Branch Line - Wrong Line Working

[Alan Kettlewell]

A simple question (I hope) regarding wrong line working for branch line traffic (UK).  To make it easier I've added a simple diagramme.

 

In a layout plan which would be based in UK around the late 1950s and early 60s, branch traffic from a bay platform at a double track mainline through station needs to share the main line for a (scale) few hundred yards before branching off.   My question is: would the branch train be permitted to travel wrong line on the return trip to the station, or would it be necessary to install crossovers so it would travel on the correct side?  NB - Ideally one would run a separate branch line in parallel to the main lines but there isn't the space - so this is a compromise.

 

I hope the attached simplified diagramme is self explanatory.  Many thanks

 

 

Cheers … Alan

 

 

[Kris]

The formation that you show looks just like Truro. It would be worth you looking at the movements there to get an idea. 

[SED Freightman]

If there was a need for regular wrong direction movements to reach the branch connection then that section of the main line line would be signalled for reversible working and hence no need for any wrong line working, assuming the distance was not too great and traffic levels on the main line could be accommodated.  This is similar to the current arrangement between Wareham and Worgret Junction (Swanage Railway connection).

[beast66606]

Depends what a "few hundred yards" means ..

 

Only 200-600 yds would be possible as drawn in the first diagram, bear in mind the main line trains can't get into the bay so a facing crossover on the main is likely.

 

If it's (roughly) half a mile or more then it's likely to be a connection off the single line and a trailing crossover, with a facing crossover before the bay connection (there were no doubt some exceptions but generally this would be the way)

[iands]

Hi Alan,

Your "A" diagram is how the Barlow branch operated at Selby before the ECML diversion. Before closure of the Tip, the local trip workings from Selby station sidings to Barlow Tip would travel over the Up Main in the "right direction" (right to left direction in your diagram), and the return working would also traverse the Up Main in the "wrong direction", just shy of three-quarters of a mile in this case. The Barlow branch has since been cut back and is used as a Civils Tamper Training and stabling point. However, as the sidings at Selby are now "locked out of use" I don't think the tampers can traverse the Up Line (as it is now referred to) in the "wrong direction" anymore.

 

Hope this helps.

[PaulRhB]

It would be a bit unusual not to have crossovers for running round at the station so I think you need that anyway as you need to ask how branch trains get to the bay to start service and get to workshops or depots on the mainline. 

As said above though for a short distance it would just as likely to signal the line reversibly protected with a catch on the branch, co acting with the junction point. 

[Alan Kettlewell]

Many thanks for the advice everyone.   The distance along the main line to where the branch diverges would be about 350ft so it looks like plan A would suffice with the correct signalling.  On the plan there's a trailing crossover on the main lines which I left out of the earlier diagramme for simplicity.  A more fleshed out version is as shown here:

 

   

[PaulRhB]

Yes for that short distance a second crossover is unlikely. It’s just a reversible section of line, plenty of examples like that. 

[The Stationmaster]

We're looking at the late 1950s/early 1960s so we're talking about the start of a major watershed in layout design.  I would take the view that the track layout we are talking about is either going to be newly laid and with new signalling/signalling rationalisation in which case Sketch A might apply and we have a sort of parallel with the Falmouth etc  branch junction at Truro as it was from November 1971 (so later than 'early 1960s).  At Truro the distance between the bay platform connection and the junction points is 23 chains (506 yards).

 

So let's look at what happened before November 1971 (and remember a tunnel intervenes) but there was signalbox in the vicinity of both the connection to the bay platform and at the junction - because we're over the maximum permitted distance for mechanically worked points.  Moreover the junction was laid in accordance with the Requirements (for passenger lines etc) and was therefore a double track to double track junction subsequently going down to single on the Falmouth branch.  That was the usual arrangement at such junctions (e.g. Worgret Junction for the Swanage branch)  although there were occasional exceptions.

 

I think that generally the basic layout in Sketch A would not be seen until the later 1960s UNLESS the distance between the points (350 yds or less and subject to shorter distances in much earlier years) was such that both were worked from the same signal box.  But I also think that even then there would most likely be the required double track junction where the branch leaves the main line and the necessary crossover etc in order to access the bay platform from both running lines.  By having the whole lot under control of one signalbox it simplifies the block working arrangements considerably and enables full interlocking of the layout on one lever frame.

