Cholsey & Moulsford (Change for Wallingford)

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

Thanks Paul.

I can't run properly at the moment as I need to make some wiring amendments due to the diamond crossings I have put in now.

The two routes through the diamonds are not isolated from each other so had to be fitted with insulated joiners on each rail connection. I will have to get some double pole switches to operate them. 

Do you mean to operate them manually or will the switches be worked by the associated points?

[Neal Ball]

7 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

Thanks Paul.

I can't run properly at the moment as I need to make some wiring amendments due to the diamond crossings I have put in now.

The two routes through the diamonds are not isolated from each other so had to be fitted with insulated joiners on each rail connection. I will have to get some double pole switches to operate them. 

Would Autofrogs work better for you?

[Nick Gough]

18 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

Nick,

Your picture with the track labels is very interesting.  Two down refuges, if I have that right.  I can understand one off the relief line for goods trains, but did they operate goods trains off the fast line?

 

I keep thinking that they you are very close to London for relief lines, but of course you must be at least 45 minutes, (it used to be 30 minutes to Reading when I was young), and slow goods or pick ups would need to get out of the way.

 

No such need on the Cambrian, single line most of the way, and traind so slow and scarce why would you need to hide away, except just to admire the scenery.

Yes Chris, there was a refuge siding for the Main line as well as one for the relief.

 

I have a photo of Cholsey, in the book 'Didcot Engineman', which shews both these refuge sidings with goods trains in them.

 

There is another photo, in one of the later 'Great Western Journals', with a train, consisting mostly of restaurant cars, in the Down Main refuge.

 

The Service Time Table scheduled a number of overnight goods trains on the Main lines, rather than the reliefs, as well as milk, fish, etc., so perhaps there was more scope for using the Down Main refuge then.

 

Incidentally there was originally another pair of refuge sidings, at the other end of the station, for the up lines. The Up main one though was removed in 1908 when the island platform was extended, the running lines re-aligned, and the new central signal box replaced the original two at each end of the station.

[Nick Gough]

14 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Do you mean to operate them manually or will the switches be worked by the associated points?

I will operate them manually for the time being - at least until I fit a point control system.

[Nick Gough]

11 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Would Autofrogs work better for you?

I don't think so Neal, since it isn't just the frog polarity that needs to be changed on the diamonds.

 

These notes that came with them probably explain it more clearly:

Bearing in mind that all three of my diamonds are sited crossing two separate running lines.

[Nick Gough]

The Down relief refuge siding will hold 28 wagons, tender loco and brake van:

That's shorter than the real one, but not too bad I think.

 

However, the Down Main siding will take an extra three wagons:

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Nick Gough said:

The Down relief refuge siding will hold 28 wagons, tender loco and brake van:

That's shorter than the real one, but not too bad I think.

 

However, the Down Main siding will take an extra three wagons:

 

Impressive, but backing that lot in will be quite fun.

[MrWolf]

29 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

Impressive, but backing that lot in will be quite fun.

 

There's nothing like a challenge!

[Neal Ball]

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

I don't think so Neal, since it isn't just the frog polarity that needs to be changed on the diamonds.

 

These notes that came with them probably explain it more clearly:

Bearing in mind that all three of my diamonds are sited crossing two separate running lines.

 

I think I would try an Autofrog.... I know for me, the switch would always be in the wrong position!

 

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

The Down relief refuge siding will hold 28 wagons, tender loco and brake van:

That's shorter than the real one, but not too bad I think.

 

However, the Down Main siding will take an extra three wagons:

 

Wow! Reversing that sort of train on the mainline with a Paddington express thundering over the horizon.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

Bearing in mind that all three of my diamonds are sited crossing two separate running lines.

...which actually simplifies things, because eventually they will each be associated with the points that form the corresponding crossovers.

[5BarVT]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

...which actually simplifies things, because eventually they will each be associated with the points that form the corresponding crossovers.

For the logic of how/when to control the feeds, yes.

For connecting the feeds, no, because Nick is DC not DCC so has a multitude of sources (well three in each case) to choose from.

(Discussed back in July - no, not a superb memory, just a decent RMWeb search engine that highlighted my post to me!)

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

For the logic of how/when to control the feeds, yes.

For connecting the feeds, no, because Nick is DC not DCC so has a multitude of sources (well three in each case) to choose from.

(Discussed back in July - no, not a superb memory, just a decent RMWeb search engine that highlighted my post to me!)

Paul.

Up to a point, Lord Copper (pun intended)...

 

Every route through the long crossovers will have a facing point and a sequence of facing vees, if that makes sense, plus a trailing point and a sequence of trailing vees. All the facing vees should be switched by the facing point and the trailing vees by the trailing point. As long as no conflicting routes are set, that will work (whether DC or DCC).

[Nick Gough]

On 17/12/2022 at 19:28, ChrisN said:

 

Impressive, but backing that lot in will be quite fun.

 

 

On 17/12/2022 at 19:58, MrWolf said:

 

There's nothing like a challenge!

 

It's probably just as well that I couldn't make the refuges longer!

