
1145              1872    17
1146             1872    18
1147             1872    19
1509             1875    20
1510             1875    21
1852             1880    22
1853             1880    23
2397             1883    24        Remains at Lempuyangan in early 1970s
2398             1883    25        Remains at Lempuyangan in early 1970s
3537             1893    28
3538             1893    29        Remains at Lempuyangan in early 1970s
3938             1898    30
3939             1898    31
4297             1901    32
4298             1901    33        Remains at Lempuyangan in early 1970s
 

We can see how the locomotives evolved over this time by comparing the works photographs I managed to retrieve from the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry online archive before the Twelve Year Olds at the Science Museum Group axed it for not conforming to the SMG corporate style.

 

I note that the works numbers ascribed to the plates in the MMoSI archive do not match the list reproduced above, but, of course, it is now impossible to check back to the plate descriptions.

 

This picture is dated  1866 and is for the 'Dutch East Indian Railway' 

 

 

It closely resemble this locomotive, captured in service ....

 

 

 

This picture is dated 1868 

 

 

 

It closely resemble this locomotive, captured in service alongside a Borsig tank locomotive ....

 

 

 

This picture is dated 1879, so, perhaps, represents one of the locomotives supplied in 1880, Nos. 22 and 23.

 

 

 

It closely resemble this locomotive, captured in service at Samarang Tawang

 

 

Another, very similar, 1880s example, No.25, is captured decaying 

 

 

Finally, dated 1893 and numbered 28, which tallies nicely with our list .....

 

 

 

It's been lovely to see how this design has evolved over three decades in a series of locomotives supplied to the same customer.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling

[Annie]

Oh my those Beyer Peacock 0-4-2's are lovely locomotives.  Thank you for posting them james.

 

I can well guess that those twelve Year Olds at the Science Museum Group have supped deeply at the poisoned teat of Marketing.  For an online archive to be shut down for such shallow minded reasons is nothing but a crime in my book.

[Edwardian]

Morning All,

 

So, let's see how we get on with this timetabling lark.  I'll assume, for the moment and until it's proved unworkable, that the projected Liverpool Street level of service outlined above is achievable.

 

Let us first, however, seek to build it up, step by step.  The first, because it is the easiest it seems to me, is to focus on the branch aspect. Here, lay aside for the moment the fact that Castle Aching is a terminus; Castle Aching is the mainline junction station, if you will, and Achingham is the branch terminus.  

 

 

This happened because the original 1855 railway was constructed between CA and the Birchoverhams, with a branch from CA to Achingham opening in 1862.  This means that mainline traffic must run to CA and reverse for Achingham.  If this did not happen, much less traffic would need to run to CA and my life would be simpler but duller.

 

 

What I'd like to start with, however, is the traffic that such a branch would need between the junction station and the terminus, then we can add any through traffic.

 

For simplicity's sake and for convenience, let's divide the world of branch lines into two.  First, which for some reason (cough, Ashburton, cough) seems to be the default choice for many modellers, the branch line commences from a busy mainline station serving the district's most populous and economically important town, and proceeds to a smaller, more rustic town some way off from the mainline.  

 

In reality, at least where a mainline company was induced to build a branch line, and often when it wasn't, there was a town of some pre-railway age importance - typically a local market town of some pre-railway importance - that had been bypassed by the railway company as lying too far off the route to be taken. 

 

Here, as in many real life cases, the railway company is not going to be able  justify ignoring the by-passed town and the potential traffic receipts justify the investment in a branch.  Besides, Achingham is too far off and too prosperous to be ignored and for CA station to me named 'Achingham', 'Castle Aching & Achingham', 'Achingham Road', or 'Achingham Parkway'! 

 

Thus we have the second basic type of branch, one that runs from a minor place on the mainline to a major branch terminus destination.  Staying for a moment with the South Devon examples, here we have not the Totnes to Ashburton type, but the Brent to Kingsbridge type.  The village of South Brent is a speck on the map, though it has its mainline station. Kingsbridge, on the other hand, is a town of substance. Though Ashburton was a moorland town of significance, we see the contrast in branch train provision most clearly in the Grouping Era; Ashburton has a little 0-4-2 tank and generally single autocoach.  Kingsbridge has two 2-coach B Sets. with the regular addition of London through coaches. and a brace of Prairie tanks.

