Short branch lines - when are they single and when doubled?

[MR Chuffer]

I'm modelling a short pre-grouping (2ml) single line branch off a secondary double mainline based on an actual line, what level of traffic would make the railway company think about doubling it?

 

 The actual line, the Midland's Barnoldswick Branch in Lancashire was run as one engine in steam and coped with up to 13 passenger trains a day from the nearby junction station at Earby, and this was interspersed by several goods trains a day, though some of the passenger trains were "mixed".

 

I've upped the population of the town to 20,000 to generate more distant passenger traffic and goods and there is now a lot of activity in the goods yards between services but handling this on one engine in steam on a single line is getting hard.

 

A further complication is although the line is MR-owned, the L&Y has running rights over it - as it did on the actual line but mostly originating excursions from there.

 

Are there instances where pre-grouping companies shared single line branches? The L&Y tended to build a double line branch whether the extra traffic was there or not.

 

Downsides of doubling the branch, I'd have to re-model the station throat and perhaps lose a few wagons of siding capacity and as I run DC with CAB control, it would be difficult for me to run inward and outward trains simultaneously, I'd still be running sequentially as on the current single line.

 

I guess I'm looking for some reassurance that I can maintain the single line branch and be reasonably faithful to pre-WW1 practice with my increased traffic.

Edited August 22, 2022 by MR Chuffer

[wagonman]

That much traffic on that short a line would almost certainly have been double track. Ilkeston Town is such a case from memory (not my area).

[MR Chuffer]

8 minutes ago, wagonman said:

almost certainly have been double track.

I know, but the 1910 Bradshaw Timetable shows just that, 13 passenger trains a day each way and I have other materials that document the level of goods traffic in 1910 - 3,600t of minerals, 18,800t of coal...! The junction signalman must've been really busy with that token.

Edited August 22, 2022 by MR Chuffer

[Tom Burnham]

The Sheerness branch, which was pretty busy in its middle years, was single track until it was doubled south of Swale Halt for electrification in 1959. It had a reasonable passenger service (including two boat trains each way daily) and a fair number of excursion trains. Apart from general goods and domestic coal, it served the naval dockyard at Sheerness and (from the early 1900s) several factories and a coal wharf at Queenborough and Ridham Dock. When it opened in 1860, most of the structures apart from the road/rail lifting bridge were built wide enough for double track, although it was nearly 100 years until advantage was taken of that.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Tom Burnham
Clarify first sentence.

[Cwmtwrch]

You don't state what period those goods figures are for, but assuming annual, then that amounts to an average of about 12 tons of minerals per working day and a little over 60 tons of coal [6 day week then], so an average  of less than 2 and about 6 or 7 wagons respectively. There would be some general traffic to add, but it can probably all be dealt with by one train a day. That train could be worked in a suitable gap in the passenger service, while that was at the junction, or by a second engine which worked in and shunted while a passenger arrived and departed before leaving itself. The former would still leave the line still OIS, but the second would mean a block post [a signal box and associated signals] at the terminus, although there were branches where the last block post was at the previous station and the line to the terminus from there was OIS [not relevant to your prototype, of course].

 

1 hour ago, MR Chuffer said:

The junction signalman must've been really busy with that token.

Since it was worked OIS, the crew were probably given a wooden staff on arrival at the junction, and kept it while they shuttled to and fro on the branch. If the same engine worked the goods then they kept it all day, otherwise they surrendered it while the goods went there and back, before being given it again for the rest of the day. Tokens require a block post at either end, but the terminus would not be a block post if the line was worked OIS.

[Michael Hodgson]

It costs a fair bit of money to double an existing single line especially if structures designed for single line have to be modified, so they'd only do that if traffic had grown to warrant it.

 

The timetable for a two mile single line from a branch terminus is mainly constrained by the junction with the main line.  A secondary main line should present fewer timetabling problems at the junction than a princpial route.  Thirteen trains a day (in total or each way?) can easily be timetabled, and still leave plenty of capacity for goods assuming there is space at the junction to hold any branch goods that has to wait for a path.

 

You say it's difficult with One Engine in Steam.  I think OES is too inflexible for your service frequency and doesn't cater adequately for all your goods trains.  Pre-grouping I would expect it to be worked by Electric Train Tablet/Electric Train Staff or (rather less flexibly) by Train Staff & Ticket.  Key tokens were rather more recent, except perhaps on the GWR.

 

I would expect one loco to be allocated to the passenger workings (including mixed), possibly more if the trains worked through to some destination further afield rather than sitting in a bay platform as the junction.  If there is enough goods traffic to warrant several trains a day, I would expect them to be through trains to some yard somewhere, and that might imply additional motive power in steam.  I would have thought mixed trains unlikely on top of that, those were usually used where there was hardly any goods traffic.

