Cuckmere Haven - a very small slice of southern electric.

[Nearholmer]

By golly gosh (or words to that affect), is 4mm/ft fiddly - well below the level of resolution of my eyesight!

 

Trial run of the baseboard joint fiddliness, which has to be strong because the track is slightly curved, and I don’t want anything “springing” when I cut it.

 

Fibreglass sleeper epoxied to board; rail chair made from a bit of some FB rail that I found in my bits of metal stash, and, for good measure, a brass pin as close as I dare go to the board edge. Feels strong, and only another dozen to go!

 

Once it’s pained and ballasted, it should look OK, if everyone else is as myopic as I am!

 

PS: I cut it, and it didn’t spring - phew!

 

Edited March 16 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, phil_sutters said:

The Cuckmere meanders and the Seven Sisters cliffs seem to have an almost mystical attraction to visitors from the far east. They come in all weathers and in all sorts of dress - some wind and weather-proof, some in totally inappropriate clobber. The last few hundred yards to the beach is a quagmire at times in the winter.

Apparently that is mainly due to South Korean ‘K Pop’ band who shot a music video there a few years ago.

 

’k pop’ fans tend to be fanatical in their devolution to their idols and apparently many make the pilgrimage to the Severn Sisters / Birling Gap to get photos - which usually includes them standing perilously close to the cliff edge and jumping up into the air….

 

Given the unstable nature of the chalk cliffs this is a very unwise action - there is a reason why the National Trust say keep back from the cliff edge.

 

The other thing these visitors had a tendency to do was offer £50 notes to pay for bus fares in the pre-covid days (the frequent bus service between Brighton and Eastbourne now having gone cashless) which caused no end of issues.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/world/europe/seven-sisters-cliffs-tourism-pictures.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4982586/amp/Sightseers-taking-pictures-Seven-Sisters-cliffs.html

Edited March 16 by phil-b259

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That is one heck of an atmospheric railway; I’d forgotten how very good it is.

 

The station construction pages have, I think, been denuded of photos, so questions:

 

- did you use the Dart Castings “legs”?

 

- any hints/tips on them if you did?

 

- what did you use for the platform “deck”? I’m thinking at the moment that I will possibly go for 1mm brass, to give me a nice bed to solder the legs to, and which is close to scale thickness.

 

 

Sadly a lot of the earlier images were lost in a re-hosting of the site some time ago although I always hold my originals here.  

 

Yes, Dart Castings legs are used.  I found a need to drill out the holes with a 0.5mm pin-vice bit before threading piano wire through.  The top holes, which is where tubular steel would go rather than wire on the real thing, are reamed out to 0.8mm very carefully as there is nothing spare and brass rod used for the thicker top rail.  

 

A LOT of fine drilling is required to seat those castings into the baseboard.  Patience, persistence and accurate measurement are your friends. I glued the two parts together first with Superglue rather than attempt to get the posts perfectly upright and then add the bearers.  There is a little "give" in the cast material and if a bond does break another dab of superglue fixes the problem.  Glue them into the baseboard holes as well!  

 

The platform deck is card scribed into "slabs" then painted in Railmatch "Concrete", weathered with powders including a touch of green along the scribed paver edges and a white lining pen used for the warning line along the edges.  I tried with foam-board but it wouldn't lie flat.  The card took a while to settle down too but superglued to the castings and with a heavy flat steel ruler rested along it the bond was made and the surface has remained flat enough for credibility.  

[Gwiwer]

Added to which everything which should be concrete, castings and all, were painted using a mix of Railmatch "Concrete" and very fine sand from a Peco weathering kit to give the required texture.  

[Nearholmer]

Ah, I wondered how you’d got the texture.

 

Having read that, I think I feel a jig coming on. Maybe two jigs.

 

Now, where’s me tin whistle?

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

The Cuckmere meanders and the Seven Sisters cliffs seem to have an almost mystical attraction to visitors from the far east. They come in all weathers and in all sorts of dress - some wind and weather-proof, some in totally inappropriate clobber. The last few hundred yards to the beach is a quagmire at times in the winter.

If those two are who I think they might be, they didn't have to travel anything like that distance.

[Nearholmer]

Track laying continues an odd hour at a time, and while I’ve been doing that, I’ve been thinking about signalling (or ideally the absence of signalling), so would anyone care to comment?

