Cambrian and GWR 0 Gauge layout -Revised Plans

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks again Mike. Stabling the loco overnight at Penmaenpool does make some sense. I assume that Cambrian staff would either keep the fire ticking over or re-light it early while the GWR crew had a nights Kip if they were on duty the following morning.

I mentoned having the Public timetable for 1904. Apparently this had been published as a booklet and it seems there maybe some WTT info as well. I found a bookseller with a copy and decided £13 was worth a punt even if it adds little to the info from elsewhere. I await its arrival.

 

I also found in one of the WRRC journals a document from 1898 advertising times to the welsh coast from Leeds Liverpool and Manchester however the route was via Machynlleth. Barmouth could be reached in 5hrs 40 min from Manchester. I doubt the Dogelley route would be much faster. I suppose from the Cambrian point of view  via Machynlleth would give a greater share of the fares to the Cambrian whereas the GW probably gave you a ticket via Dolgelley unless you specified otherwise.

Don

You need to be careful with Pre-Group routes especially that early as it would pre-date any pooling schemes.  The route via Machynlleth makes a lot of sense as it would have been LNWR to Whitchurch and thence Cambrian via Oswestry and Welshpool thus totally avoiding any GWR involvement except in respect of anything for the joint line section north of Whitchurch.

[Donw]

You need to be careful with Pre-Group routes especially that early as it would pre-date any pooling schemes.  The route via Machynlleth makes a lot of sense as it would have been LNWR to Whitchurch and thence Cambrian via Oswestry and Welshpool thus totally avoiding any GWR involvement except in respect of anything for the joint line section north of Whitchurch.

 

Reading between the lines in C Green's book the GWR seems to have been the driving force for development of the Ruabon route. There are references to the board agreeing to put on extra trains to match additional GWR ones. The Cambrian board was of course desperate to avoid the GWR taking up running rights to Barmouth and reducing their share of the profits.

There were services from Euston and Paddington which met at Wolverhampton and run through jointly to Welshpool before being carried forward by the Cambrian.

Don

[ChrisN]

Reading between the lines in C Green's book the GWR seems to have been the driving force for development of the Ruabon route. There are references to the board agreeing to put on extra trains to match additional GWR ones. The Cambrian board was of course desperate to avoid the GWR taking up running rights to Barmouth and reducing their share of the profits.

There were services from Euston and Paddington which met at Wolverhampton and run through jointly to Welshpool before being carried forward by the Cambrian.

Don

 

Don,

I have to admit that even though I have looked through Bradshaws the first time I did has influenced my understanding.  I had a couple of hours in the Kew records office with a copy from early 1895 and I did not see that the trains from Euston and Paddington were joined at Wolverhampton.  It appeared that you arrived at different times at Barmouth depending on where you left from, and depending on when you left you would get to the two stations at different times.  I will need to go and check.

[Donw]

Don,

I have to admit that even though I have looked through Bradshaws the first time I did has influenced my understanding.  I had a couple of hours in the Kew records office with a copy from early 1895 and I did not see that the trains from Euston and Paddington were joined at Wolverhampton.  It appeared that you arrived at different times at Barmouth depending on where you left from, and depending on when you left you would get to the two stations at different times.  I will need to go and check.

 

Look at the Whitchurch to Aberystwyth page part way down the page There are lines showing Departure times from Euston and PAddington, then times from Birmingham New St and Snow Hill then a single time at Shrewsbury where it is a single train.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

Reading between the lines in C Green's book the GWR seems to have been the driving force for development of the Ruabon route. There are references to the board agreeing to put on extra trains to match additional GWR ones. The Cambrian board was of course desperate to avoid the GWR taking up running rights to Barmouth and reducing their share of the profits.

There were services from Euston and Paddington which met at Wolverhampton and run through jointly to Welshpool before being carried forward by the Cambrian.

