Newton Ferrers for Noss Mayo - South Hams Railway Expands with Track & Signalling Problems

[cary hill]

As I have recently partially immobilised myself by dropping a small paving slab on my foot, I thought I would further develop my imagined South Hams Light Medium Railway network by designing a rather overblown terminus for the proposed, but probably wisely never built Newton Ferrers Branch, which would have made Yealmpton a junction station.

 

The terminus plan is predicated on the assumption that the planned South Hams Railway network was built in it's entirety, including the line from Dartmouth to through to Plymouth, as this will allow for excursion traffic from the Exeter direction to enjoy the delights of a Yealm cruise to the sea and up to Steer Point, as an alternative to a Dart cruise.

 

I should add that I have spent a very pleasant day walking the environs of Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo, so I have a good idea of the amount of willing suspension of disbelief and possible dredging needed to swallow most, or even part, of what follows:

 

Trackplan

 

 

Location Plan showing the approximate position of the 1906 planned station.

 

 

The trackplan, signalling ( including notes) and structures have been "borrowed" from a superficially suitable prototype, from the other end of the country and are, so far, essentially unaltered apart from:

 

Having to shorten the Long Siding (Headshunt), which apparently had capacity for up to 40 coaches(?) (which I don't I need or have room for) - however the headshunt now seems a little on the short side. I think it might be needed to shunt the yard independently.

 

One obvious fire risk has been removed.

 

Some peripheral stuctures have been removed or had their use changed.

 

Traffic patterns (1948-63?)

 

Thought I'd start in 1948 as Yealmpton will not need to close for good in 1947, because of continuing through traffic.

 

The winter service will be unexciting (not much demand for intensive local services) but:

 

Weekdays:

 

Reasonably sparse Autotrains/B Set service to Yealmpton Junction to meet, and connect with services to Plymouth and Dartmouth and beyond.

 

Early morning through-train to Plymouth and evening return.

 

Daily goods - in domestic coal and general merchandise - out timber, agricultural produce and fish(?) - not a huge population/industrial base evident in Newton Ferrers - other suggesions welcomed.

 

Weekends (except Summer weekends?)

 

Saturdays - largely as weekdays with a couple of extra services, perhaps including through coaches. Sunday service will be very sparse.

 

Summer weekends:

 

Several excursion/Sunday school trips etc., including some of those slightly bizarre Southern workings - Torrington to....., Bere Alston to..., for a bit of motive power variety.

 

Laira Bridge will have been strengthened, as it was badly damaged in WW2, but quickly repaired/rebuilt to carry greater weight as part of the D-Day preparations - stockpiling equipment and ammunition in darkest South Hams.

 

If I build this the exit will need flipping over as it cannot go through the garage wall into my neighbour's back garden, but the length and width are not a big problem, although a little compression will be both necessary and desirable.

 

I think I need help with suggestions for possible track rationalisation (e.g. too many crossovers?) and converting the signalling arrangements (which seem to work) to something more GWR-like, as the elevated ground signals and the starting signal for the excursion platform look a bit foreign to me - presumably to do with some real or imagined sighting issues?

 

Any help with the above will be much appreciated.

[The Stationmaster]

There do seem to be far too many crossovers; the access to the coal merchants sidings is - I think - maybe a bit too novel and in any case that siding partially blocks road access to the goods shed (which seems to have no road access at all?); why two yard cranes?; what is the platform next to the cattle dock?

 

The signalling needs a major overhaul especially the ground shunting signals which are rather non-GW to say the least (more than a hint of Lakeside by the look of it, especially as some of the lever number correspond exactly)! You need to decide when the layout was established to that form and signal it accordingly - to GW methodology - with far fewer signals for a kick-off as a lot of what you show as signalled would be hand points. But first have a go at reducing the crossovers to what is necessary by taking out No.34 and - don't forget - you need that long siding as a head shunt for the yard.

[BG John]

Shame it wasn't built, and still open (or with lots of remains) in the late 1970s, when I sometimes stayed at the River Yealm Hotel, when visiting Plymouth on business.

[cary hill]

There do seem to be far too many crossovers; the access to the coal merchants sidings is - I think - maybe a bit too novel and in any case that siding partially blocks road access to the goods shed (which seems to have no road access at all?); why two yard cranes?; what is the platform next to the cattle dock?

 

The signalling needs a major overhaul especially the ground shunting signals which are rather non-GW to say the least (more than a hint of Lakeside by the look of it, especially as some of the lever number correspond exactly)! You need to decide when the layout was established to that form and signal it accordingly - to GW methodology - with far fewer signals for a kick-off as a lot of what you show as signalled would be hand points. But first have a go at reducing the crossovers to what is necessary by taking out No.34 and - don't forget - you need that long siding as a head shunt for the yard.

 

I rather thought if that if you responded to my queries you would rumble pdq that this plan is a pretty direct "crib" of Lakeside and it's 1913 signalling arrangements

 

Sometime ago I stumbled across a rather old magazine article about Lakeside and scanned the plans for possible later use. It curved the "right way" for the Newton F site and put me half in mind of the business end of Kingswear, with the passenger and goods arrangements flipped, so I thought why not run with it as a starting point and see where it goes.

 

The coal siding can easily go as it is really the final remnant of the potentially unhappy locomotive shed arrangement at Lakeside with access to the goods shed being through the loco shed and was marked for loco coal.