 

This is something the SR did in the late 1930s, so it’s got to be as simple as possible, cheap, and use as many recycled bits as possible.

 

First, I think this is the diagram, with one switch on the double-slip hand-worked to permit the EST&T staff to pick and drop wagons from the two sidings: [See further down; I no longer think this diagram is appropriate]

 

 

I have two doubts:

 

- whether I need better trapping, in the form of a trap switch from the run-round loop;

 

- whether or not having one switch on the double-slip manual is feasible in practice. I think it was in reality, and that the way Pecorino make the model one, with two switches ganged together on a single tie-bar is not prototypical, but I’m wavering a bit on this.

 

Next question is whether or not this place needs to be a block post, with signals. I’m thinking that maybe I can get away with it not being, by using a “lock in” arrangement.

 

Imagine that the throat and release crossover are worked by two ground-frames, released by a key on the electric token, and that there is a facility to “lock in” a goods train by inserting said token in a lock box, thereby releasing the machine at Berwick and permitting another token to be issued to allow a passenger train down and back, and that once that train is home again, and its token back in the machine at Berwick, the goods train can then be released by withdrawal of the token still at Cuckmere.

 

Views on this from anyone who knows SR practices would be very welcome.

 

If that isn’t plausible, we’ll probably have to promote the place to a block post, and upgrade the porter to signalman-porter, and decide exactly what arrangements to give him to do his job; the SR put the block instruments in the ticket office, and provided a lever frame semi-outdoors behind railings in some places, and in others had a signal-box from which tickets were sold. Either way, I’m assuming the block post would be switched-out most of the time, with the passenger train shuttling up and down “One EMU on voltage”.

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by Nearholmer

[Mol_PMB]

Did the SR take advantage of the light railway rules for this branch?

I don't know SR practices, but from experience of operating single lines with ETS and token-released ground frames, I would suggest that the following scheme would address the basic safety requirements (although whether ASLEF would let the driver leave the comfort of his cab to operate the points is debatable):

 

ETS instruments here and at Berwick. 

The ETS staff has a key on the end which unlocks the ground frame; and the token is only released when the ground frame is set back to normal.

The ground frame only controls the points which are on the passenger line, and those directly associated with them:

• the 'king points' and their associated trap
• the crossover at the far end of the loop
• FPLs on the two switches on the passenger line

A passenger EMU can shuttle back and forth without using the ground frame.

Any other traffic requiring shunting will come to a stand at the king points, open the ground frame and then shunt freely using the hand points or the ground frame.

A freight train can be 'locked in' in the loop or sidings as long as it's not blocking the passenger line and the ground frame is returned to normal.

The entire double slip can be manual, and can be operated by BR or EST&T crews.

 

Signals? Perhaps not strictly necessary?

[Mol_PMB]

I should add that a departing freight train would also have to stop to reset the ground frame and collect the ETS. Alternatively it could shunt back into the platform before departing, which would save the crew some walking. 
 

The potential move that wouldn’t be possible in this simple scheme is for a freight to depart with an EMU in the platform.

[Nearholmer]

The way I understand what you are saying is that it would make Cuckmere a block post within a telephone block system. Is that correct? My instinct is that the SR must have used telephone block somewhere ……. It’s cheap, and they loved cheap!

 

My suggestion (if it’s plausible) also doesn’t allow a goods train to leave while a passenger train is present, but I’ve looked at potential trip times, and I don’t think that matters - provided the goods leaves as soon as practicable after the passenger train is home to Berwick, it can trundle up the line without disturbing an hourly passenger service.

 

PS: what’s really frustrating is that I’ve got a copy of the relevant Sectional appendix for 1935, and the page covering this branch seems to be missing!

 

 

Edited March 19 by Nearholmer

[Mol_PMB]

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The way I understand what you are saying is that it would make Cuckmere a block post within a telephone block system. Is that correct? My instinct is that the SR must have used telephone block somewhere ……. It’s cheap, and they loved cheap!

 

My suggestion (if it’s plausible) also doesn’t allow a goods train to leave while a passenger train is present, but I’ve looked at potential trip times, and I don’t think that matters - provided the goods leaves as soon as practicable after the passenger train is home to Berwick, it can trundle up the line without disturbing an hourly passenger service.

