Barry Slips

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Setting back onto the wrong running line rather than into a lay-bye siding to allow a following train to pass was not uncommon - forgetting that such had been done was the cause of the Quintishill disaster.

It was still being done regularly at one of the 'boxes on my patch in the mid-late 1970s; with a loaded oil train conveying mainly petrol which had a habit of running late hence the need to shunt it for regulating purposes.

 

Oh and just to draw the parallel with Quintinshill a little further it was done at a signalbox where on one occasion I caught a Signalman copying times into the Train Register Book off a piece of paper written by his colleague - all because of a misunderstanding on their part that TRB changeover times had to agree with the times on their Time Sheets  (the two were never checked against each other - a totally pointless exercise).

[LMS2968]

19 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

One reason for lay-by sidings being single ended with trailing entries was that it kept all of the points close to the signalbox. The conversion of refuge sidings into loops with facing entries was really only made practicable by the availability of electric point machines, as otherwise the for end points were beyond the limit of mechanical operation and would have needed a second signalbox to be provided, with all the attendant costs.

 

Jim

Ort put the box in the middle!

[beast66606]

20 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Ort put the box in the middle!

 

Or one at each end.

[hayfield]

23 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

So let me get this right.  A freight train arrives in the platform and the engine runs round (unavoidable),  the trains is then shunted to the run round loop from the platform line (because it can't go anywhere else as far as the yard is concerned), and is then drawn back to the extended siding which forms a headshunt in order to shunt the goods sidings because it can't shunt them from the running line.  Seems a long way round to do a straightforward job of shunting the whole lot from the running line - which is how it would normally be done.  A layout like that would be a long way from popular with the blokes who had to shunt it.

 

 

I have seen one layout use it for access to a parcels platform, loco ran into the platform with a parcels coach at the end, station pilot pulled the coach through the slip , then pushed it into the parcels platform. No access from the platform to the main line 

[spikey]

Pardon my ignorance, but I've never understood what the pros and cons of each type of slip are.  In any particular circumstance, what would determine if a Barry slip was used rather than an ordinary double slip? 

[The Stationmaster]

17 minutes ago, spikey said:

Pardon my ignorance, but I've never understood what the pros and cons of each type of slip are.  In any particular circumstance, what would determine if a Barry slip was used rather than an ordinary double slip? 

They were simpler and therefore cheaper to install and maintain.  But you paid for that with the disadvantage of not having the full range of route possibilities offered by a double slip.

 

Strange to relate we finished up with one in a layout (1:1 scale) I was developing in the very early 1990s but the client changed their mind and the job moved to another site - which was built, and where we used ordinary double slips in order to get the flexibility I needed to meet the specified level of daily tonnage throughput (converted into train movements).

[spikey]

Thank you, sir.  My education continues apace ...

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

They were simpler and therefore cheaper to install and maintain.  But you paid for that with the disadvantage of not having the full range of route possibilities offered by a double slip.

 

Strange to relate we finished up with one in a layout (1:1 scale) I was developing in the very early 1990s but the client changed their mind and the job moved to another site - which was built, and where we used ordinary double slips in order to get the flexibility I needed to meet the specified level of daily tonnage throughput (converted into train movements).

The considerations that apply to full size railways are not always the same as those that apply to models - the latter do not have to meet contractual capacity requirements. Equally, modellers, unless copying an actual track layout, are wont to put pointwork in places that the full size, especially with historical practices, would not have done, simply to make life easy. Unless you regard (model railway) operating as a chore, taking short cuts out of a layout adds to the interest. The use of a Barry slip might not be as convenient as a double slip, but it is entirely plausible. It's what I would do (and in one case, did) were I building a layout such as this.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

2 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

The considerations that apply to full size railways are not always the same as those that apply to models - the latter do not have to meet contractual capacity requirements. Equally, modellers, unless copying an actual track layout, are wont to put pointwork in places that the full size, especially with historical practices, would not have done, simply to make life easy. Unless you regard (model railway) operating as a chore, taking short cuts out of a layout adds to the interest. The use of a Barry slip might not be as convenient as a double slip, but it is entirely plausible. It's what I would do (and in one case, did) were I building a layout such as this.

 

Jim

Which has little to do with the question I was responding to which asked about the pros and cons of the two types of slip - i.e in the real world;  and not about making model railways more difficult to operate.  And I also mentioned two instances from the real world where a need for each type had been found in the planning of new 1990s track layouts on the 1:1 scale railway (where the object was to shift tonnage in the simplest and most cost effective manner).

[jim.snowdon]

But quite a bit to do with the question as it was originally asked, which was in a model railway context, although your comments are nonetheless interesting.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It's what I would do (and in one case, did) were I building a layout such as this.

 

 

... but not what the Midland would have done, which is the point at issue.

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... but not what the Midland would have done, which is the point at issue.

Who knows exactly what they would have done....

 

Is there a textbook of track designs for Midland Railway permanent way engineers?

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

One can look at station layouts, either from signalling diagrams, 2" / chain plans, 25" / miles OS maps, or photographs, and see a remarkable consistency of layouts which almost suggests they did have a way of doing things "by the book". Whether "the book" actually exists or existed is another question.

 

I admit that the argument against the Midland using Barry slips is an argument from silence; maybe someone will provide us with an example. All I would say is that including one on this layout would undermine the attempt to create an authentically Midland atmosphere. 

 

Avoid the untypical.

[jim.snowdon]

In the end, it is up to Keith, as it's his layout. We could argue 'til the proverbial cows come home to no great purpose as there can be no definitive answer, only probable ones as it is not a copy of an actual station. He's had the whys and wherefores, now we can let him build what he wants.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

In the end, it is up to Keith, as it's his layout. We could argue 'til the proverbial cows come home to no great purpose as there can be no definitive answer, only probable ones as it is not a copy of an actual station. He's had the whys and wherefores, now we can let him build what he wants.

 

Jim