GWR Junction Track Planning

[The Great Bear]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

More debatav ble is the situation on the three doll signalwhere it is somewhat more debatable if the route reading to the Main Line is more important than the route leading to the bay.  In fact over the years it seemed that even the GWR couldn't get a consistent answer to that one and I think it very often came down to what the local S&T Dept Inspector ordered from Reading (a sketch was required on the order form).

At Kidlington which has been referenced in this thread (a particular interest of mine with layout largely based on that) the route to the main was deemed more important even though it only got a couple of through train movements to Oxford. Coming out of the bay the route to the down main (which was via a crossover just beyond the road bridge just north of the station) was also deemed more important though I'm not sure if that was ever used, pick up goods/shunting of yard would have kept on the branch track running parallel to the main I'd have thought. The signal at the end where the branch diverges, like Mike mentions the branch was deemed the main route and the route back onto the down main was on lower bracket. The arm was smaller too, unsual I think, but for space reasons it looks like so the signal post wasn't half way down the embankment slope.

[DCB]

On 04/01/2024 at 18:00, Miss Prism said:

The problem here is that while the tracks  2 south  3 north and the platforms and goods yard relationship are similar to Kidlington the track plan is not. The Branch does not diverge at Kidlington it is the 3rd line north of the station.  The model plan has no branch run round loop and a goods lay bye, running loop what ever has been added  to make the 3rd road.    It  is not something a full size railway would have built,  the whole ethos of the real Kidlington was to keep branch trains clear of the main line.   From the NLS map around 1900  Kidlington had the road bridge much closer to the platform and three running lines north of  the road bridge for 1/2 mile maybe before the branch swung away to the West ,  Also North of the road bridge was a branch run round loop.  " At Kidlington this meant first unloading any passengers before reversing out of the station to perform the run-round. " There was a scissors crossover between Branch and Down Main.    The scissors was unusual I don't know of another example quite like it,  but the run round away from the platform made a lot of sense,  The Branch was a later addition and Kidlington was adapted to become the junction station and the Branch extended beside the main line even later to keep branch trains clear of the main line.

[Keegs]

On 05/01/2024 at 07:59, philip-griffiths said:

Hello Keegs. 
 

Your signalling is getting there with Mike and Miss Prism’s help.  There are some good resources in signalling, books by Bob Essery are very useful especially on typical passenger and freight workings. I know you stand upside down, but may be worth considering seeing if you can source them down under. 😀

 

you’d need some ground signals. I’d use them out of the yard at the catch point and from the down platform line for a reserve into the loop, the up line or into the lay-by. 
 

anither ground signal for working from the up to the down and even a ground signal from the loop to the down as the signal in Miss Prism’s diagram (the 3 post bracket) would really be for a movement from the loop to the down and then past the down starter. If shunting with in the station precinct you would not be pulling off the bracket signal as that will only be released with the down starter. 
 

(Ducks from the fags ends that Miss Prsim will throw towards me as I apply LNWR practice to a GWR situation… ) 

 

regards. 

Thanks Philip.

 

I’m afraid my model railway budget has been put on hold for 9 months due to quite a splurge on railway books and Rapido wagons last year! Have got a 8 month old sconegrabber aswell as saving for a house(which are not cheap in NZ!)

I use a UK freight forwarder which allows access to most of the rail books which definitely are not available over here!

 

But I will definitely add some signalling books to my collection before I commence building the layout. :)

 

I should add that while I would like to start building this year, there is no rush as I forsee this being a 10-15 year project at least!

Edited January 5 by Keegs

[Keegs]

29 minutes ago, DCB said:

The problem here is that while the tracks  2 south  3 north and the platforms and goods yard relationship are similar to Kidlington the track plan is not. The Branch does not diverge at Kidlington it is the 3rd line north of the station.  The model plan has no branch run round loop and a goods lay bye, running loop what ever has been added  to make the 3rd road.    It  is not something a full size railway would have built,  the whole ethos of the real Kidlington was to keep branch trains clear of the main line.   From the NLS map around 1900  Kidlington had the road bridge much closer to the platform and three running lines north of  the road bridge for 1/2 mile maybe before the branch swung away to the West ,  Also North of the road bridge was a branch run round loop.  " At Kidlington this meant first unloading any passengers before reversing out of the station to perform the run-round. " There was a scissors crossover between Branch and Down Main.    The scissors was unusual I don't know of another example quite like it,  but the run round away from the platform made a lot of sense,  The Branch was a later addition and Kidlington was adapted to become the junction station and the Branch extended beside the main line even later to keep branch trains clear of the main line.