 

PS: what’s really frustrating is that I’ve got a copy of the relevant Sectional appendix for 1935, and the page covering this branch seems to be missing!

 

 

I think what I'm describing would be called No Signalman Key Token, a variation of Electric Token Block.

[Nearholmer]

Ah, yes.

 

Had that been invented in c1935, or perhaps had it been used in Britain? I’ll have to see whether I can find out.

[Mol_PMB]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Ah, yes.

 

Had that been invented in c1935, or perhaps had it been used in Britain? I’ll have to see whether I can find out.

It sounds like the sort of thing that might have been invented by the SR to save money on their Cuckmere Haven branch?

There was no technical invention needed, all the ingredients existed by the 1930s and it was just a matter of using them in this particular way.

The SR was ahead of its time in many ways.

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

A passenger EMU can shuttle back and forth

Passenger emu

 

[phil_sutters]

1 hour ago, Gwiwer said:

Passenger emu

 

 

By 2010 no EMUs only Herons ............. and Little Egrets, Canada Geese etc. etc. but I won't fill the thread with wild fowl images or even wild, foul images! No sign of your tracks either.

Edited March 19 by phil_sutters

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Ah, yes.

 

Had that been invented in c1935, or perhaps had it been used in Britain? I’ll have to see whether I can find out.

It was certainly in use in the early 1970s between Sheffield Park and Horsted Keynes!

[Nearholmer]

Signalling diagram, Take 2:

 

 

I’m confident that this is the correct way to trap it, and that the two switches at the LH end of the slip, plus the other switch nearby, can be manual, they don’t need to be interlocked, and it makes shunting simpler if they aren’t.

 

Now, this could still be:

 

- a block post, with all the points controlled from one lever frame, either in a signal box or in a “pen” on the platform; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) both released by a key on a train staff; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) released by a key on on an electric token, and with provision to “lock in” a goods train, thereby allowing a passenger train to be run, by providing a lock-in thingy (what are they called!?) for the token, which releases the ability to issue a token at Berwick; or,

 

- Mol_PMB’s option, which makes this a block post, but uses a ground frame released by a key on an electric token to operate the points, so means that one train has to be “locked in” before the token can be put in the machine, allowing one to the withdrawn from the machine at Berwick and a train despatched from there.

 

I think that either the third or fourth would suffice, but favour the third because it ought be marginally cheaper to create, and I think the fourth might have a safety loopholes.

 

But, I’m only a Barrack Room Signalling Engineer; is there a real one available to comment?
 

 

 

Edited March 19 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Signalling diagram, Take 2:

 

 

I’m confident that this is the correct way to trap it, and that the two switches at the LH end of the slip, plus the other switch nearby, can be manual, they don’t need to be interlocked, and it makes shunting simpler if they aren’t.

 

Now, this could still be:

 

- a block post, with all the points controlled from one lever frame, either in a signal box or in a “pen” on the platform; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) both released by a key on a train staff; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) released by a key on on an electric token, and with provision to “lock in” a goods train, thereby allowing a passenger train to be run, by providing a lock-in thingy (what are they called!?) for the token, which releases the ability to issue a token at Berwick; or,

 

- Mol_PMB’s option, which makes this a block post, but uses a ground frame released by a key on an electric token to operate the points, so means that one train has to be “locked in” before the token can be put in the machine, allowing one to the withdrawn from the machine at Berwick and a train despatched from there.

 

I think that either the third or fourth would suffice, but favour the third because it ought be marginally cheaper to create, and I think the fourth might have a safety loophole.

 

But, I’m only a Barrack Room Signalling Engineer; is there a real one available to comment?
 

 

 

That diagram looks much better. The left-end formation could be worked from a single lever as a crossover, with the switch on the left and the three on the right working together.

[Nearholmer]

I thought about that, but I’m not confident on things like that, because I don’t know how much ironmongery can sensibly be shoved around by one bloke, using one lever. What’s your view on whether or not it’s physically practical?

 

 

Edited March 19 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

9 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I thought about that, but I’m not confident on things like that, because I don’t know how much ironmongery can sensibly be shoved around by one bloke, using one lever. What’s your view on whether or not it’s physically practical?

 

 

As a mere rolling stock engineer, I don't know either. Let's try to wake up a proper S&T man. Paging @5BarVT...

