Does this situation need a trap point or not?

[2ManySpams]

My proposed layout, Pencarrow Bridge, is at detailed track planning stage and I'm keen to get track and signalling details right.

 

My layout represents the terminus of a low grade LSWR branchline that is signalled (think Bodmin North to Boscarne Jct). Coming into it is a freight only lightly laid mineral branch serving clayworks and various other sidings. It is to be worked as the Wenfordbridge to Dunmere Jct line under single engine rules (whatever they are called). It will have no signalling or controlled road crossings and access to the branch will be gated off the 'mainline'. The gate position is shown as the post-it line (C ) on the picture below.

 

So ladies and gentlefolk, would this line need a catchpoint? and, if so, would it be on the freight-only side (A ) of the gate or the 'mainline' side (B )??

 

After a bit more looking through books covering the nearby LSWR and B&W lines...

The single same 1933 photo of the Grogley Halt gated entry to the Ruthern Bridge line appears in all the books I have. The only other shots show the location after the siding was lifted.

There was also a short siding off the LSWR line just West of Nanstallon. This was also gated and had a catch point on the LSWR side of the gate. It was however a straight stub rather than the kickback affair I have and existing at Grogley.

 

There was also, of course, Dunmere Jct where the the Wenford Mineral line met the LSWR line to Bodmin. This was also gated and also had a catch point on the LSWR side of the gate. The next set of points was, however a good 1/2mile along the mineral line. 

 

Based on observation and general conjecture I'm erring towards a catch point note being required owing to the proximity of the clay line siding point acting as the same. I hold my hand up and openly say I know nothing of track / signalling prototype and therefore would appreciate views from the wider flock.

 

To add a bit more context to the layout specific situation I've taken a few more photos showing how the gated zone fits in with the wider area:

 

 

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

Chris,

 

...if there is an option to protect the main line by leaving the points 'normal' for the siding, then why provide catch points?

 

This assumes that those points are 'worked' by the signalbox as I would expect in such a situation.

 

Dave

[DavidBird]

I'm not at all knowledgeable about LSWR practice but heres my thoughts

 

Yes it needs a trap point (Catch points are to catch runaways on gradients)

 

I assume the "clay line" continues through the ruler to the left and the "siding" is dead end after a short distance.

 

Either move the gate to where the ruler is, or put a trap point at "B".

 

Just my suggestions.

[2ManySpams]

Yes it needs a trap point (Catch points are to catch runaways on gradients)

 

 

Trap point - duly noted and title changed.

 

Keep the thoughts coming folks. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I'd go for a trap point (marked in blue) on the LSWR side of the gate with the point rodding (in red) connecting with the associated point on the mainline. The trap point would generally be on the "railway" side of the boundary as it would be owned and the responsibility of the mainline railway company. Track beyond the gate being for those private owners to maintain (unless they had an agreement with the mainline co).

[ELTEL]

Ask the master CPH at the weekend

 

Tel

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

Chris,

 

I've checked 'An Historical Survey of Selected Southern Stations' for you and of the half dozen Devon/Cornwall locations featured I can only find catch points inserted in this type of situation at Crediton (presumably because the siding points involved were not worked by the box), the other five locations didn't use catch points as such...instead the siding points (worked by the box) were simply left 'normal' towards the buffer stop in the siding, rather than towards the main line as protection.

 

Dave

[The Stationmaster]

A trap point is already there - as noted above by Torr Giffard.  However the normal arrangement seems to have been to have the trap on the Railway Co's side of the boundary - or rather I haven't come across one where it isn't/wasn't and the reason for that is that the gate marks the boundary of ownership and, usually, of maintenance responsibility as well.

 

So that goes back to putting it at C (as done by Peter, Western Sunset, above) although you could also move the gate to use the point which TG has suggested although you might not like the idea of moving the boundary?  But I do wonder if there is enough clearance where you have currently got the gate, which might mean moving the siding further away from the LSWR.

[2ManySpams]

I'd go for a trap point (marked in blue) on the LSWR side of the gate with the point rodding (in red) connecting with the associated point on the mainline. The trap point would generally be on the "railway" side of the boundary as it would be owned and the responsibility of the mainline railway company. Track beyond the gate being for those private owners to maintain (unless they had an agreement with the mainline co).