 

But where is all this goods traffic originating - in the branch goods yard ?  You'd need an awfully large yard to load several trains of wagons daily, so unless your branch has an extremely prolific factory or colliery producing several train loads a day from private sidings, it sounds implausible.  Some branches struggled to justify one goods train a day.  The daily branch goods was typically run in a gap of a couple of hours between passenger workings, mid-morning or mid-afternoon.  It was those branches that only had the odd wagon daily that normally had a mixed train, and that was typically only one service a day.   Urgent items like horse boxes, milk or other non-passenger coaching stock might be run as tail traffic on a passenger working though.

[MR Chuffer]

17 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

what period those goods figures are for,

The period is 1910, so the majority of open wagons would be MR D299 8T carrying, usually, less than 8 tons (which on my quick calculation makes approx 12 minerals/coal per day on 22,000 tons). One operating peculiarity was that the first train of the day or a subsequent early one would be a double header where one engine would then be locked in the sidings all day until it's work was done. Chain shunting was permitted from adjacent sidings!

 

Yes it was OIS, there are pictures of the staff being exchanged at the junction box, but if the the terminus was a signal box and block post, that might allow for increased traffic? This is only a 2 mile branch.

 

Thanks for your ideas.

[Michael Hodgson]

16 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

The period is 1910, so the majority of open wagons would be MR D299 8T carrying, usually, less than 8 tons (which on my quick calculation makes approx 12 minerals/coal per day on 22,000 tons). One operating peculiarity was that the first train of the day or a subsequent early one would be a double header where one engine would then be locked in the sidings all day until it's work was done. Chain shunting was permitted from adjacent sidings!

 

Yes it was OIS, there are pictures of the staff being exchanged at the junction box, but if the the terminus was a signal box and block post, that might allow for increased traffic? This is only a 2 mile branch.

 

Thanks for your ideas.

Just because you've got photos of a staff being exchanged, it doesn't follow that it was OES.  It could equally well be Staff & Ticket, as most trains would carry the staff, only those that have to be followed would be given a ticket and shown the staff. 

Staff & Ticket would imply the terminus was a block post of course.

[MR Chuffer]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

fair bit of money to double an existing single line

There was only one bridge over the Leeds - Liverpool canal, which brought initial industry and wealth to the town, with the rest of the line relatively flat. The MR bypassed the town when it built its Skipton - Colne line in 1848, perhaps due to a huge hill in the way to the southwest, so the merchants and citizens funded and built their own branch line which opened in 1871. It was run by the MR who later acquired it outright in 1898, when it was paying a 5% dividend!

 

The traffic, goods and coal inwards, finished products outwards from a town of approximately 11,000 people (which I've upped to 20,000 to make it more "important" traffic-wise) in 1910 and 13 mills in 1920.

 

Much of the branch goods traffic was inward coal and minerals (see figures above) from both the Lancashire and Yorkshire coal fields, general provisions (it is relatively isolated), cotton from Liverpool, wooden bobbins for the mills from Cumbria,, etc. The traffic was more likely to start from Skipton or Colne as there were limited siding/exchange facilities at Earby, the junction station.

 

The engine shed was demolished in 1910 to up the coal siding storage from 20 wagons as built to 100, such is the enigma that is the Barnoldswick Branch which makes it easy to hang fantasy operations on.

 

And mixed trains are documented:

The Skipton-Colne Railway and the Barnoldswick Branch (Donald Binns)

Disused Stations - Barnoldswick

 

So yes, I'm feeling more comfortable about it remaining a single line branch, perhaps with a block post at the terminus and/or more flexible workings than 1 engine in steam

 

Thx

Edited August 22, 2022 by MR Chuffer

[MR Chuffer]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

it doesn't follow that it was OES

Point taken, but see my reference materials in previous post. It was OES throughouts its existence so I may re-imagine it to staff and ticket and block posts to avoid having to double the line.

Edited August 22, 2022 by MR Chuffer

[Nearholmer]

Worked with a bit of thought, short single-track branches could cope with surprisingly frequent train services. 
 

For your two mile long one, if we allow a generous 10 minutes transit time (12mph average start to stop), we could probably run a service every 40 minutes with one loco and a rake operating OEiS, every 30 minutes if we got really slick, speeded-up the run a bit, and cut the layovers down. Steam rail motors, then auto/motor trains, and later DMUs, were made for this sort of thing. If you go electric, like the Acton Shuttle, things can get even more frenetic.

 

Even longer single-track branches using hauled stock we could run quite an intense service without a passing station en-route by ‘flighting’ trains, although that requires the terminus to be a block post. See for instance Havant to Hayling Island on summer Saturdays.

