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

[MR Chuffer]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

so your figure is not so far out

Some comments to fill your detail out - I love your detail! I have got a figure somewhere for the exact coal wagon traffic numbers year on year so, yes, our figures are about right without me getting the exact wagon sizing correct. Some comments I got from a PDF somewhere on the web:

 

"Barnoldswick, a cotton weaving town of about 12,000 people (I've upped the population to 20,000 to make the town more important), provides a good example of traffic in a small industrial town. The station received 10+ wagon loads of coal a day, a lot of coal. The 1930s “Kelly's Directory” for the period  lists 5 coal merchants in the coal yard and 12 weaving sheds. (There were more pre-WW1)

 

3 of the coal merchants and 4 of the sheds had PO wagons registered (presumably
all the weaving sheds received wagon loads of coal, though perhaps several sheds shared
a load as several had offices at the same address). A photograph shows that in addition
the Barnoldswick Cooperative Industrial Society had an office in the coal yard. The town
gas works must have received a lot of coal. As well as the coal sidings the yard had a coal
chute where wagons could unload through side doors onto a chute to a lorry on a road at a
lower level."

 

As for sources of coal - coal for gas probably from the Burnley area, well known for its gassing coal but over the L&YR; I have a yard picture from post-WW2 of a coal wagon from Low Laithes, Ossett/Yorkshire, and one of the weaving shed owners purchased the New Ingleton colliery in 1912, so coal would come down via Clapham. And of course, some of the collieries shipping into Skipton, as per your researches, could trip their wares the additional 10 miles to Barnoldswick, thus keeping the traffic on Midland rails.

Edited August 23, 2022 by MR Chuffer

[meil]

22 hours ago, wagonman said:

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).

Ilkeston Town is single track.

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, meil said:

Ilkeston Town is single track.

 

It gave the illusion of double track since there was a long headshunt extending almost to the junction!

[wagonman]

Thanks for the clarification. One example that really was double track – I know because I've travelled on it – was the 'branch' to Colchester Town station. Okay, so not strictly comparable but a useful example of a double track line ending in a single platform!

 

 

[Rivercider]

The LSWR Exmouth branch opened in 1861. It was built as a single line, but with provision for doubling the whole route. The LSWR opened a number of halts in the Exeter area in 1906. In 1908 additional halts were opened on the Exmouth branch between Exeter and Topsham and the branch was doubled between Exmouth Junction and Topsham (a distance of 4m 26ch) to cater for the increased traffic, which included railmotor services.

To give an idea of traffic there were 18 or 19 trains to and from Exmouth daily, with another nine motor trains worked as far as Topsham only. 

Edit - also a couple of daily return goods services, and another which ran to Topsham only, there were a couple of private sidings on this section of line which complicated matters for pathing, which might have added to the need for doubling this section.

 

cheers

Edited August 23, 2022 by Rivercider
Additional info

[MR Chuffer]

15 minutes ago, wagonman said:

single platform

Another example is Royton, L&YR, to the east of Manchester. Opened in 1864, it was double track into a single platform but quite busy nevertheless with 18 passenger trains each way in 1920.

 

The L&YR seemed to make a habit of building double track branches into single platforms irrespective of the paucity of traffic, other examples being the Horwich, Holmfirth and Rishworth branches (already mentioned above).

[Caley Jim]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

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. 

As I've posted somewhere before, the 'Load X Tons' on a wagon merely indicated the maximum weight to which it should be loaded, which was governed by the suspension and bearings.  The actual weight carried at its volumetric capacity might not reach that depending on the density of the load, as @Compound2632 has said.  Caledonian mineral wagons could not contain the volume of coal which would load them to weight capacity, but could be so loaded with, e.g. iron ore.

 

Jim

[meil]

On 23/08/2022 at 09:09, Compound2632 said:

 

It gave the illusion of double track since there was a long headshunt extending almost to the junction!

If you are looking for a double track then Ashfield near-by.