Cuckmere Haven - a very small slice of southern electric.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, the Central Section had 04, and if ever this gets finished and operated in multiple time zones one of those would be ideal to take over from Terrier and P in an early/mid 1960s setting.

[Mol_PMB]

A Crompton or ED would speed things up significantly!

When did the SR become a fully-fitted region? Can you dispense with the brake van? 

[C126]

31 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

When did the SR become a fully-fitted region? Can you dispense with the brake van? 

 

 

1st August, 1977.

[5BarVT]

19 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.

As far as I know NSKT was a BR invention, and not that early.

Shut in ground frames with an intermediate instrument were about earlier I think, but my assumption is that there would have been a signalman at each end.

This century we did something clever at Stranraer to permit staff working most of the time but token working when two trains needed to be down there at the same time - that did require the box to be staffed for one shift a week.

 

Thinking ‘out loud’, I could envisage a staff released by one lever at Berwick (for the EMU) (could be a mechanical release) interlocked with a separate lever for the shut in staff (released electrically).  Each reverse to release the staff and requiring staff in to be normalised.  The clever bit is allowing the release lever for the ‘shut in’ staff to be normalised if the staff was locked in at the Cuckmere end.

 

From the guards point of view, this arrangement is very similar to a normal shut in GF, except that the staff is received from the signaller at Berwick and returned there later, but the GF operation is no different.

 

Having seen examples of clever stuff that SR engineers did, this seems well within the sort of things they might have tried.

 

Paul.

[5BarVT]

15 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

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

Some may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment!

Paul.

[5BarVT]

15 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

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.

Technically, yes.

With a trained signalman (in those days) and not too far from the box, no problem.

But with a guard, even if they had more practice back in those days, I’m less sure.  The GF would be right on top of the points, so not a desperately long run, but still not convinced.

 

I’m currently about 48 1/2 years ago reading the Oxford Techs fault book:

Radley GF O.O.O.

Guard instructed in use of ground frame. . . .

 

But as well as keeping the signalling as simple as possible, the pway should also be the minimum required.

Is there a need to both sand sidings to be accessed from the running line? Making the slip two single ends (or a Barry slip if you must), saves one of the traps.  A bit more simplification could get it down to one trap.

Empties in the exchange road.  ES&T Propel fulls down onto empties, shunt out to 2nd siding, shunt fulls to exchange, back onto empties and take away.

Likewise, the BR train - down into loop, run round and brake into platform (never shunt with a brake, spills the tea, spoils the fire) collect fulls into platform with brake, empties into exchange siding, back onto train in platform and away.  Obviously, not all achieved in one session.

 

And I’m pleased that your shunting timetable doesn’t start until the passenger is back down at Berwick.

 

Paul.

 

[WFPettigrew]

43 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Shut in ground frames with an intermediate instrument were about earlier I think, but my assumption is that there would have been a signalman at each end.

 

The closure of the Bourne End - High Wycombe line in 1970 led to the line from Maidenhead to Bourne end being worked by some sort of tablet/token in the 70s, which was placed by the crew into a cabinet at Bourne End to allow the points to be changed to reverse round to Marlow.  That also changed the point at the throat of Bourne End to allow two trains on the branch, one locked into the Bourne-End Marlow section, the other then able to run up from Maidenhead into the other platform at Bourne End.   The driver would take a tablet/token at Maidenhead released from Slough panel box.   

 

I cannot remember when Bourne End lost its signal box and put this procedure in place, but I am sure it was run like this in the 70s.  Nor can I remember what sort of token authority was given to the driver to run between Bourne End and Marlow sorry - not that this is of any relevance in your model.

 

Clearly WR not SR, but...  Prior to such a thing being introduced, the light railway origins of your line could allow just an open air lever frame or one in the station building, operated by the chargehand porter as a semi-block post before such things were swept away?

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

 

[Compound2632]

43 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

But as well as keeping the signalling as simple as possible, the pway should also be the minimum required.

 

But would it have been worth the expense of simplifying an older, more complex layout, dating from a time when greater traffic either existed or was hoped for?

[5BarVT]

22 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

The closure of the Bourne End - High Wycombe line in 1970 led to the line from Maidenhead to Bourne end being worked by some sort of tablet/token in the 70s, which was placed by the crew into a cabinet at Bourne End to allow the points to be changed to reverse round to Marlow.  That also changed the point at the throat of Bourne End to allow two trains on the branch, one locked into the Bourne-End Marlow section, the other then able to run up from Maidenhead into the other platform at Bourne End.   The driver would take a tablet/token at Maidenhead released from Slough panel box.