Don

Where did they join them in the Wolves area Don?  The only connection I can find between the GWR and the LNWR at Wolves was at Bushbury Sth Jcn, 2 miles north of the GWR station. And to get from there to the LNWR station would mean going further north to Stour Valley Jcn then setting back over 2 miles to the LNWR stations so it would be quite a rigamarole for shunting a through coach - and not as quick, probably, as walking from one station to the other!  

 

The only places where the two companies effectively shared access to reasonable size station in that part of the world were at Wellington and Salop.

[Donw]

First rule when questioned check your source and it looks at though I have misinterpreted it.

Quoting from R.W.Kidner's book

'At this time both the GWR and the LNWR ran a 9:30 am from London ending up as the same train at Aberystwyth at 4:20pm. The train from Euston arrived at Wolverhampton (Queen St) 20 minutes ahead of the GWR train at Low Level: the combned train ran non-stop from Wellington to Welshpool via the Abbey foregate loop at Shrewsbury'

 

Which seems to indicate that the two were combined at Wellington. It was the staement of the difference in times at Wolverhampton which confused me. The reason was of course to allow seperate paths  along the joint line to Wellington.  In the chapter there is mention of a Royal train on the 25th June 1896 it was an LNWR train and the CR provided a pilot to travel on the GWR engine from Buttington to Welshpool where a CR engine took over.

Another Royal Train from the Prince of Wales investiture at Caernarvon in 1911. The LNWR train was hauled from Avon Wen to Machynlleth double headed by two 4-4-0s with special dispensation for double heading over the coast line and additional banking up Talerddig.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

First rule when questioned check your source and it looks at though I have misinterpreted it.

Quoting from R.W.Kidner's book

'At this time both the GWR and the LNWR ran a 9:30 am from London ending up as the same train at Aberystwyth at 4:20pm. The train from Euston arrived at Wolverhampton (Queen St) 20 minutes ahead of the GWR train at Low Level: the combned train ran non-stop from Wellington to Welshpool via the Abbey foregate loop at Shrewsbury'

 

Which seems to indicate that the two were combined at Wellington. It was the staement of the difference in times at Wolverhampton which confused me. The reason was of course to allow seperate paths  along the joint line to Wellington.  In the chapter there is mention of a Royal train on the 25th June 1896 it was an LNWR train and the CR provided a pilot to travel on the GWR engine from Buttington to Welshpool where a CR engine took over.

Another Royal Train from the Prince of Wales investiture at Caernarvon in 1911. The LNWR train was hauled from Avon Wen to Machynlleth double headed by two 4-4-0s with special dispensation for double heading over the coast line and additional banking up Talerddig.

Don

The LNWR train would definitely need a head start from Wolverhampton as it had a longer route, via Stafford, compared with the GWR's relatively direct route from Wolverhampton to Wellington.  The line was GWR/LNWR Joint from Wellington onwards.

[Donw]

I keep forgetting that. When I lived in the area The train from Wellington ran through Wolverhampton and down to Euston.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

I keep forgetting that. When I lived in the area The train from Wellington ran through Wolverhampton and down to Euston.

Don

It's easily done Don.  Years of closures and alterations have created a somewhat different railway (where there is one at all) and traffic movement patterns have changed out of all recognition.

 

I remember at a very early stage in my railway career wondering why some of the 'routeing' stations on tickets were listed as such and it's only when you suss out all the potential old routes that you start to realise why places like Shifnal (GWR) and Peakirk (LNER) were shown as routeing stations - for example Shifnal allowed a heck of a lot of choice before getting onto a common route to Chester.

 

Sorry to divert, might get round to the rest of the TT today if other tasks progress sufficiently.

[Donw]

The early MAil and Goods from Ruabon Class B in Mike WTT  is mentioned as being class F in 1907 source the Foxline Kear and Jones book. So either the passenger coaches had been dropped by then or the authors were confused because the train was class F in later years. With services increasing up to WW1 it seems odd if they took the coach off unless  a whole train perhaps slightly later replaced it. More confusion.