 

Why two cranes? - I don't know as there doesn't seem to be much need for two them. I wonder if it is anything to do with timber handling, which was apparently a source of outward traffic in earlier days. I'll probably delete one of them, as I'm sure the envisaged relatively meagre freight traffic handled at Newton F won't merit two cranes.

 

I think I have misinterpreted the loading platform as it is partly a generous wide ramp up to the pen and partly a small level loading area.

 

It would seem that Lakeside, rather like the "real" Yealmpton branch was in slow decline following WW1 and, having located and re-read the article, it appears that crossover 34 and it's associated signals were removed before 1939 . There are some other other bits which I will pretend not to have read - things such as the sparse local passenger trains becoming summer seasonal only in 1938 and being finally withdrawn in 1947 (the same year as passenger traffic ceased on the Yealmpton Branch) - not at all helpful!

 

Presumably in rationalising the signalling you would not recommend regressing fully back to 1897 arrangements with just one ground signal at postion No.5 adjacent to the three-doll signal at the station throat, with all other moves being controlled by hand signals from the signalman(?) - sounds a bit dangerous. I'll see what I can do with the headshunt but hopefully I won't need all 712 yards as per Lakeside.

 

One other left-field point - would the GWR or BR(WR) ever break the mainline and slew it together with the line marked "disconnected boatyard spur"? Apparently this was done at Lakeside in the relatively rare event of a new boat or shipping materials arriving as it was cheaper than maintaining a little used set of points - is it a Furness Railway thing or more common than I think? Not sure how it could be modelled though.

 

 

Thanks for the help so far.

[The Stationmaster]

I think for signalling you need to settle on sometime in the inter-wars period - unless you fancy any of the more interesting pre-1920s signals for connections to sidings and yards etc (but they could still be there if everything is basically 1930ish style signalling as lots of old signals lasted) You could go 1897 but I think that in reality the nature of the place is such that it would have been 'dealt with' signalling wise in the early '30s.

 

Incidentally crossover 34 has gone from the LMS signalbox diagram for Lakeside and although it is undated its style and condition suggest that it dates from the 1930s or thereabouts. Another feature from it which would not appear on the GWR (or which only appeared very rarely) is the mechanical release for the ground frames - they would either be worked from the signalbox or released electrically.

 

And yes - there were instances of sidings being slued although I suspect a permanent point would have been more common on the GWR - at Lakeside nowadays the boats are simply moved across the railway on a temporary level crossing and that is a common winter period event so I reckon that slipway would have been used more often than your source suggested?

[Black Sheep]

Just stumbled across this as I review my old plans for building Lakeside in the late 1940's / early 50's.

 

Somewhere I have various plans from Barrow-In-Furness record office for station buildings.

 

Did you get any further than the planning?

[cary hill]

 

Did you get any further than the planning?

 

Not really as I decided the whole premise was too ludicrous even for me. Probably for the best if Lakeside stays where it is for the time being, although I do still like the trackplan and location.

[Black Sheep]

I'm getting more and more tempted at building it, even though I really fancy a roundy-roundy (planned and started two threads on here about them)

 

If I can find the track plan I've got laid out in 2mm I'll see if it'll fit in the extension of the house instead of waiting for getting a loft conversion done.

[cary hill]

I'm getting more and more tempted at building it, even though I really fancy a roundy-roundy (planned and started two threads on here about them)

 

If I can find the track plan I've got laid out in 2mm I'll see if it'll fit in the extension of the house instead of waiting for getting a loft conversion done.

 

In 2mm I think you might have a decent chance of fitting the essential character of Lakeside in if you have around 10 feet or so of length to play with.

 

My problem was planning 00 in gauge and trying to fit a sort of flipped Kingswear (i.e. with the platform lines rather than the goods lines being nearest to the quayside and large pleasure cruisers calling instead of collier ships for Torquay gasworks) into the available space.

 

Using Lakeside as a trackplan it ended up as too sprawling and with an extra platform - perhaps I should have just flipped the real Kingswear in the first place but I already knew that wouldn't fit the space.

[Joseph_Pestell]

There do seem to be far too many crossovers; the access to the coal merchants sidings is - I think - maybe a bit too novel and in any case that siding partially blocks road access to the goods shed (which seems to have no road access at all?); why two yard cranes?; what is the platform next to the cattle dock?

 

The signalling needs a major overhaul especially the ground shunting signals which are rather non-GW to say the least (more than a hint of Lakeside by the look of it, especially as some of the lever number correspond exactly)! You need to decide when the layout was established to that form and signal it accordingly - to GW methodology - with far fewer signals for a kick-off as a lot of what you show as signalled would be hand points. But first have a go at reducing the crossovers to what is necessary by taking out No.34 and - don't forget - you need that long siding as a head shunt for the yard.

Do you mean fire risk? Or explosion risk?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Do you mean fire risk? Or explosion risk?

As Stationmaster found this indecipherable, I meant was there a gunpowder store at Lakeside as there was at Windermere (where it was located just by the ashpit of the locoshed)?

[The Stationmaster]

As Stationmaster found this indecipherable, I meant was there a gunpowder store at Lakeside as there was at Windermere (where it was located just by the ashpit of the locoshed)?

Ah, all is now clearer and I don't honestly know the answer to that one but I can't recall noticing what might once have been such a building when I visited Lakeside back in the 1960s  (the Explosives Regulations would, I believe, have required it to be removed prior to the 1930s period - the normal requirement with magazines is that they should be sited remotely because of the risk of explosion).