 

There were short shuttles dotted about all over the place in densely populated urban and suburban areas before trams and buses took the traffic - not all branches were ‘four trans a day each way’ jobs deep in the country.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Jeremy Cumberland]

 

1 hour ago, MR Chuffer said:

One operating peculiarity was that the first train of the day or a subsequent early one would be a double header where one engine would then be locked in the sidings all day until it's work was done.

I have never come across OEIS with a locked-in engine before, and I wonder how common it was. One of the major drawbacks of OEIS was that all the time the engine was shunting meant that the line couldn't be used for any other traffic. If goods traffic became too heavy, then the obvious solution (to me) would be to signal the line, and the idea of locking a shunting engine in had never occurred to me.

[Nearholmer]

In terms of traffic to justify doubling such a short line, I’d say “one heck of a lot”, because the infrastructure cost would be large, unless the terrain was really easy and land cheap, which seems unlikely in a place busy enough to justify lots of trains.
 

An easier first step would be to beef the termini up to permit a departure seconds after an arrival. That way, with three trains in circuit you ought to be able to get to three or even four trains an hour in each direction, although sustaining that all day with steam, even push-pull, needing to take water, rake fires etc, would be hard going, and it might well be worth electrifying it, if nothing else to save staff costs (you could remove three fireman per shift from the roster).

 

Very short branches/shuttles are a bit of a PITA operationally/economically, because such a high proportion of time is wasted at each end, and passengers hate changing trains, so railways would run trains through to the next significant destination place of line capacity allowed, and on the southern, once electrified, many trains would divide at junctions, rather than simply shuttle. Reigate is a good example, and Aldershot being served by split from Reading trains.

 

All this stuff is why trams and buses quickly won on such routes.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Nearholmer

[MR Chuffer]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

push-pull

It went push-pull in 1932, and in 1934 was running 24 departures a day with some to Skipton, Colne and Burnley with summer excursions even further afield.

 

No electric, sparsely populated area at the lowest Pennine crossing point.

Edited August 22, 2022 by MR Chuffer
Spell

[Nearholmer]

Running through to “destinations” as I suggested - much better use of resources!

[MR Chuffer]

47 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

how common

Don't know, but I believe the Midland's West Bridge, Leicester branch had a locked in shunting engine all its life.

 

And that's probably why chain or rope shunting that allowed an engine on an adjacent siding to move wagons - again, rare I believe - was permitted at Barnoldswick. But difficult to model...!

[Nearholmer]

Wasn’t there one of these branches which started double track, then was downgraded to single track for a shuttling passenger train, with the other track kept in-situ as a long siding to allow goods trains to run?

 

Tge engine locked-in at the terminus implies a lot of shunting to be done, which seems at odds with the level of goods traffic, unless there were customers at the place who exchanged wagons with one another via ‘railway’ property, so very local trips ‘in yard’.

[MR Chuffer]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Running through

The majority of passenger trains ran just to and from the junction at Earby, according to Bradshaw's 1910 timetable, but ones from further afield allow more "exotic" motive power.

 

The locals christened that service the "Barlick Spud" or "Spudroaster", because the original engine was that small, it was like a portable potato roaster, or, the journey took just long enough to roast a spud in the firebox, take you're pick.

 

(Barlick being the local pronunciation of Barnoldswick - as in "eeh, lad, don't mangle tha' words, spit it out...")

[MR Chuffer]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

one of these branches

Beyond my knowledge, possibly not Midland. Of course the engine wouldn't need to be locked in all day, it could be let out when it's job was done to head back to the mainline double heading.

 

But just minerals and coal of 22,000 tons per annum in 8t wagons, it was 35,000 tons in 1911, then there was all the goods in and out to maintain self sufficiency - 30,000 "parcels".

 

But I'm comfortable now that with block signalling, I can maintain a single line branch - can't afford to do much else!

[tomparryharry]

I would suggest that traffic would dictate the line capacity, either single or double. Once a train goes 'inside' (clear of any conflicting movement), then it's normally locked in, and using the principle of One engine in steam' would apply. The loco crew being 'the token', and worked as such. Working practice that should a second train be required on the branch, then the signalman cannot allow the second loco to proceed, until he has satisfied himself that it is safe to do so. If a train is already in section, then a 'phone call from the other end needs to confirm that the line is clear, and 'that person' has assumed responsibility for the second train to proceed.   

 

Speed limits would be kept down; no more than 25MPH, or, as local workings dictate. If it's passenger, then the Railway inspectorate might call for passenger-rated safety, such as facing points, detection, etc.

 

Choseley-Wallingford was 'locked in' if I remember.  Stationmaster Mike will provide more clarity, I'm sure.