I have been studying the SRS info that Mike discovered with helpful this is not correct notes. It is clear that some signals were slotted for example the West Starter and the East Home were a slotted signal so I need to consider how the slotting was worked and what I would replicate in model form. Obviously making an electric signal only operate when the levers in both boxes are thrown should be fairly easy. not so sure about a mechanical version.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

The early MAil and Goods from Ruabon Class B in Mike WTT  is mentioned as being class F in 1907 source the Foxline Kear and Jones book. So either the passenger coaches had been dropped by then or the authors were confused because the train was class F in later years. With services increasing up to WW1 it seems odd if they took the coach off unless  a whole train perhaps slightly later replaced it. More confusion.

I have been studying the SRS info that Mike discovered with helpful this is not correct notes. It is clear that some signals were slotted for example the West Starter and the East Home were a slotted signal so I need to consider how the slotting was worked and what I would replicate in model form. Obviously making an electric signal only operate when the levers in both boxes are thrown should be fairly easy. not so sure about a mechanical version.

Don

An electric slot is of course simplicity itself (particularly for someone of your background ) and an overscale mechanical slot shouldn't prove too difficult.  The problem with doing a near scale working slot, even in 7mm scale, is - I think - going to be getting sufficient weight to operate the 'drop off' part of the mechanism but you could possibly do that below baseboard level.

 

No TT advance today sorry Don and you will be competing with Mr Turner for my time tomorrow - but you are not forgotten.

[Donw]

A slot is just a logical 'AND' function. It can be done with relays or electronics, which ever takes your fancy.

 

I was thinking perhaps an extra pole on the switch but the idea of an AND gate sounds good. It is a long time since I played with such things. I actually have a hankering for a proper lever frame with locking (if I can get one to work properly!). I do enjoy using the one on Maristow. I would probably use it to operate switches to electrically operate the signals and turnouts, mechanical linkages not being my strong point.

 

I am coming to the idea that with two people one  operating the GW box and running the GW trains and the other the Cambrian box and trains it could be quite interesting. A third to operate the fiddle yard would be handy. As yet I have no idea who might come and operate, so it may be me moving from box to box  most of the time. Although as nothing ran straight through it would not be a problems ( provided I could just pull off the signal and allow a train to circle - just for testing you understand).

Don

[Donw]

The logical extension (pun intended.....) is to install full interlocking. There are experts on here who can help with the development of the locking tables. For me there is nothing worse than being able to set up conflictingly moves and pulling the signals off.

By chance, I have been reading back issues of MRJ. In No. 158, there is a photo of the frame built by Jas Millam for his 3mm layout Three Mills. It refers to his construction article in No. 144 where he builds a ground frame for his S scale layout. He simply builds and fits prototype style levers to toggle switches.

 

If you can understand logic tables you shouldn't have trouble with a locking table it is turning it into a locking frame that is difficult when the aim is minimise the number of lockng bars. However making it all to the required standard. Moderatec will produce a locking frame for you but I am not so impressed with their levers. Bob's frame on Maristow has proper levers where the catch handle works and apart from the ease of pulling them does feel like a proper frame. Mind you there are some photos of the inside of the Cambrain box at Barmouth Jcn and the frame looks somewhat odd with the levers stood vertical in the normal position.

 

I should have MRJ144 somewhere however making all the levers myself could come into the life's too short category.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

I think the Cambrian used Duttons for their signalling - they definitely had Duttons frames in some places and it sounds as if Barmouth was one of them, a picture of teh Cambrian 'box at Dolgelly would soon answer that one.

 

As far as Dolgelly is concerned you are lucky in that the two sketches on the SRS site include the lever leads so you can work out some of the locking very quickly from that (e.g. Lever one at Dolgelly East was released by 9,8, 3, and 2 -  because 8 locked 9, and 9 + 8 released 2.

 

Locking is based on a fairly straightforward set of rules - the only problem comes in the way individual Company practice applied some of those rules or added some of its own but, subject to understanding the way some things might have been done at that time, the locking for both 'boxes at Dolgelly would have been fairly simple as you couldn't do much else with some of the mechanical locking of that time.