 

Thanks Peter, you make the valid point that the mainline protection depends upon the point on the mineral railway being against the mainline. In this period both lines would be worked by BR(S) and therefore there would be no split of responsibility. 

 

I'm also wondering if the mineral railway point could be physically worked by the LSWR station ground frame on the platform end. Perhaps the mineral line point would have probably been operated by point lever and a trap point installed.

[2ManySpams]

A trap point is already there - as noted above by Torr Giffard.  However the normal arrangement seems to have been to have the trap on the Railway Co's side of the boundary - or rather I haven't come across one where it isn't/wasn't and the reason for that is that the gate marks the boundary of ownership and, usually, of maintenance responsibility as well.

 

So that goes back to putting it at C (as done by Peter, Western Sunset, above) although you could also move the gate to use the point which TG has suggested although you might not like the idea of moving the boundary?  But I do wonder if there is enough clearance where you have currently got the gate, which might mean moving the siding further away from the LSWR.

 

Ah Mr Stationmaster sir, some added weight to the trap at C position.

 

I'll check clearances tomorrow evening but taking the scenic considerations on board too, the gate will be at C rather than that suggested by TG. It looks like if clearances are tight I'll need to move the siding over a tad.   

[bécasse]

The situation at Dunmere Junction was unique* because the Wenfordbridge branch, despite its length, was not worked as a single line but as a siding, and so the gate marked the transition between running line and siding status rather than an ownership/maintenance boundary. Trains to Wenfordbridge took the Bodmin North tablet at Boscarne Junction, which was then used to unlock Dunmere Junction GF and the gate to allow the train to enter the branch, the gate and GF were then relocked "normal" while the train waited beyond the gate, and the tablet was then returned by hand to Boscarne Junction SB (to allow other trains to run between Boscarne and Bodmin North while the train was on the Wenfordbridge branch). The procedure was reversed for the return journey.

 

I have checked the diagrams for Dunmere Junction GF and Boscarne Junction SB and they both show that the trap point at the exit from the Wenfordbridge branch was most unusually fitted with a facing point lock, despite the fact that all the points on the branch beyond the gate were worked only by hand-lever, as befitted its siding status. To further complicate matters, passengers were allowed to travel on the Wenfordbridge freight, although it was never advertised, wasn't "fitted" and wasn't shown as "mixed" in the WTT, tickets (first class only!) being sold on request at Wadebridge booking office.

 

The situation on your layout is obviously complicated by having a siding very close to the "junction", so close that it wouldn't be possible to work it while the train was locked (and gated) on the branch. On balance, therefore, I believe that this siding would have formed the "trap" for the branch and that the gate would have been the branch side of the toe of these points (ownership and maintenance responsibility being the same both sides of the gate). There would have been a "yellow" signal guarding these points in the facing direction, either a yellow arm Westinghouse dolly, perhaps elevated, or, just possibly, a yellow full-size stop signal (yellow instead of red, black instead of white one the arm). I will leave others to debate whether the point should have a fpl as at Dunmere, if it did it would bolt only toward the main line.

 

* The situation had once been mirrored at Grogley Junction for the line to Ruthernbridge lifted in the 1930s.

[The Stationmaster]

In the interests of historical accuracy both the Southern Railway 1934 Appendix and the BR WR Sectional Appendices for 1969 and 1973 show the Wenford Bridge branch as being worked as a single line - in 1934 it was One Engine In Steam and clearly at some time after WR takeover it was converted to Table C2 working, i.e. it was not a siding (unless that was the way it happen to have been worked at some time prior to 1934 of course?).

 

The purpose of any gate at Dunmere Jcn was of course quite simple - it served to fence the railway, the Wenford Bridge line being unfenced.

[2ManySpams]

In the interests of historical accuracy both the Southern Railway 1934 Appendix and the BR WR Sectional Appendices for 1969 and 1973 show the Wenford Bridge branch as being worked as a single line - in 1934 it was One Engine In Steam and clearly at some time after WR takeover it was converted to Table C2 working, i.e. it was not a siding (unless that was the way it happen to have been worked at some time prior to 1934 of course?).