Electric token M’head to Bourne End.  That released the GF at Bourne End which in turn released the staff for Bourne End to Marlow.  With the train shut in to the Marlow section the token could be handed back and another train run down to Bourne End.

That used to be the peak operation, off peak one train down to Marlow and all the way back.

Paul.

[Nearholmer]

The SR relaying of the site was complete, because the initial LR flat bottom track on rubbishy sleepers was clapped-out after 30+ years of use.
 

More to the point though, this is a tiny model railway, built using off-the shelf track, to fit particular size baseboard modules, and all the points are fixed down now, so it is what it is. The double-slip used like this was also something of an LSWR speciality, so I reckon when the SR altered the erstwhile CVLR facilities, the chap in the DO was an ex-LSWR man.

 

I’m still favouring a “lock in” arrangement over a SB, to avoid paying that tiny bit more for a signalman-porter.

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by Nearholmer

[phil_sutters]

16 hours 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?
 

 

 

Are you imagining there was a box at Exceat or just a crossing keeper? Strange coincidence of dates.

Edited March 20 by phil_sutters

[Nearholmer]

Phil 

 

Your first photo is particularly helpful, because you are looking down right onto the site of the station. It’s remarkable how nature has reclaimed things, leaving barely a trace that is visible from this distance.

 

Neither box, nor LC. The line went under the road in a bridge, between where those two buses are, round the back of that building (which if I’ve got my bearings right is  now the premises of a very upmarket hand-built bike frame maker called Windhover) in a very tight cutting.

 

SG in red, NG in yellow.

 

And in topo form:

 

TBH, the ideal route would be ever so slightly lower down, by LC, and then straight through what is now the visitor centre, but I don’t want to demolish any of that, even in my imagination!

 

When I’m next down, I’ll conduct further detailed survey to see whether there’s a good level that involves absolutely minimal demolition.

 

Nobody would want to tear down this sort of thing, would they?

 

Edited March 20 by Nearholmer

[phil_sutters]

On 04/03/2024 at 23:23, phil_sutters said:

There is a ford across this stream and some of the meander waters.

 

[phil_sutters]

A closer look at the buildings you referred to. I am not sure that their uses were the same in 2014.

Your line will of course need an attractive name for the publicity - Egret Line ?

Edited March 20 by phil_sutters

[5BarVT]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

More to the point though, this is a tiny model railway, built using off-the shelf track, to fit particular size baseboard modules, and all the points are fixed down now, so it is what it is.

More thinking aloud then!

Really off the wall (and I’d want some input from other engineers and operators to confirm I’m not raving . . .) operate the loop trap off the FPL lever, just leaving three ends on the point lever.

Or, more conventional, operate the siding traps off a separate lever and probably the single hand point too.  (Risk management - don’t want a guard/shunter forgetting and either running through traps after just swinging the hand points, or dropping off on mis set hand points after just operating the traps.)

i.e. for modelling purposes, an extra lever on the GF.
Paul.

[Nearholmer]

24 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

Your line will of course need an attractive name for the publicity

I’m trying to recall when BR started using catchy names for routes, and so far as I can remember, things just went by simple descriptives in the 1970s. I’m not even sure “coastway” was called that, until after a limited stop bus service called “coastliner” (iirc) was introduced. Can anyone else remember when lines got branded?

 

You've identified the bike place; Windover operate out of the same building as the bike hire, so the final building on the right, the one I’m going round the back of, must simply be a house.

[Mol_PMB]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m trying to recall when BR started using catchy names for routes, and so far as I can remember, things just went by simple descriptives in the 1970s. I’m not even sure “coastway” was called that, until after a limited stop bus service called “coastliner” (iirc) was introduced. Can anyone else remember when lines got branded?

 

You've identified the bike place; Windover operate out of the same building as the bike hire, so the final building on the right, the one I’m going round the back of, must simply be a house.

Agreed. And Egrets weren't common here in the 1970s - they're a recent import.

[Mol_PMB]

34 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

More thinking aloud then!

Really off the wall (and I’d want some input from other engineers and operators to confirm I’m not raving . . .) operate the loop trap off the FPL lever, just leaving three ends on the point lever.

Or, more conventional, operate the siding traps off a separate lever and probably the single hand point too.  (Risk management - don’t want a guard/shunter forgetting and either running through traps after just swinging the hand points, or dropping off on mis set hand points after just operating the traps.)

i.e. for modelling purposes, an extra lever on the GF.
Paul.

 

I'm not a signalling engineer, mostly a wheel/rail interface engineer and an amateur operator. So please take my comments with a fistful of salt and feel free to correct me.