 

Of course on a model railway the distance between branch connection and bay platform would be much less than =350 yards so one signal box could control it all although at the late 1950s I would still wonder about the acceptability, at the time it would have first been laid,  of a single line junction

[Alan Kettlewell]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

We're looking at the late 1950s/early 1960s so we're talking about the start of a major watershed in layout design.  I would take the view that the track layout we are talking about is either going to be newly laid and with new signalling/signalling rationalisation in which case Sketch A might apply and we have a sort of parallel with the Falmouth etc  branch junction at Truro as it was from November 1971 (so later than 'early 1960s).  At Truro the distance between the bay platform connection and the junction points is 23 chains (506 yards).

 

So let's look at what happened before November 1971 (and remember a tunnel intervenes) but there was signalbox in the vicinity of both the connection to the bay platform and at the junction - because we're over the maximum permitted distance for mechanically worked points.  Moreover the junction was laid in accordance with the Requirements (for passenger lines etc) and was therefore a double track to double track junction subsequently going down to single on the Falmouth branch.  That was the usual arrangement at such junctions (e.g. Worgret Junction for the Swanage branch)  although there were occasional exceptions.

 

I think that generally the basic layout in Sketch A would not be seen until the later 1960s UNLESS the distance between the points (350 yds or less and subject to shorter distances in much earlier years) was such that both were worked from the same signal box.  But I also think that even then there would most likely be the required double track junction where the branch leaves the main line and the necessary crossover etc in order to access the bay platform from both running lines.  By having the whole lot under control of one signalbox it simplifies the block working arrangements considerably and enables full interlocking of the layout on one lever frame.

 

Of course on a model railway the distance between branch connection and bay platform would be much less than =350 yards so one signal box could control it all although at the late 1950s I would still wonder about the acceptability, at the time it would have first been laid,  of a single line junction

 

Thanks, that is interesting.  So I think you're saying for that period late 50s/early 60s, the layout is more likely to be something like this?  (Single slip at the branch junction added in error - ignore)

 

 

Cheers … Alan

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Alan Kettlewell

[The Stationmaster]

58 minutes ago, Alan Kettlewell said:

 

Thanks, that is interesting.  So I think you're saying for that period late 50s/early 60s, the layout is more likely to be something like this?  (Single slip at the branch junction added in error - ignore)

 

 

Cheers … Alan

 

Yes but get rid of the single slip in the branch junction layout as it is superseded by the change to a double track junction.  And you really need a trailing connection into the goods yard for the sort of period you are portraying - then you can shunt it with a train of any length.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, Alan Kettlewell said:

Many thanks for the advice everyone.   The distance along the main line to where the branch diverges would be about 350ft so it looks like plan A would suffice with the correct signalling.  On the plan there's a trailing crossover on the main lines which I left out of the earlier diagramme for simplicity.  A more fleshed out version is as shown here:

 

   

 

I don't much like that facing connection into the goods yard.

 

Unless the branch passenger service is only push-pull, we need a second crossover at rh end for loco to run round the train before setting back into the bay.

 

Or using your second plan, with a facing lead to the bay over the single slip, you need a crossover between the bay and the loco yard headshunt to provide a run-round loop.

 

A second trailing crossover on the mainline would enable shunting of the goods yard with both up and down trains.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Correction

[Joseph_Pestell]

You might like to take a look at the track plan at Appledore. Similar to what you are trying to achieve but without the bay platform as New Romney/Dungeness trains ran through to Ashford.

[The Johnster]

'Traditional' railway layouts, often dating back well into the 19th century even where they weren't the original track plan, avoided facing junctions as much as possible; they were particularly anathematic on the Midland.  There were good reasons for this in the early days, as facing turnouts over which passenger traffic passes had to be clipped and spiked to lock them in position before the days of proper interlocking and facing point locks.  When FPLs were available, they were only used where necessary to reduce costs, so there was still a reluctance to use facing turnouts.

 

Your goods yard connection would almost certainly have been a trailing connection, and if you want it that way round it could come off the lower running line via a diamond crossing.  Many passing stations were laid out to permit access to the yard in both directions from trailing turnouts, though, and I think this is what you should be aiming for.   I would expect to see another trailing crossover at the right hand end of the station as well; this allows it to be used as a terminus from either direction with the train loco running round it's stock in the event of a Sunday occupation by the engineers or other blockage.