[richbrummitt]

If you can understand logic tables you shouldn't have trouble with a locking table it is turning it into a locking frame that is difficult when the aim is minimise the number of lockng bars. However making it all to the required standard. Moderatec will produce a locking frame for you but I am not so impressed with their levers. Bob's frame on Maristow has proper levers where the catch handle works and apart from the ease of pulling them does feel like a proper frame. Mind you there are some photos of the inside of the Cambrain box at Barmouth Jcn and the frame looks somewhat odd with the levers stood vertical in the normal position.

 

I should have MRJ144 somewhere however making all the levers myself could come into the life's too short category.

Don

 

I asked Modratec to supply just the interlocking parts and they were happy to do this based on my locking files (the software to build the files is available on the website and reasonably easy to get the hang of). The proprietor was extremely helpful, answering all my questions and I subsequently ordered just the interlocking. It's actually most of a complete kit waiting in a drawer for me to make it and it does take all the headache out of moving from a locking table to a mechanical reality. I built two of the lever frames that can be obtained through the S4 society that will be fixed to the locking (once built). These build well and have microswitch mountings built in. They are used to electronically control slow acting turnout motors using what is effectively a split rail supply from two wall wart type supplies with the additional contacts on the motors being used to change the crossing polarity and route the power onwards through the rails beyond the switch. The result will be that you cannot move the train anywhere that the signals are not set because the rails are not live except for the route as controlled by the interlocking. 

[Donw]

I think the Cambrian used Duttons for their signalling - they definitely had Duttons frames in some places and it sounds as if Barmouth was one of them, a picture of teh Cambrian 'box at Dolgelly would soon answer that one.

 

As far as Dolgelly is concerned you are lucky in that the two sketches on the SRS site include the lever leads so you can work out some of the locking very quickly from that (e.g. Lever one at Dolgelly East was released by 9,8, 3, and 2 -  because 8 locked 9, and 9 + 8 released 2.

 

Locking is based on a fairly straightforward set of rules - the only problem comes in the way individual Company practice applied some of those rules or added some of its own but, subject to understanding the way some things might have been done at that time, the locking for both 'boxes at Dolgelly would have been fairly simple as you couldn't do much else with some of the mechanical locking of that time.

 

Thanks Mike, Green's Coast Lines Vol 2 from Wild Swan has a photo of the interior of the north box at Barmouth Jcn circa 1918.  Dolgelly's box seems rather camera shy. I have been studying the sketches and can make sense of it but there are some things that seem odd the notes saying this diagram is incorrect may be true. I will try to draw it up clearly and identify the bits I am unsure about. I regret my knowledge of the early locking systems is poor.

It still seems odd to me that the Cambrain would be permitted to supply and presumably man a signal box controlling part of a GWR station. The Cambrain used Tylers Tablet system on the line but the GWR seems to have insisted on a Spagnoletti instrument presumably for the two boxes at Dolgelley to communicate. I cannot see me modeling that and who could interpret the signals (basically Morse). I had one friend who worked with Morse asked how he decoded messages he said 'oh you learn the words like tunes stop would be de de de  da  da da da  de da de' a step too far on a model I think especially if the boxes are so close!

Don

[Donw]

A friend of mine has several lever frames on his large O gauge layout.  They operate micro switches for electgrical operation of points and siganls.  There is no interlocking though    I'll ask what they are, but he may have had them for years and they could well be unobtainable. For his main control panel, he reverted to toggle swithches, but as that frame is 50+ levers, I think that is justified.  

 

On my layout, I used toggle switches and used colour toggle covers (from Squires) to indicated function: Red - stop signals, Black - points and Blue for points with economic FPL.  I was not going to have separate levers for FPLs and  as mine is a Light Railway under the terms of the 1896 act, that is my excuse!!  I do not have a signal box either, just a gound frame.  The Tylers No 7 instrument is assumed to be in the booking office!!  (Ought to model that....)

 

I think I may use rows of switches as a temporary measure so I can test the track layout before installing an interlocked frame.  I am not sure when the economic FPLs came in the diagrams for Dolgelley show lever nos for the fpls.