You're not wrong, I actually prefer my original plan without the Junction for it's simplicity and overall "Flow" It is based heavily on Lavington(Signalling not yet added correctly):

 

I'm not giving up on the Junction idea entirely but it definitely requires more research on my part. :)

 

Edited January 5 by Keegs

[melmerby]

Some more signalling:

https://lightmoor.co.uk/books/gwr-signalling-practice/GW2209

https://rail-books.co.uk/products/a-pictorial-record-of-great-western-signalling-9780902888081?variant=27968129093

 

 

[Harlequin]

You could expand your junction station idea a bit like this:

 

• The branch has its own run round loop. This was very common and means branch activities don't affect main line running.
• The loop is trapped at the country end by a stub siding (which could be longer if it had a useful purpose).
• The spur at the town end of the loop could be used for end loading?
• Two long goods sidings that both have useful vehicle access.
• Both platforms are lengthened by the area shown with dashed outlines.
• The station building has to move a bit closer to the road.
• Smooth curves in the branch line run into the bay platform and a nice gentle curve on the end of the platform itself.
• Extra spacing between branch line and main line.
• The signalbox is in a new suggested position.
• The pink section eases the setrack curve to bring the two main running lines closer together where they pass through the station. That helps make things look a bit better and makes the crossover shorter.

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 05/01/2024 at 21:11, melmerby said:

Some more signalling:

https://lightmoor.co.uk/books/gwr-signalling-practice/GW2209

https://rail-books.co.uk/products/a-pictorial-record-of-great-western-signalling-9780902888081?variant=27968129093

 

 

You need to treat nboth of those carefully.  Adrian's book was written along time back so is a little short on information in one or two cases but it is sound in its explanations and gives good guidance on the look of signals although it is lacking on several finer points of detail.    

ut not surprising as some of that information wasn't around at the time it was written.  Very definitely worth buying if you can get it at a sensible price.

 

The Ian Allan British Railway Signalling' book on the same page is an excellent intriduction to signalling if you are intertested to understand more.  Although it says it was written by Williams and Kichenside alan Williams consulted a number of prople he knew  and they happened to be signal engineers and that shows in a beneficial way in the book.  I highly recommend it if you want to get a better and wider understanding of the basics, 

 

Noodle Books 'GWR Infrastructure is a superbly informative volume although you need to know exactly what you are looking at to find it informative!.  Not that it is poorly captioned because it isn't but there is far more to be seen in it than the captions can cover

 

The GWR Study Group book is a strange volume and in places I find it very disappointing.  On the good side it is profusely illustrated although some of the captions are rather ponderous.   An awful lot of research has gone into dates, especially in an early chapter, but there are one or two errors in there the most glaring being that he completely misses the fact that, as GWR documentary evidence shows, some independent ground signals were being altered from red to white light - when 'on' - in the early 1890s.  And he incorrectly explains the principle behind white light signals (or why they were needed) by directly equating it with the later principle for yellow arm discs and shunting signals.  So things like this plus his strange use of the word 'mast' instead of signal post, and 'directing signals' instead of splitting signals, and various other terminological oddities, irritate rather than misinform (although they could misinform those who are new to the subject)..

 

The big problem is when it comes to operational matters and explaining about using signalling.   His explanation of Absolute Block working is over wordy for some very simple principles.  He mentions Station Limits but fails to explain what they are - a big omission when it comes ot working a railway and using signalling.  He clearly doesn't seem to understand how Signal Box Footnotes elaborated on basic principles when he mentions a Clearing Point being 'only 7 yards in advance of a stop signal  - when that would patently not be the case.  By far the worst case is where he tangles up that GWR oddity acceptance 'Line Clear to Clearing Point Only' with wider aspects of short section working and the 'Train Approaching' bell signal and 'stop point' relating to that bell signal.

 

His explanation of single line operation starts in the wrong place instead of at its most basic thus not really explaining why things changed and developed taking advantage of  new technology..    This extends to a clear lack of thought about signal operation at single line crossing stations where he appears not tot know the critical difference between a catch point and a trap point, especially at location.

 

In one. or two matters of detail he is downright wrong.  For example he implies that the second Reading design of pressed steel signal arm was a BR innovation when it wasn't as some such arms definitely carried on their top edge the letters GWR and their pre 1948 year of manufacture.   He also states, incorrectly, that backing Signals were mainly replaced by discs which is a long way from correct - many were replaced by semaphores with ordinary 3 foot arms, particularly those reading to more than two routes (although that also definitely applied to some reading to only two routes)  - it depended on sighting conditions as much as anything else.

 

So while it is a very comprehensive work I also find it rather like the curate's egg.

 

Incidentally the headlamp codes and bell codes shown in Appendix 1, pages i & ii applied in all respects only from 1 August 1936 until March 1937 when a number of changes took place, particularly in respect of bell codes but with a few changes to train classifications. RMweb member 'Harlequin' has produced an excellent, and accurate, illustrated guide to GWR lamp and bell codes from 1936 to the end of the company in 1947.   The vast majority of them continued to apply until May 1950 when the train classifications,  headlamp codes, and bell codes shown in Appendix 1iii came into effect.  The latter remained in use until the end of September 1960 when they were again revised and at the same time the WR changed from alpha to numeric train classification codes.