 

I think your provision of loco facilities is perhaps a little too much.  This looks like a passing station that is a junction, so I am assuming that the only loco(s) stabled at what is probably a sub-shed to a bigger one down the line a bit are the branch passenger and possibly a freight loco; the spares will be stabled and serviced at the big depot.  This arrangement screams tank engines to me unless it is a very long branch, and there is no need for a turntable.  The road leading to it would make a very good carriage siding for stabling the branch stock overnight, though, perhaps with a carriage cleaners platform providing employment for a small band of local ladies...  If the branch passenger is an auto or dmu, this is where it lives overnight.

 

A lay by siding would be useful as well, as the main line pickup can leave or collect branch goods traffic from it without such traffic getting in the way of the goods yard here to be worked later by the branch loco.  Goods traffic between here and the branch terminus would be quite rare, the branch's stuff probably coming in from much further afield.  It can be a trailing connection to the upper main line coming off it between the goods yard connection and the branch junction.  Don't forget that this, and the branch, loco headshunt, and bay roads need to have trap points to protect the main running lines from them, the branch and bay ones with FPLs.  

 

The branch goods loco, if there is one, probably performs goods yard pilot duties between trips.  Otherwise all the shunting can be performed by the train locos.

Edited March 27, 2019 by The Johnster

[caradoc]

Running 'wrong line' is certainly a common feature nowadays, especially where layouts have been simplified to reduce point ends and eliminate diamond crossings. At Westerton for example, near Glasgow, trains off the West Highland line heading towards Cowlairs run through the Down platform in the Up direction, as the same facing crossover serves that routing and also trains onto the Milngavie branch. 

 

I know it doesn't help as you don't have the space, but if the branch line junction was sufficiently far from the station as to require its own signalbox, a third line into the bay is quite possible, for example with the Woodstock branch at Kidlington.

[Alan Kettlewell]

Thank you all very much for the informative input.  To save potentially a lot of further keyboard activity, I'd like to mention that the original query was about the wrong line running - and for that reason I only posted up a very simplified version of what is a larger plan.  I was hoping to avoid a lot of additional information being added, and therefore the simple diagramme was provided only to aid easier understanding of the question.  

 

I note well the issues of the facing turnout into the goods area and thank you to all those who have pointed that out.  To explain, the plan is from a previous layout I owned but that was a terminus station then, which I'm now incorporating into a bigger plan.   I slipped up there and should have changed it to a trailing turnout or diamond.  Apologies if this has prompted a lot of comments based on this being the final plan.  There's a lot more to it but it is in Templot and too large to post all of it and see the details.  I just needed to know about the wrong line working as it potentially affects other parts of the plan.  Incidentally there are crossovers at the opposite end of the station (not shown).

 

Regarding the loco yard, the full plan is actually a four road through station with a centre  road  for through goods  and non stopping passenger trains (as explained, I didn't post the full diagramme for simplicity), so perhaps the yard may be a bit more justifiable.  It is however not decided how big the yard might be because I may yet want to find space for a branch line running parallel to the main lines.  Hence the topic subject.

 

I'm still working on parts of the plan - I'm a bit slow in Templot but getting there- so when I more or less have it done I may post it up, in parts so it'll fit and some details can be viewable.

 

So, apologies again if folks have spend time bashing the keyboard thinking this was a complete plan. I think the original question has been answered, in a few different ways, and most informative.

 

Thanks again to all for your contributions.  

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You might like to take a look at the track plan at Appledore. Similar to what you are trying to achieve but without the bay platform as New Romney/Dungeness trains ran through to Ashford.

And of course the Appledore layout had what amounted to a double track connection to the single track branch although it was nearer to an outside slip (at least on the SRS plan) than a more normal double junction - as renewed in 1954.  At a later date (possibly when the branch was reduced in status?) it was altered to a single connection, presumably then using an existing trailing crssover nearer to the signalbox to cross to the other running line. 