Don

[Donw]

I asked Modratec to supply just the interlocking parts and they were happy to do this based on my locking files (the software to build the files is available on the website and reasonably easy to get the hang of). The proprietor was extremely helpful, answering all my questions and I subsequently ordered just the interlocking. It's actually most of a complete kit waiting in a drawer for me to make it and it does take all the headache out of moving from a locking table to a mechanical reality. I built two of the lever frames that can be obtained through the S4 society that will be fixed to the locking (once built). These build well and have microswitch mountings built in. They are used to electronically control slow acting turnout motors using what is effectively a split rail supply from two wall wart type supplies with the additional contacts on the motors being used to change the crossing polarity and route the power onwards through the rails beyond the switch. The result will be that you cannot move the train anywhere that the signals are not set because the rails are not live except for the route as controlled by the interlocking. 

 

Rich I do have the moderatec software although it may need updating I wonder if it can cope with slotted signals. The purchase of Moderatec locking parts to go with a different frame sounds like a good idea. how did you get on with the S4 frame.

I am planning to use DCC on the layout and have it all live so power routing via turnouts and signals seems inappropriate. Besides I rather feel Drivers should follow the signals as on  a real railway. It also allows the odd move not included in the signalling which would be under hand signals from the Signalman. I have seen some poor operating on systems with pwer routing. The speed control control gets turned up when nothing happens there is frantic throwing of switches followed by the train taking off like a scalded cat. As there will be a lot of engine changes going on as the train gets transferred across so DCC may make things simpler.

Last I heard you were moving. Is Littlemore up and running again?

Don

[alanbuttler]

Hi Don, after looking at the pictures of the platform box at Dolgelley I think it might be a Mackenzie & Holland, not a Dutton which might explain things. They look similar but the Cambrian Dutton boxes had some subtle differences. It looks as though the old Cambrian box the other side the bridge must have been removed at some point quite early on, I've seen a few wide shots of the approach from the goods yard end and the signal box isn't there.

Edited November 5, 2014 by alanbuttler

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Mike, Green's Coast Lines Vol 2 from Wild Swan has a photo of the interior of the north box at Barmouth Jcn circa 1918.  Dolgelly's box seems rather camera shy. I have been studying the sketches and can make sense of it but there are some things that seem odd the notes saying this diagram is incorrect may be true. I will try to draw it up clearly and identify the bits I am unsure about. I regret my knowledge of the early locking systems is poor.

It still seems odd to me that the Cambrain would be permitted to supply and presumably man a signal box controlling part of a GWR station. The Cambrain used Tylers Tablet system on the line but the GWR seems to have insisted on a Spagnoletti instrument presumably for the two boxes at Dolgelley to communicate. I cannot see me modeling that and who could interpret the signals (basically Morse). I had one friend who worked with Morse asked how he decoded messages he said 'oh you learn the words like tunes stop would be de de de  da  da da da  de da de' a step too far on a model I think especially if the boxes are so close!

Don

As it was double line between the two 'boxes a tablet etc type system would not be used but a double line block system would be in operation.  in many resppects perfectly natural for the GWR to ask for its system to be used although I do wonder if it had any Tyers double line instruments elsewhere at that time (it definitely had them post 1923 but they could well have been inherited from other companies?).  

 

But a new/revised installation in the early 1890s would, I think, almost inevitably see the GWR asking for its own system to be installed as it was a known and reliable quantity using instruments of a pattern that remained in use in some places into the 1970s (and which being an in-house design were no doubt cheaper than buying from a contractor).

 

Block bell signals are relatively easy to learn and remember if you happen to be working with them all the time - definitely very much simpler than morse code.

[Donw]

Hi Don, after looking at the pictures of the platform box at Dolgelley I think it might be a Mackenzie & Holland, not a Dutton which might explain things. They look similar but the Cambrian Dutton boxes had some subtle differences. It looks as though the old Cambrian box the other side the bridge must have been removed at some point quite early on, I've seen a few wide shots of the approach from the goods yard end and the signal box isn't there.