 

 

[Harlequin]

11 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

RMweb member 'Harlequin' has produced an excellent, and accurate, illustrated guide to GWR lamp and bell codes from 1936 to the end of the company in 1947.   

From 1918 to 1947, in fact. You can download the PDFs from gwr.org,uk.

😃

[St Enodoc]

On 04/01/2024 at 01:18, Harlequin said:

 

Off the top of my head, mainline junction stations with branch bays:

• Didcot
• Newbury
• Exeter St. David's
• Whitland
• Tiverton
• Newton Abbot
• Bourne End
• Kemble

There are a lot more, I'm sure. It seems to be a common pattern and you can understand why - it avoids all the difficulties that you described above and allows branch trains to connect to main line trains without holding up operations.

 

St Erth

Truro

Lostwithiel

Bodmin Road

Liskeard (sort of...)

[melmerby]

38 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Adrian's book was written along time back

1973 according to my copy.

[Compound2632]

On 05/01/2024 at 20:41, DCB said:

 

If your second sketch had a trailing connection into the left-to-right main rather than a facing connection into the right-to-left main, I would recognise it as Hawes Junction (aka Garsdale). As it stands, I find it a bit suspect as there's no convenient way of working traffic between the branch and the left-to-right main.

 

Your third sketch made me smile - too right! But it's what would be done at any time in the last fifty years to rationalise the layout, in the unlikely event of the bay surviving in use.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If your second sketch had a trailing connection into the left-to-right main rather than a facing connection into the right-to-left main, I would recognise it as Hawes Junction (aka Garsdale). As it stands, I find it a bit suspect as there's no convenient way of working traffic between the branch and the left-to-right main.

 

 

The track layout and signalling at any real station would reflect the traffic on offer - you wouldn't spend money catering for routes or connections that.  Completeness of options is a mistake sometimes made when building a model based on a fictional location, and this tends to happen when we try to fit sidings, loops or branches wherever we can fit them into the particular space we have set aside for our layouts.  weren't going to be used.   If we design our track to fit wherever we can put it, we should then look at how we would work it, and that might dictate a hypothetical expantion of the traffic flow.  And if access to a branch is reached only from one end of a through stationj layout, our fiddle yard design has to be arranged so that this works.

[Keegs]

On 08/01/2024 at 11:33, Harlequin said:

From 1918 to 1947, in fact. You can download the PDFs from gwr.org,uk.

😃

Ahh excellent, I spent many hours on that site and WarwickshireRailways.com so much information and detail, really makes researching alot less painless!

[KingEdwardII]

On 04/01/2024 at 15:44, Happy Hippo said:

Quite a few of my acquaintances from the area call it Erwin

Yes, that's the pronunciation by many of the locals. It makes the true Welsh speakers wince, but it is what is used locally.

 

Yours, Mike.

[DCB]

On 08/01/2024 at 08:56, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The track layout and signalling at any real station would reflect the traffic on offer - you wouldn't spend money catering for routes or connections that.  Completeness of options is a mistake sometimes made when building a model based on a fictional location, and this tends to happen when we try to fit sidings, loops or branches wherever we can fit them into the particular space we have set aside for our layouts.  weren't going to be used.   If we design our track to fit wherever we can put it, we should then look at how we would work it, and that might dictate a hypothetical expantion of the traffic flow.  And if access to a branch is reached only from one end of a through stationj layout, our fiddle yard design has to be arranged so that this works.

Agree  the Middle drawing needs extra trailing crossovers  Brent, and Tiverton jct Culmstock side are not unlike it,  Moreton in Marsh is a bit similar but if you modelled it everyone would tell you it was wrong

Heathfield (pre about 1930) and Kemble Tetbury Branch bay are like the top drawing . There don't seem to have been any through trains onto the Tetbury branch at Kemble, goods seems to have gone as tail loads on Passengers . By contrast Heathfield  had mainline trains take the branch having to reverse in and out of the bay with tank locos when the Dawlish Sea wall was closed.  Obviously it was a total PITA.    A lot of junctions had direct connection to the main but if you like shunting and slow running  no direct connection makes operating more complicated/fun/tedious  delete as applicable.

 

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, DCB said:

A lot of junctions had direct connection to the main but if you like shunting and slow running  no direct connection makes operating more complicated/fun/tedious  delete as applicable.

 

Even where there was a full-on double junction of branch onto main line, it wasn't necessarily much used. It was common enough if there was a branch bay for it to be its own spur off the incoming branch, so that the branch passenger train didn't occupy the main line at any point. Branch goods trains were probably in many cases made up from wagons set off from the main line stopping goods train, especially in cases were the district's marshalling yard was at some distance - avoiding duplicate train-miles. 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 07/01/2024 at 22:52, St Enodoc said:

Liskeard (sort of...)

 

The unusual shape of which might be useful for some modelling situations.

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Whereas Churston offers a simpler layout with the classic bay platforms.