There were definitely examples where a single lever worked both switch blades and an FPL, usually where there was a shortage of levers in the box to cater for an expansion. However, I think it was always the FPL on the same switch operated by the lever, rather than an FPL on a separate point end. It's not ideal as the switch blade movement occurs over a smaller part of the lever movement and is therefore harder to pull. Also there is the risk of damaging the FPL with the hard pull required for some points, if it's not perfectly aligned.

 

[Nearholmer]

19 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

they're a recent import

A recent self-spread, rather than import. Their range has increased massively in the past few decades, and I see them almost daily where I live now, fifty miles north of London now, whereas they seemed super-rare in Dussex when I was a kid.

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

There were definitely examples where a single lever worked both switch blades and an FPL

There was a whole breed of mechanisms designed specifically to do just that, called “economical FPLs”, first used I think on colonial railways, then adopted widely by light railway - I think they even get a particular mention in the BoT guidance about LRs. But, I think what you are talking about might be “home brew” versions created by railway S&T departments.

 

I think I’m heading for the loop point and loop trap being operated by one lever, and the two switches on the double-slip by another, with the FPL having its own lever. I still think that other point can be operated by a ground level, without risk of mashing the trap, because no shunt can approach it without the point and therefore the trap being reversed, but I think I will give it a place in the ground-frame, so that the shunter can control everything from there, while the guard looks after coupling. The other end of the double-slip definitely has to be worked directly by a hand level, because  EST&T need to use that when there are no BR bids present.

[phil_sutters]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

the final building on the right, the one I’m going round the back of, must simply be a house.

There's a very steep incline just to the left/north of the cottage. It is a ridge 35+metres high that slopes down to Litlington Road to the west and down to The Lane, the road into West Dean, to the north. Both are at river level plus a few feet. Why would you want to hack your way through a big chunk of chalk when you could go round. Southern generally seems to have tried to avoid major engineering works cutting through the Downs. The Exceat buildings were only given the protection of Listed status in 1981. Incidently this ain't one of the listed ones, but the green phone box across the road is. I don't know when it became green, but I have seen it red for a time since moving here.

Edited March 20 by phil_sutters

[Nearholmer]

26 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

Why would you want to hack your way through a big chunk of chalk when you could go round

‘Because I don’t want to demolish any of the buildings, even in my imagination.

 

Anyway, we needn’t face the question head-on, because that bit is “off scene”, unless I decide to expand the layout, which I doubt I will, since this has always been about getting the “highly portable layout” bug out of my system.

[Nearholmer]

8 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

A Crompton or ED would speed things up significantly!

When did the SR become a fully-fitted region? Can you dispense with the brake van? 

It would, and I’ve allowed for that in the track-plan, so it is an option.

 

I’m trying to work out the history of wagon types and brakes for the Holmethorpe sand trains, which I will use for inspiration. But, if it’s a shunting engine up front, the train needs a van for the guard, and I think probably a travelling shutter, to ride in.

 

I actually bought a sand wagon when I went to get some track-pins. It’s not exactly the right type, but it’s so close that I might see if I can find some more secondhand ones of these to use. I think it’s the Mainline model from the 1970s, still made by Dapol. First job on this one is obviously to replace “iron ore”, which is what they were all built for, with “sand”.

 

 

Paul Bartlett has collated oodles of info about the Holmethorpe wagons, but even that doesn’t seem to cover the wagons used pre-hoppers, some of which look suspiciously like coal wagons to me.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by Nearholmer

[Mol_PMB]

Plenty of iron ore hoppers were used to carry sand or stone while they still said iron ore on the side!

The Dapol model is imperfect dimensionally but captures the right feel, so would probably be fine for your purposes. 
BR built some sand wagons which were simple medium-sided open boxes with no doors at all. Not as tall as a coal/mineral wagon. But mineral wagons were used for pretty much every sort of mineral even if they weren’t really suitable. 
Can you point me towards a picture if the earlier wagons at Holmethorpe? 

[Nearholmer]

If you look at the Holmethorpe thread on here, there are a couple of shots of two women with a child in a pushchair looking at wagon labels on some (pre-TV-era Sunday afternoon stroll?); they appear in the background of various photis of ‘Dom’ and ‘Gervase’, and on Derek Hayward’s site in his Redhill set there are wagons that may be for sand, or possibly CE spoil. That Redhill set is crammed with nostalgia for me, because I used to trek all the way over there during school holidays to watch shunting with a pal (not that I was a dull child, you understand) and to see the WR freight train come in and do its thing.