Castle Aching

[Northroader]

Thinking about the coal drops, which were probabably the single most determining feature of any NER station, I lifted this drawing from Ken Hooles “Railway Stations of the North East” David & Charles 1985. It shows use for coal, obvious, and also lime, and it’s the only place where I’ve seen lime drops depicted. There’s a roof for them to keep it dry, and placed at the dead end where presumably locos wouldn’t foul the roof. The farmers around Barney Castle, included his nibships wealthy estate, would have lime for their lands, so it must be a requirement for your plan. This begs the question of what a railway owned lime hopper wagon, presumably with a peaked roof, looked like?

I suppose it’s being done in OO, so I don’t see front access to coupling in the sidings at the back as being a problem?

 

Edit: Apologies to Mr. Cornamuse, I’ve just remembered Gainford Spa did a very nice representation of a lime and coal drop.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Northroader

[Annie]

 

I do have to confess that when I was considering this version of the track plan I wasn't thinking in terms of the S&D or Barnards Castle, but more a country branch line terminus where traffic is light and goods traffic is varied with more an emphasis on agricultural traffic than coal.  In that context where the warehouse isn't a warehouse, but a goods shed of the average country railway kind I think the plan works.

 

However once the warehouse with its greater inwards and outwards traffic is brought into the picture then this plan makes much more sense.  Me being a minor railways and country railways type of enthusiast would naturally go for the first plan so possibly my opinion is just a little biased.

[Hroth]

I was thinking of it as a home for my SE&CR locos...

The main alterations would be a smaller goods shed and the coal drops wouldn't!

 

Another BLT (though described as a twig off a branch) that I've thought about is Jedburgh, which is the terminus of a branch off the North British Railways Kelso branch,  described in the December 1964 Model Railway Constructor.  It has all the features of the BC terminus apart from a pretty building, a turntable and the coal drops....

 

I'll post the track layout this evening.

 

Here you go.

 

Jedburgh. Model Railway Constructor, December 1964

 

Sorry about the quality image, its a scan of a scan as my copy of the mag is stored away at present and my file copy was to hand.  I've beefed up the contrast so its a bit more readable!

 

The other thing about the trackplan is that there appears to be a private siding that comes off bottom right behind the signal box for more operational excitement!  I'll have to dig out the article to find out what it might be for...

 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hroth
Jedburgh trackplan

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

And a signal; the red 'pennant' I believe swivels and disappears from view edge-on, indicating "clear".

 

Its rather like the signal ball the GWR had at Reading Station.  There's a visible danger indication but not an explicit "clear" one.

 

Daniel Gooches instruction in the GWR rule book was memorable in that it went something like  "If the ball cannot be seen, do not pass it".  I think that subsequent reflection was the reason for the introduction of the disc and crossbar signal, which has positive aspects at both clear and danger.

 

[Nearholmer]

A lot of Mr Rapier’s paper is taken up with ramming-home the message that all signsls need to have clear aspects, not “absences”, in statuses (statii?). The lesson had been learned for visible signals, but in 1874 they were experimenting with things that eventually became automatic warning systems, and the lesson wasn’t being properly transferred to audible signals.

[Donw]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Well, the prototype track plan has been available to interpretation for a couple of days now, and no one seems to have disagreed with your interpretation.  This leads to the dizzying possibility that there might be a course of action that commands majority support! 

 

Given you said "I still think that the truly distinctive feature of the original is the ‘in’ and ‘out’ roads for the warehouse, and that you are in danger of submerging/losing that", I hardly think that you can now seek an extension of time to consider alternatives ....

 

.... you've made you ditch and you must lie in it!

 

However, if anyone has any views on what arrangement this map may actually show, nevertheless please feel free.

 

 

 

It seems to me that this qualifies you to be head of the WNR's Signal & Telegraph department. 

 

S&D equipment:

 

Looks like a Stevens route indicator.

 

 

And a signal; the red 'pennant' I believe swivels and disappears from view edge-on, indicating "clear".

 

 

 

I just meant that I hadn't intended it as a loading dock.  No reason why it cannot be used to park a Passenger Brake; if this would be operationally convenient, it can be done.

 

 

 

I still think it likely there were two extra turnouts linking the short road alongside the platform road and the alternative route from the goods shed creating a run around. I doubt we shall ever know the choice is down to what you favour.