Edited December 19, 2022 by Nick Gough
Refuges NOT refugee

[Nick Gough]

On 17/12/2022 at 20:04, Neal Ball said:

 

I think I would try an Autofrog.... I know for me, the switch would always be in the wrong position!

 

 

On 17/12/2022 at 23:28, St Enodoc said:

...which actually simplifies things, because eventually they will each be associated with the points that form the corresponding crossovers.

22 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

For the logic of how/when to control the feeds, yes.

For connecting the feeds, no, because Nick is DC not DCC so has a multitude of sources (well three in each case) to choose from.

(Discussed back in July - no, not a superb memory, just a decent RMWeb search engine that highlighted my post to me!)

Paul.

 

20 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Up to a point, Lord Copper (pun intended)...

 

Every route through the long crossovers will have a facing point and a sequence of facing vees, if that makes sense, plus a trailing point and a sequence of trailing vees. All the facing vees should be switched by the facing point and the trailing vees by the trailing point. As long as no conflicting routes are set, that will work (whether DC or DCC).

 

Thanks for the suggestions. As I mentioned before model railway electrics are not my strong point.

[Nick Gough]

On 17/12/2022 at 20:04, Neal Ball said:

Wow! Reversing that sort of train on the mainline with a Paddington express thundering over the horizon.

I probably won't do that too often in practice, for the main line refuge!

[Nick Gough]

The two short stubs for the trap points on the Down refuge sidings are in.

 

The Relief line refuge one, between the Down Relief and the Up Relief to Up Main crossover:

 

The Main line one:

 

That completes the track layout at the Reading end of the station:

[Nick Gough]

On Neal Ball's Henley-on-Thames thread he has discussed the difficulty in fitting the station master's house on to the layout.

 

I have a similar situation at Cholsey & Moulsford since the house should be in the position indicated by the arrow:

It would be at the bottom of the embankment, below the back siding in the goods yard.

 

This is its roof seen from the former goods yard, now the car park:

You can see where the house has been extended on the right.

 

However, on my layout, this is the lifting flap so I'm not going to widen the board.

 

Apart from which it's not the most attractive building  - especially compared the Henley one:

So I won't be too disappointed by its omission.

 

 

 

[Nick Gough]

Interestingly, in 1949, BR(WR) applied for planning permission to build a new station master's house on land adjacent to the branch bay platform, at Cholsey.

 

Papers relating to the application, including elevations and plans of the proposed house, can be seen on South Oxfordshire council's planning website:

https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=HistoryDetails&REF=P49/R0177

 

Although Wallingford council granted permission it was never built and, about ten years later, the patch of land was used instead as part of a new housing estate.

[ChrisN]

49 minutes ago, Nick Gough said:

Interestingly, in 1949, BR(WR) applied for planning permission to build a new station master's house on land adjacent to the branch bay platform, at Cholsey.

 

Papers relating to the application, including elevations and plans of the proposed house, can be seen on South Oxfordshire council's planning website:

https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=HistoryDetails&REF=P49/R0177

 

Although Wallingford council granted permission it was never built and, about ten years later, the patch of land was used instead as part of a new housing estate.

 

Nick,

It is a bit later in time for you to actually build it.  🙂  Still, perhaps.......

[RJS1977]

Interestingly that doesn't really look much like a station master's house - it has no discernible "railway style" to it and looks just like an "ordinary house". Though I must say that until I read this, I wasn't aware of its existence, nor of the public footpath that runs alongside it to Silly Bridge and beyond.

[Nick Gough]

7 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

Nick,

It is a bit later in time for you to actually build it.  🙂  Still, perhaps.......

It's always an option Chris.

[MrWolf]

The plans for the replacement stationmaster's residence are reminiscent of some of the GWR designs for crossing keeper's houses, mixed with a little postwar semi detached suburbia.

I wonder if BR thought such a house would be cheaper to maintain?

[Nick Gough]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Interestingly that doesn't really look much like a station master's house - it has no discernible "railway style" to it and looks just like an "ordinary house". Though I must say that until I read this, I wasn't aware of its existence, nor of the public footpath that runs alongside it to Silly Bridge and beyond.

Maybe Station House was 'modernised' at some point and any obvious features hidden or replaced.

I haven't come across any earlier photos of it.

 

Up until the 1960s there were only three houses in the vicinity of the railway at Cholsey.

 

The other two were this pair, at the other end of the station:

They back onto the branch line embankment to the right of the occupation bridge:

They look more like railway houses to me - but more likely for signalmen or similar ranked staff.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Nick Gough
Additional text

[Nick Gough]

34 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

The plans for the replacement stationmaster's residence are reminiscent of some of the GWR designs for crossing keeper's houses, mixed with a little postwar semi detached suburbia.

I wonder if BR thought such a house would be cheaper to maintain?

Could be.

 

I came across the planning application when I was looking on the council website for any railway related plans in the area. Of course there is nothing to state the reason behind the application or indeed why BR decided not to proceed.

[Nick Gough]

I saw an acquaintance today who travelled on the Wallingford Polar Express a couple of weeks ago.

 

She said it was, "Magical", the conductor was just like Tom Hanks and Father Christmas had the best costume she had ever seen.