[phil_sutters]

2 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

By 2010 no EMUs only Herons ............. and Little Egrets, Canada Geese etc. etc. but I won't fill the thread with wild fowl images or even wild, foul images! No sign of your tracks either.

 

maybe I didn't spot the NG tracks

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Signalling diagram, Take 2:

 

 

I’m confident that this is the correct way to trap it, and that the two switches at the LH end of the slip, plus the other switch nearby, can be manual, they don’t need to be interlocked, and it makes shunting simpler if they aren’t.

 

Now, this could still be:

 

- a block post, with all the points controlled from one lever frame, either in a signal box or in a “pen” on the platform; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) both released by a key on a train staff; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) released by a key on on an electric token, and with provision to “lock in” a goods train, thereby allowing a passenger train to be run, by providing a lock-in thingy (what are they called!?) for the token, which releases the ability to issue a token at Berwick; or,

 

- Mol_PMB’s option, which makes this a block post, but uses a ground frame released by a key on an electric token to operate the points, so means that one train has to be “locked in” before the token can be put in the machine, allowing one to the withdrawn from the machine at Berwick and a train despatched from there.

 

I think that either the third or fourth would suffice, but favour the third because it ought be marginally cheaper to create, and I think the fourth might have a safety loopholes.

 

But, I’m only a Barrack Room Signalling Engineer; is there a real one available to comment?
 

 

 

 

Do you really need to have the goods and passenger share the station?  Surely there's time to run the goods between passenger services on a tiny wee branch like this? 

 

[Nearholmer]

Hourly passenger service:

 

xx00 Depart Berwick

xx10 Arrive Cuckmere

xx15 Depart Cuckmere

xx25 Arrive Berwick

 

Goods service TWFO (Q):

 

1030 Depart Berwick

1050 Arrive Cuckmere

Stops short of points, release GF, shunt  into run-round loop, restore GF and “lock in” by 1055.

1130 Retrieve token, release GF, shunt as required., forming up train in runaround loop ready for departure, restore GF and “lock in” by 1155.

1230 Retrieve token, release GF, pull forward onto running line, restore GF, depart.

1250 Arrive Berwick.

 

Even this might be tight, because an 08 dragging half a dozen loaded sand hoppers will be painfully slow.

 

Its hard to conceive of an SR passenger service in the 1970s that doesn’t run hourly, even if it runs mostly empty!

 

I’d probably actually timetable the goods to return at 1430, rather than 1230, to give a bit of slack in the shunting process, which can take a surprisingly long time, and to allow the crew to “make a day of it”. In practice, it could come back up in whichever xx30-xx50 slot suits all concerned, but we need to get the crew back to Eastbourne or Brighton by passenger train to book-off by 1630-ish (they booked-on c0800) to avoid paying for a long turn. What with walking time and everything else, they need to be away from Berwick 1500 really.

 

So, my take is “yes, two trains do need to be there simultaneously.

 

You can probably also see why the whole operation was uneconomic, and the branch got closed-down! But, this was BR(S) as I remember it in the 1970s: all rather stuck in the 1950s, if not the 1930s,  the positive being a neat and regular set of passenger services, the negative being some very relaxed use of staff time and assets, and wage structures that required the creation of overtime to allow good earnings!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Further thoughts:

 

On arrival at Berwick after booking-on, the crew need time to start the loco up (how many times in the winter will it prove to have flat batteries??), and to form-up the train of empties before departure. Likewise, when they get back with the loaded train they need time to detach the brake van and shunt the wagons ready for collection by the main-line goods train (presumably the one that serves Lewis Cement Works).

 

We also need to trip the loco to St Leonard’s and back for fuel overnight periodically (weekly/fortnightly?). I remember the loco from Horsham having to go to Three Bridges for this, and even that took all night and sent the drivers ‘up the wall’ because it was so slow!

 

Can we get an 09 allocated to the branch? Dare we try an 07? Probably best not, because it couldn’t be trusted not to get hot axle boxes and expire across the junction at Hampden Park. An 03? Now, that might be worth a try.

 

 

[C126]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Can we get an 09 allocated to the branch? Dare we try an 07? Probably best not, because it couldn’t be trusted not to get hot axle boxes and expire across the junction at Hampden Park. An 03? Now, that might be worth a try.

 

Were there not 04s allocated to Brighton as well once?  Something a little different and equally handsome.