 

In 1922 the GWR took over and with the need to change engines as they could work through to Barmouth the layout and the signalling was revised. The new box by the turntable was built. The GWR one on the platform was retained for other purposes and presumably the Cambrian one was removed whether is was used elsewhere, retained for spares or scrapped I know not. It would be nice to find one photo.

Don

[alanbuttler]

In 1922 the GWR took over and with the need to change engines as they could work through to Barmouth the layout and the signalling was revised. The new box by the turntable was built. The GWR one on the platform was retained for other purposes and presumably the Cambrian one was removed whether is was used elsewhere, retained for spares or scrapped I know not. It would be nice to find one photo.

Don

 

Great, that makes sense then.  I've asked a chap who might know something of the Cambrian box, I'll let you know if he comes back with owt.

[Donw]

I have been trying to understand the signalling records which Mike uncovered. I have redrawn them  together as it is easier to understand the operation. Below that are a number of oservations, deductions and suppositions. If anyone can add comments I would be grateful. Obviously these days ex Cambrain employees are rather rare but perhaps someone has read documents or accounts of how things were.

 

 

 

Comments:

 

1. There is no section bewteen the two boxes the starter from one box is the home signal for the next and slotted so both boxes need to pull the signals off.

 

2. The Cambrian can access the Up platform (top in the diagram) without crossing into the East box section. Whereas the GWR cannot enter the Down platform without crossing into the West Box section. There is however a ticket platfom  alongside the loop before the platform.

 

3. The East Box is shown alongside the Up line ahead of the platform. However photographs show clearly a box on the Up platform which is referred to as having been retained for other purposes when the GWR changed the layout and built a new box. Yet the diagram is marked with the positions and yardages of the signals which seem to indicate the position is correct and not a simple error of drawing. The only explanation I can think is that a new box was provided at some stage in a new position so I must try to dig further.

 

4. The East box slotted down starter is shown as lever three. There is also a slotted distant sharing the post with signal 2 the down home. Would both be on the same lever?

 

5. The West Box bracket signal to the west of the road bridge has a starter 19 and a small signal 16 for the crossover into the yard. There is a bracket signal with equivalent distants shown to the east of the bridge sharing the same numbers. Would this be normal?

 

6. There is a FPL 10 shown which is indcated to protect turnouts 9 & 11.

 

7. The Catch point marked on the diagram as weighted on the original diagram would have prevented any wrong road movement on the up loop as there seems to be no lever attached.

 

8. On the original diagram for the West box there is a note to the effect that 10 & 12 stand normal for the up route which sounds incorrect  11 would stand normal and tweleve would be reversed. I would have though 10 the FPL would be reversed to lock the route for any passenger train. Since there is a note of the diagram that alterations were in hand I suspect this comment is due to this and 11  was later changed to lever 12.

 

 

No doubt I shall find further puzzles as  try to work it all out.

Don

[richbrummitt]

I do have the moderatec software although it may need updating I wonder if it can cope with slotted signals.

The purchase of Moderatec locking parts to go with a different frame sounds like a good idea. how did you get on with the S4 frame.

Last I heard you were moving. Is Littlemore up and running again?

 

I don't know about slotted signals but I found the proprietor knowledgeable and helpful - best to ask if you're serious about it.

The S4 frame is well thought out and easily built if you have experience with etched kits. In my opinion the additional turned handles are a must but you are left to source your own duster

That was last year: we moved just before Christmas. Littlemore has not been up since then, although I haven't been idle, as my blog might suggest.

[Donw]

I don't know about slotted signals but I found the proprietor knowledgeable and helpful - best to ask if you're serious about it.

The S4 frame is well thought out and easily built if you have experience with etched kits. In my opinion the additional turned handles are a must but you are left to source your own duster

That was last year: we moved just before Christmas. Littlemore has not been up since then, although I haven't been idle, as my blog might suggest.

 

Thanks Rich. I wasn't acusing you of being idle just interested if you had found room for the layout. I would rather like to see you progress with it. I understand those nice Horseboxes at the AGM were yours very nice.

Don