[Chris M]

Penwithers Junction just west of Truro. My poor drawing based on R A Cooke's book. In 1894 the main line to the West became single just after the junction and was doubled in 1915. The Junction was also moved and the track realigned at that point but the layout remained the same. The down main became bi-directional when the junction was changed.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Chris M

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 hours ago, Chris M said:

Penwithers Junction just west of Truro. My poor drawing based on R A Cooke's book. In 1894 the main line to the West became single just after the junction and was doubled in 1915. The Junction was also moved and the track realigned at that point but the layout remained the same. The down main became bi-directional when the junction was changed.

 

 

 

I think that illustrates quite well that wrong-line running would be unlikely back in the 50s/60s period that Alan is considering.

 

More than a couple of hundred yards, there would be a crossover. Less than that, probably a third line giving direct access to the bay.

 

Given the through roads that Alan wants, maybe he should be looking at Totnes.

[Alan Kettlewell]

Yes it looks like it - I'll be fiddling about today with the big plan to adapt and to see if I can get Templot to do an appropriate crossover junction where the branch line joins the main lines and a slip from the opposite side of the main line into the bay.  I'll also look at options for a run around loop for the bay train - but space is getting a bit tight.  This plan is for O gauge and there's only so much you can fit onto a 3ft wide board (can't reach any further).  As for a third line for the branch, well space is very tight so the jury's still out on that.

 

Cheers … Alan

   

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I think that illustrates quite well that wrong-line running would be unlikely back in the 50s/60s period that Alan is considering.

 

More than a couple of hundred yards, there would be a crossover. Less than that, probably a third line giving direct access to the bay.

 

Given the through roads that Alan wants, maybe he should be looking at Totnes.

The 1933 layout at Totnes (after Ashburton Jcn signal box was closed) put the facing point connection to the branch just over 300 yds from the signal box so well within the maximum permitted distance for mechanical working.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, Alan Kettlewell said:

Yes it looks like it - I'll be fiddling about today with the big plan to adapt and to see if I can get Templot to do an appropriate crossover junction where the branch line joins the main lines and a slip from the opposite side of the main line into the bay.  I'll also look at options for a run around loop for the bay train - but space is getting a bit tight.  This plan is for O gauge and there's only so much you can fit onto a 3ft wide board (can't reach any further).  As for a third line for the branch, well space is very tight so the jury's still out on that.

 

Cheers … Alan

   

 

Yes, 3ft is tight in O. But I know several layouts that have managed your type of scenario in that space. It depends a bit on how intensively you want to run trains. I quoted Totnes precisely because it has those through roads but still managed to handle branch trains without a bay. Totnes also had direct access into the goods shed from the down platform loop which would be a spacesaver for you.

 

Even with a bay, perfectly OK to run the branch train into the down platform, run round the train and then shunt across to the bay. Saves the extra width you would need for a bay platform run round loop.

[Alan Kettlewell]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, 3ft is tight in O. But I know several layouts that have managed your type of scenario in that space. It depends a bit on how intensively you want to run trains. I quoted Totnes precisely because it has those through roads but still managed to handle branch trains without a bay. Totnes also had direct access into the goods shed from the down platform loop which would be a spacesaver for you.

 

Even with a bay, perfectly OK to run the branch train into the down platform, run round the train and then shunt across to the bay. Saves the extra width you would need for a bay platform run round loop.

 

Yes space is a bit tight and I'm adapting this plan from the previous layout I once owned which was also 3ft wide - but I've put an extra through track in to provide a more busy scene!  I'm currently trying to squeeze in a run around loop for the bay - it's proving difficult because the bay ends up too short with the extra turnouts taking up space.  If I can, I would prefer to fit in a bay platform as I quite like that feature - so I'll keep trying.

 

I struggle to find station layout plans so a pointer to a good site would be of help.  Many thanks.

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

 

[ejstubbs]

A fair few folks use the National Library of Scotland web site.  The OS 25 inch maps (if they cover the station you're interested in, at the date you're interested in) are detailed, though not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

 

For example: https://maps.nls.uk/view/106006688

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, ejstubbs said:

A fair few folks use the National Library of Scotland web site.  The OS 25 inch maps (if they cover the station you're interested in, at the date you're interested in) are detailed, though not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

 

For example: https://maps.nls.uk/view/106006688

 

A very rare example of an OS revision that is right up-to-date (1933) and correct!