[Cwmtwrch]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Wasn’t there one of these branches which started double track, then was downgraded to single track for a shuttling passenger train, with the other track kept in-situ as a long siding to allow goods trains to run?

Rishworth LYR was one, I believe.

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Once a train goes 'inside' (clear of any conflicting movement), then it's normally locked in, and using the principle of One engine in steam' would apply. The loco crew being 'the token', and worked as such. Working practice that should a second train be required on the branch, then the signalman cannot allow the second loco to proceed, until he has satisfied himself that it is safe to do so. If a train is already in section, then a 'phone call from the other end needs to confirm that the line is clear, and 'that person' has assumed responsibility for the second train to proceed. 

Legal on a goods only line, never on a passenger carrying line. The BoT required all railway companies to sign an undertaking that any single line section would only ever contain a single loco or two coupled together. This was enforced by the use of a staff/token/electric staff/etc. If the far end is a block post then a new electric staff or token can be issued by cooperation between the two signalmen in the usual way, but if it isn't then there is only one staff, and it's at the wrong end, so the signalman cannot permit a second train into the section under any circumstances.

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Speed limits would be kept down; no more than 25MPH, or, as local workings dictate. If it's passenger, then the Railway inspectorate might call for passenger-rated safety, such as facing points, detection, etc.

Apart from the very early days, before the BoT had the necessary authority, they would not permit a line to open unless it met their requirements. After that, various Regulation of the Railways Acts required changes to improve safety.

[Grovenor]

There were articles on the Barnoldswick branch in "Midland Record", Focus on Barnoldswick by Bob Essery in Issue 7 and The Barnoldswick Branch by Robin Higgins in Issue 10.

Bob Essery states that the Midland Railway Appendix showed the line as worked by staff and ticket while Robin refers to the staff and key, the key perhaps for the locking in of the shunt engine.

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

The period is 1910, so the majority of open wagons would be MR D299 8T carrying, usually, less than 8 tons (which on my quick calculation makes approx 12 minerals/coal per day on 22,000 tons). 

 

By 1910, there were Midland 12 ton mineral wagons starting to appear, plus of course PO wagons of which there might by then be a few 12 tons, a declining number of 8 tons, and a majority of 10 tons capacity. But these capacities are rather nominal. I've mentioned elsewhere my partial analysis of a Skipton mineral inwards ledger from 1897 onwards, a period when 8 ton capacity Midland wagons accounted for about half the mineral traffic, the balance being PO wagons of 8 or 10 tons capacity. But the actual wagon-loads are typically only around 60% to 80% of the nominal wagon capacity. In October 1897, Skipton received about 1,200 tons of coal in about 200 wagon-loads - an average of 6 tons per wagon. Almost all the Skipton coal came from the South Yorkshire coalfield, from Allerton near Leeds, Pontefract, Normanton, as far south as Barnsley. I should think it's a reasonable guess that Barnoldswick was similar. I suspect the explanation is that this coal was at the less dense end of the range of coal densities. 

 

So for c. 1910, my rough estimate would be to assume a mean nominal wagon capacity of 10 tons but average actual loads of 8 tons, so your figure is not so far out. 

 

The late 1890s were when the proportion of Midland to PO wagons in coal traffic was at its highest, round about 50%, following the programme of buying up PO wagons, but in the early years of the 20th century the number of PO wagon registrations on the Midland roughly doubled in rate, so by 1910 I would estimate Midland wagons only accounted for about 30% of the coal traffic. So it would be worth knowing where the coal is coming from and who the local merchants are.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Compound2632

[tomparryharry]

7 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Rishworth LYR was one, I believe.

Legal on a goods only line, never on a passenger carrying line. The BoT required all railway companies to sign an undertaking that any single line section would only ever contain a single loco or two coupled together. This was enforced by the use of a staff/token/electric staff/etc. If the far end is a block post then a new electric staff or token can be issued by cooperation between the two signalmen in the usual way, but if it isn't then there is only one staff, and it's at the wrong end, so the signalman cannot permit a second train into the section under any circumstances.

Apart from the very early days, before the BoT had the necessary authority, they would not permit a line to open unless it met their requirements. After that, various Regulation of the Railways Acts required changes to improve safety.

 

Sorry old chap. I thought I covered that on my second paragraph. However, I've been to bed since then!

[Siberian Snooper]

16 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Wasn’t there one of these branches which started double track, then was downgraded to single track for a shuttling passenger train, with the other track kept in-situ as a long siding to allow goods trains to run?

 

Tge engine locked-in at the terminus implies a lot of shunting to be done, which seems at odds with the level of goods traffic, unless there were customers at the place who exchanged wagons with one another via ‘railway’ property, so very local trips ‘in yard’.

 

Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge town was such a line, the goods facilities being beyond the town station, down a steep bank.