 

The relative status of CA and and Achingham places the branch more in the Kingsbridge category than the Ashburton.  I trouble you with this explanation to establish that, in due course, we will need to factor in some through services, which may have the effect of supplementing, or, indeed, replacing, some of the services that would otherwise just run between the junction and branch terminus.

 

Laying aside through traffic, what level of provision is likely to be required throughout the day?

 

Starting with our South Devon analogy:

 

Ashburton Branch (1890): 6 up and 7 down passenger services.

Ashburton Departures: 7.10; 9.25; 10.50; 14.52;  Through Goods (to NA) 15.00; 16.20; 19.23

Totnes Departures: 8.40; 10.13; Through Goods  (from NA)12.15; 13.30; 15.40; 17.40; 21.15

 

Kingsbridge Branch (1893): 4 up and 5 down passenger services.

Kingsbridge Departures: 8.00; 11.40; 14.32; 16.55; 18.42

Brent Departures: 9.19; 12.28; 15.18; 20.06

 

Turning, now, a GER example!

 

Hadleigh Branch (1889): 4 up and 4 down passengers service (6 up and down on Tuesdays, 5 on Saturdays).

Hadleigh Departures: 8.25; 9.28; 13.00*; 14.55 (Tues only); 17.35; 18.50 (Tues & Sat only)  

Bentley Departures: 9.00; 10.00; 14.21**; 17.02 (Tues only); 18.20; 19.18 (Tues & sat only)

 

*  A through service to Manningtree

** A through service from Manningtree

It is assumed that Tuesday was market day!

 

I will go back to the books and attempt a wider survey, but this initial unscientific sampling explains why my initial thought, outlined above, had been 6 up and down passenger services CA - Achingham, with two of these as through services, plus a daily goods.  On non-market days, we could lose one of the trains, possibly one of the through services, if thought necessary. 

 

In defence of my 'Liverpool Street' intensity of traffic, it is only really the occasional Wolfringham services (which could be omitted as running only to Aching Constable) that add anything significantly above what the branch line examples above would handle. 

 

The problem of course, is the need for mainline services between CA and the Birchoverhams; this is why I favour through services to Achingham, because these mainline trains can reduce the number of purely branch trains that need to be accommodated.  The ideal would be 6 up and down services on the mainline and 6 on the branch.  If, say, two of these were combined in the form of through trains, we would still have 10 up and 10 down trains, plus a daily goods (representing 1 up and 1 down service, each with shunting moves at CA). 

 

We might reduce this to 5 up/down services for branch and mainline (so the through services combine mainline and branch services):

- 2 WNR up and down mainline services (BM-CA);

- 1 GER up/down mainline service (L&H-CA);

- 2 WNR up/down mainline-branch through services (to & from BM/Achingham via CA);

- 3 WNR branch up/down services (CA-Achingham)

 

Kevin's concern about the ability of CA to handle the traffic, I think, has three aspects:

 

1. A single platform face.  I don't think I can do anything about that without wrecking the look of the station. This might remain a decisive limiting factor. 

 

2. Track occupancy.  This is an issue on the stretch of line between CA and the junction for the Achingham branch.  The answer seems to be to have the line double up to that point.

 

3. Shunting.  The introduction of a headshunt might ease the timetable by allowing the mainline/platform road to be in use whilst shunting is undertaken.

 

As always, thoughts welcome!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Edwardian

[Annie]

I see you've mentioned track occupancy James which is something I struggled with at first with my own Moxbury to Brenton Wood section which was entirely single track at first and was a serious bottleneck.  My solution to start with was passing loops/second platforms at stations and sidings for a slower train to set back into with part of the line eventually becoming double tracked and the rest single track.  I could have double tracked all of the line, but where's the fun in that.