 

On the other matter there were stations where a passenger brake ( possible bringing in mail and parcels ) was removed from a train  to await loading and then departure attached to a later train. Such a vehicle could be convenient parked somewhere where loading was possible. If no loading was possible there it removes some of the convenience. The question then is just where do you park it to avoid it getting in the way.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

 

Its rather like the signal ball the GWR had at Reading Station.  There's a visible danger indication but not an explicit "clear" one.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

A lot of Mr Rapier’s paper is taken up with ramming-home the message that all signsls need to have clear aspects, not “absences”, in statuses (statii?). The lesson had been learned for visible signals, but in 1874 they were experimenting with things that eventually became automatic warning systems, and the lesson wasn’t being properly transferred to audible signals.

 

Interesting, because the lower quadrant slot-in-posts worked the same way@

 

Horizontal: Danger

 

45 degrees: Caution

 

Vertical (disappears inside post): Clear

 

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

I was thinking of it as a home for my SE&CR locos...

The main alterations would be a smaller goods shed and the coal drops wouldn't!

 

Would be good to see

 

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

Another BLT (though described as a twig off a branch) that I've thought about is Jedburgh, which is the terminus of a branch off the North British Railways Kelso branch,  described in the December 1964 Model Railway Constructor.  It has all the features of the BC terminus apart from a pretty building, a turntable and the coal drops....

 

I'll post the track layout this evening.

 

 

 

I look forward to it.  I have a minor "thing" for the North British due to its presence in Northumberland and you know I have a big 'thing' for loops terminating in TTs; Rothbury is certainly on my layout bucket list.   

 

2 hours ago, Northroader said:

Thinking about the coal drops, which were probabably the single most determining feature of any NER station, I lifted this drawing from Ken Hooles “Railway Stations of the North East” David & Charles 1985. It shows use for coal, obvious, and also lime, and it’s the only place where I’ve seen lime drops depicted. There’s a roof for them to keep it dry, and placed at the dead end where presumably locos wouldn’t foul the roof. The farmers around Barney Castle, included his nibships wealthy estate, would have lime for their lands, so it must be a requirement for your plan. This begs the question of what a railway owned lime hopper wagon, presumably with a peaked roof, looked like?

I suppose it’s being done in OO, so I don’t see front access to coupling in the sidings at the back as being a problem?

 

Edit: Apologies to Mr. Cornamuse, I’ve just remembered Gainford Spa did a very nice representation of a lime and coal drop.

 

This drawing, as the caption explains, has only the dedicated lime drop covered, and Hoole presents this as typical for the NER, not identifying a particular location.  A similar example exists at Goathland, which is, indeed, a thoroughly North Eastern station, dating from 1865.  Goathland was on a NER deviation from the original Whitby & Pickering (later York & North Midland) line of 1836, and so is not the product of a constituent company.

 

The Darlington and Barnard Castle structure is likely to be stone, but whether it was all open, all roofed or part-roofed, I do not think we know.    

 

Back to North Road and 1840s S&D lime cells:

 

 

 

The covered Stanhope & Tyne drops from Boldron coal and lime dépôt date from 1834 are now at Beamish:

 

 

The best known S&D coal drops are those at Shildon; tall, dressed stone structures of c.1856, they are of the right period, but I think their purpose was the coaling of locomotives:

 

 

 

In contrast, the NER structure at Goathland, c.1865 (which I think has been the subject of a ready-to-plant building): 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

I wouldn't be surprised to be told the Goathland drops were the basis of the drawing Northroader posted. What that photo really emphasises is that they were designed with rather smaller hopper wagons than a P7 in mind!

 

Also, tempting as it might appear, I don't think I'd park in one.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Compound2632

[Northroader]

A new meaning to the phrase “Fill yer boots”?

[Annie]

All those nasty modern cars covered up with coal; - now there's a thought to put a smile on my face.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I wouldn't be surprised to be told the Goathland drops were the basis of the drawing Northroader posted. What that photo really emphasises is that they were designed with rather smaller hopper wagons than a P7 in mind!

 

Also, tempting as it might appear, I don't think I'd park in one.

 

Indeed, I suspect that Ps need not go higher than 5!

[Hroth]

Jedburgh trackplan appended to original post above ^ 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hroth
because spelin

[Edwardian]

45 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Jedburgh trackplan appended to original post above ^ 

 

 

That would make a grand layout.

[Nearholmer]

Horncastle happens to future in 1953 MRC that a pal just dropped-off to me.

 

Its got everything s Railway modeller could desire in a biggish BLT: weird access to the GS; private industries to serve; an overall roof; splendid station building etc.

 

More here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/horncastle/

 

Wasnt it used as the springboard for the design of a big, and very good, 0 gauge layout by the MRC c20 years ago?

Edited September 9, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Hroth]

On 08/09/2019 at 13:33, Edwardian said:

Interesting, because the lower quadrant slot-in-posts worked the same way@

 

Horizontal: Danger

 

45 degrees: Caution

 

Vertical (disappears inside post): Clear

 

And then the arm gets frozen into the slot at clear, and you get Abbots Ripton.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbots_Ripton_rail_accident

 

involving the "Special Scots Express" (later Flying Scotsman), a Leeds express and a coal train.

 

One of the outcomes of this accident was the GNR Somersault signal.

[Nearholmer]

Mr Rapier and his confreres were firmly of the view that the ‘caution’ position was completely incompatible with proper absolute block working, potentially confusing, and best got rid of.

 

This bit of their discussions reveals that some railways were applying a sort of ‘faux block’ signalling, really a form of permissive working, whereby they would let two or three trains into what they kidded themselves was a block-section simultaneously, based upon time-interval, and that some sections had sidings in them, which trains could use to “go off-line” or “come on-line”, despite there being no telegraph or signals at the intermediate point.

 

Multiple other dangerous perversions of block working get mentioned, my favourite being to generally ignore signals at small wayside stations, because everyone knew that the staff (one person) was too overstretched to operate them!

 

 

[Hroth]

One of those fantasy "block sections" was on the Somerset and Dorset at Radstock on a single line section at Foxcote between Radstock and Wellow.  "Ostensibly, this was to control a spur to Braysdown Colliery, but it was often used to allow two trains (travelling in the same direction) at once into the Radstock-Wellow section, in defiance of Regulations. (The Board of Trade rules laid down that only one train could occupy a single line section at any one time). The S&D later claimed that they understood Foxcote to be a "crossing place between sections", which it clearly was not." (Wikipedia article, see below)

 

Of course, it resulted in a fatal accident in 1876.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radstock_rail_accident

 

I bet that had Rapier fuming!

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

Rapier as in 'Ransomes and' of Ipswich? 

 

I have a feeling that they did all kinds of railway stuff back then, before focusing on cranes, draglines and that sort of thing.

[Nearholmer]

He was indeed of R&R, and among his claims to fame is that he introduced railways to China, a couple of years after he  delivered the signalling paper. He’d been into signalling for a few years by 1874, and was marketing his own patented interlocking systems.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Not to forget that he was a leading light of the Southwold Railway too, being a strong proponent of NG for lines in less busy areas.

[Compound2632]

May I interrupt this interesting discussion with a post that relates a little more closely to the OP? As I recall, we have been told that there are through carriages from the Midland Railway to the West Norfolk Railway; Ratio clerestories being proposed to represent these (a D499 brake third and a D509 composite). This has seemed perfectly reasonable to me. By 1905 corridor carriages were being built for the chief London-Lancashire and London-Yorkshire expresses, so the lavatory clerestory carriages were available for more secondary services. On leafing once more through N.J.L Digby, A Guide to the Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway (Ian Allan, 1993), my attention was caught by a photograph taken at Cromer station in 1910. This shows the "Leicester" loading in the bay platform, awaiting its engine. At the head of the train is one of the ex-E&MR "large stock" 6-compartment thirds. Nearest the camera is a Midland clerestory carriage - a 6-wheel full brake, D530. In between are the Midland carriages for Leicester, a pair of arc-roof bogie carriages of 1880s vintage. I am fairly confident that the nearer one, which carries a roof-mounted destination board, is a 45 ft composite of Lot 79, built in 1883, modified by the conversion of one first class compartment to lavatories in 1890 [R. Lacy & G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1986), pp. 87-88]. I'm not so sure of the further carriage but it may be another 45 ft composite, one of the 6-compartment ones built with centre lavatories, Lot 105 of 1884, D512. I was rather surprised to see such elderly carriages on this service, though I have no doubt that in terms of passenger comfort they were perfectly satisfactory.