 

In the digital world I can have real distances between stations so that the timing of trains really is dependent on how long it takes for a train to travel from point A to point B.  At best a train travelling through from Moxbury to either Great Mulling or Foxhollow at my layout's furthest extremities will take a real world hour.  Stopping trains will take longer of course and anywhere a train needs to wait for another to cross can add more time to a service run.  My advantage of course is that I can ride on the footplate or take a seat in a 1st class compartment and directly time a run while taking note of any problems or signalling issues.  I'm certain that exactly the same thing can be done using your map with the distances drawn in and a pocket calculator which might help to identify any particular choke points in the timetable.

 

I agree about the headshunts.  If there's room for one put it in on the trackplan.  I can think of two places on my own layout where I overlooked the need for a headshunt and it didn't take long before I had to go back and shift things about to put one in.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

I see you've mentioned track occupancy James which is something I struggled with at first with my own Moxbury to Brenton Wood section which was entirely single track at first and was a serious bottleneck.  My solution to start with was passing loops/second platforms at stations and sidings for a slower train to set back into with part of the line eventually becoming double tracked and the rest single track.  I could have double tracked all of the line, but where's the fun in that.

 

In the digital world I can have real distances between stations so that the timing of trains really is dependent on how long it takes for a train to travel from point A to point B.  At best a train travelling through from Moxbury to either Great Mulling or Foxhollow at my layout's furthest extremities will take a real world hour.  Stopping trains will take longer of course and anywhere a train needs to wait for another to cross can add more time to a service run.  My advantage of course is that I can ride on the footplate or take a seat in a 1st class compartment and directly time a run while taking note of any problems or signalling issues.  I'm certain that exactly the same thing can be done using your map with the distances drawn in and a pocket calculator which might help to identify any particular choke points in the timetable.

 

I agree about the headshunts.  If there's room for one put it in on the trackplan.  I can think of two places on my own layout where I overlooked the need for a headshunt and it didn't take long before I had to go back and shift things about to put one in.

 

This is helpful, thanks, Annie.

 

 

As I have mentioned, although I'd like to get a model of CA commissioned first, it has ever been my intention to model Achingham, which I have planned in reasonable, if not inflexible, detail.

 

Depending on the home the layout has at that point, the branch junction might be near, or very near to CA on the model. 

 

Here is a version based on the projected shed:

 

 

It reflects the fact that junctions should be double lines reducing to single, thus:

 

 

Here we can imagine the right hand line coming from CA and the two on the left as (i) upper line the Achingham branch and (ii) lower line continuation of the single tack mainline.  

 

Now, one option would be to have the line double track from the CA platform loop to the junction, i.e. it does not single at any point. You'll see this is what I did at one end of Birchoverham Market on the above plan.

 

The only objection I can see to this is the single road trestle bridge.  Again, it would be a shame to demolish this in favour of a double-track masonry replacement, so the options are (i) single just over the bridge, reintroducing the bottle neck, or, (ii) building a new additional single-track bridge!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Edwardian

[Nearholmer]

I’m afraid you almost certainly need to draw train-planning graphs, because you have so much single-line and a terrible plethora of junctions.

 

Here is a very quick sketch of the sort of thing, and because of all the junctions I’m not totally sure I’ve represented it in the best way (I think St Enodoc is better at this than I am, so wait for his suggestions), but the basics are there …… a sloping line is a moving train, a horizontal line a stationary train (there are none on this example), and a train not passing particular locations (it possibly ought to be dotted in that instance) is a vertical line.

 

Can you see what I’m driving at?

 

It will quickly highlight your line-occupancy and terminal-capacity constraints.

 

 

The crossing out is symptomatic of the fiddling about and re-casting that tends to be needed (and of me making a mistake).

Edited September 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

At CA, the shunting between trains becomes a real constraint, and whether or not you double the track to the first junction you are likely to have to think about overlap on the home signal, and whether there is room to shunt after accepting a train from the junction.

[Edwardian]

Thank you Kevin.

 

I am struggling to follow the way that is presented. Don't seem to have the right kind of mind, but I think it shows how a 9.00 departure from CA must clear the junction before a 9.05 departure from Achingham reaches it?