 

By October 1922, the 1:55 pm ex Birmingham, 3:20 pm ex Leicester, was formed:

Bogie Compo Brake, Birmingham - Norwich

Bogie Compo Brake, Birmingham - Cromer

Bogie Brake Third + Bogie Composite (22-38), Birmingham - Lowestoft

and, attached at the rear at Melton (Leic.) off the 3:10 pm ex Nottingham,

Bogie Brake Compo, Derby - Lowestoft.

These vehicles worked back the following day, 12:15 pm ex Bourne [Midland Railway Passenger Train Marshalling Arrangements from October 2nd, 1922 (Midland Railway Study Centre Item 00625)]. 

 

I would be even more surprised if the arc-roofed carriages were still in use on this service at the eve of the grouping. The brake composites could well be the Clayton 48 ft square-light clerestories to D508, although the Bain 54ft vehicles built in 1905, D521, are also possible, likewise the brake third could be D499 or Bain's 54 ft vehicles also of 1905, D498. The composite can be positively identified - the seating capacity of 22 first and 38 third class indicates that it is an elliptical-roof 54 ft carriage to D1245, 60 of which had been ordered in 1914 but were finally built in 1920.

 

The WNR through carriages were clearly a victim of wartime economies and not reinstated. I haven't seen an Edwardian-era carriage marshalling document covering the M&GN through services.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Compound2632
sp.

[Donw]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Mr Rapier and his confreres were firmly of the view that the ‘caution’ position was completely incompatible with proper absolute block working, potentially confusing, and best got rid of.

 

This bit of their discussions reveals that some railways were applying a sort of ‘faux block’ signalling, really a form of permissive working, whereby they would let two or three trains into what they kidded themselves was a block-section simultaneously, based upon time-interval, and that some sections had sidings in them, which trains could use to “go off-line” or “come on-line”, despite there being no telegraph or signals at the intermediate point.

 

Multiple other dangerous perversions of block working get mentioned, my favourite being to generally ignore signals at small wayside stations, because everyone knew that the staff (one person) was too overstretched to operate them!

 

 

 

I suspect the problems with Caution was using it to allow access into a block wheen there is already a train in it. With proper block working the caution comes from a distant and acts a a warning that the next signal will be red.  I feel we have slightly reduced the safety factor with multiple aspect signalling. When following a train and seeing reds turn to yellows as they approach, drivers get lulled into allowing the train speed to creep up.

Don

 

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

He was indeed of R&R, and among his claims to fame is that he introduced railways to China, a couple of years after he  delivered the signalling paper. He’d been into signalling for a few years by 1874, and was marketing his own patented interlocking systems.

 

 

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Not to forget that he was a leading light of the Southwold Railway too, being a strong proponent of NG for lines in less busy areas.

Hence the (mythical?) connection between the Woosung Tramway and the Southwold Railway's coaches.

[Nearholmer]

Don

 

The history of signalling is about being able to safely conduct ever-greater amounts of traffic, at greater speeds, over the same number of tracks, it always being cheaper to invent and deploy a more advanced signalling system than to build an extra bit of railway, and MAS with the driver in the control loop is part of that continuum. But, the issue you refer to emerged way back, and there have been multiple additions to the system that attempt to overcome it.

 

The logical extension, of course, is to take the weakest link out of the chain, by taking all the key decisions out of the hands of human beings, and give them to machines; to fully automate. Which is a very live trend on railways, notably metros and very high speed lines, for different reasons.

 

None of which is relevant in pre-grouping land? Well, actually it is, in that Werner Siemens postulated the fully automatic electric railway in about 1870 (yep, that early), and two English professors demonstrated the concept, by use of a model railway, in 1883 (+/- a year, I can’t remember exactly). And, there were those who viewed electricity with deep suspicion who spent years in the late C19th in foredoomed attempts to achieve automation by purely mechanical means.

 

Perhaps one such experimenter has persuaded the WNR to let him install his Heath-Robinson gubbins on part of their line in order to (dis)prove its utility?

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Nearholmer

[joppyuk1]

19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Horncastle happens to future in 1953 MRC that a pal just dropped-off to me.

 

Its got everything s Railway modeller could desire in a biggish BLT: weird access to the GS; private industries to serve; an overall roof; splendid station building etc.

 

There was a series of articles on a 4mm layout of Horncastle by D.G.H.Pleasance in the MRC in 1955, starting in February, with a follow up series 'Rebuilding Horncastle' in 1960. The two sets included the buildings, signals, locos and stock.