 

There seems to me know doubt that Achingham should cope with the trains to and from it.  The question is whether CA could cope with 3 further arrivals and departures.

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

At CA, the shunting between trains becomes a real constraint, and whether or not you double the track to the first junction you are likely to have to think about overlap on the home signal, and whether there is room to shunt after accepting a train from the junction.

 

The problem here is that there must be two periods during the day when passenger services are suspended with the goods train is shunted. 

 

At CA the daily goods arrives at CA, is then shunted to drop off and collect CA traffic, then proceeds to Achingham to do same.  On the return to CA, there will be more shunting, as their may be goods from Achingham to CA and, at least, the brake van must again be shunted to allow the train to reverse. 

 

The branch line termini, on the other hand, the examples quoted and Achingham, would only need one period where shunting of goods occurred.

[Nearholmer]

It’s a time vs distance graph.

 

Train leaves CA at 0900, chuffs past Junction A at 0909. 
 

Train from Achinghan cannot pass Junction A and enter section until after that. It does so at 0913, having left Achingham at 0905 (probably a bit quick, but I’m just trying to show the principle), arriving at CA at 0922.

 

In theory, another train can now pass Junction A, and enter section, but probably not, because we need to unload and shunt the first train to free-up the platform, and in so doing we may get into the clearing distance beyond CA home signal, so let’s assume no train can leave Junction A until we’ve done that. 
 

Smart work, and we unload and shunt out of the way by 0835, allowing the train from Hillingham to enter section at 0936, so arriving at CA at 0942.

 

Now, I’m not sure of the distances, so I don’t know whether transit times I’ve allocated are about right, or not, but the principles should emerge.

[Annie]

59 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The only objection I can see to this is the single road trestle bridge.  Again, it would be a shame to demolish this in favour of a double-track masonry replacement, so the options are (i) single just over the bridge, reintroducing the bottle neck, or, (ii) building a new additional single-track bridge!

Oh you must keep the single road trestle bridge.  Yes it might be a choke point, but the real railways in some locations suffered such things for years; - and not only that, but it adds to the operational puzzle.  What is the weight limit on the bridge? And is there a speed restriction?  

Kevin's agile railway trained mind has come up with some very good points as well which I'm also taking note of so it's all good.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Annie
Um.........

[Edwardian]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Now, I’m not sure of the distances, so I don’t know whether transit times I’ve allocated are about right, or not, but the principles should emerge.

 

ChrisN also sensibly called for distances. Let us say, travelling from CA:

 

CA to Branch Junction: 2 miles

Branch Junction to Doughton Abbey: 5 miles (total 7 miles so far)

Doughton Abbey to Achingham: 5.5 miles (total 12.5 miles)

 

So, distance between CA and Achingham 12.5 miles, and distance between Achingham and junction (after which we can assume double track to CA if that helps): 10.5 miles .

 

At what speeds do you suppose passenger and unfitted goods trains might travel?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling

[Nearholmer]

One thing that would help is an ‘outer home’ for CA, so we probably ought to assume one of those, so that incoming trains can be accepted, but held well outside while shunting is completed if necessary.

 

I’m not very good on signalling practice, it really needs someone like Stationmaster or one of the other MIRSE bods on RMWeb, but I think an advanced starter might help too, to shorten the time between train departing and shunting recommencing.

 

A well laid-out headshunt or a kickback carriage siding connected to the platform road are other options. One of the iterations of Rev Denny’s Leighton Buzzard had the latter very cleverly arranged.
 

 

 

[Caley Jim]

@Nearholmer, any train graphs I've seen have had time on the x axis and distance on the y, so a stationary train shots as a horizontal line.

 

Jim 

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

At what speeds do you suppose passenger and unfitted goods trains might travel?

Slowly!

 

Actual speeds are often less useful in these games than real-world start-to-stop times over similar distances, because they include acceleration and braking, which were both ponderous.

 

For two miles? Six minutes block occupancy for a passenger train, and nine for a goods, maybe.