 

The purpose of any gate at Dunmere Jcn was of course quite simple - it served to fence the railway, the Wenford Bridge line being unfenced.

Mike, thanks for this. It is indeed my intention for my clay line to be operated 'unfenced' as per the Wenford and Ruthernbridge lines. The left most point off my mineral line to the clay siding is most likely to be incorporated into a paved area used by road vehicles as per the situation at Hellandbridge. I had in mind this point being operated locally by lever and not by the station box.

 

We're getting some really good fact based discussion on this complex issue now and I'm very pleased I asked the question before building the boards or laying track!

 

From everything folk are saying, bearingin mind the reasonably unique nature of the situation I'm trying to mimic, it looks like a trap at B operated from the station box and an gate at C (with improved clearances) could be the best historical / technical solution.

 

Thanks to all for continued thoughts on this subject that's very new to me.

[2ManySpams]

As long as the turnouts are all controlled by the same signal box, the addition of an extra turnout adds nothing for safety and increases complexity, and as noted it would actually seem to increase the risk due to its proximity to the main line.  Also, if a train was negotiating the track from the clay line over "C", why would it expect the trap to be set for anything other than safe to enter the main line.  So, in summary, definitely redundant, and not needed.

Thanks for your comments. I note your opening proviso. I presume this means that if the siding point is not controlled from the signal box (see my reasons for this above) that a trap would be needed?

[Oldddudders]

Thanks for your comments. I note your opening proviso. I presume this means that if the siding point is not controlled from the signal box (see my reasons for this above) that a trap would be needed?

I think that if there is no other trap point, that the siding point needs to be released from the signalbox, rather than necessarily operated.

[jon_1066]

I think you could justify it either way - with or without a trap point.  Which way would you like to model?  Is it a hassle to move this siding to generate the space for one?  I would let that be your tie breaker if you are unsure what to do.

[The Stationmaster]

This extract comes from the BR(S) Western Section 1960 Sectional Appendix. Unusually, the Wenford line does not appear in Table A "List of Signal Boxes, Running Lines etc".  The extract comes from the local instructions section, under the entry for Nanstallon Halt, as does Boscarne Junction.

 

slide531.jpg

Is it in Table C2 Paul?  It wouldn't be in Table A if it's in Table C (C2 in the case in the 1969 and 1973 issues of the Appendix) or possibly Table D2.

[RailWest]

Mike - in the Southern version of the SW, Table C is marked simply as "not applicable", nor does the line appear in Table D2. Given that it had no form of "block working" by that time, being in effect a siding, then I suspect the local instructions entry is all that was required/provided. That is the only reference to it listed in the Index.

[The Stationmaster]

Mike - in the Southern version of the SW, Table C is marked simply as "not applicable", nor does the line appear in Table D2. Given that it had no form of "block working" by that time, being in effect a siding, then I suspect the local instructions entry is all that was required/provided. That is the only reference to it listed in the Index.

Thanks Chris - the Western clearly changed it to C2 (under the control of the Bodmin Road Signalman at one time!) but I can't date exactly when C2 working was introduced apart from saying 'mid 1960s'.

[bécasse]

All the LSWR and SR instructions that I have seen for the Wenfordbridge line make it clear that there was no staff. The line was effectively a siding (complete with the required trap point at its connection to the running line at Dunmere) which was, of course, worked ​one engine in steam. The one engine in steam working was enforced by the gate at Dunmere because the guard took the keys for it with him when the train went up the line. Once the train was inside the gate, the guard had complete responsibility for the safe working of the train and the working instructions in the SA are surprisingly complex.

 

Of course, the Western Region may have introduced different arrangements when they eventually took over operational responsibility for the line - the WR always had to be different - they certainly produced a new diagram for Dunmere Junction Ground Frame.

[The Stationmaster]

Some basic principles of railway operating -

 

1. There is no limit on the number of trains or units capable of moving under their own power which can be put into a siding at any one time other than the physical capacity of the siding, not at all unusual in some sidings to find movements taking place at both ends of a (double-ended) siding or indeed to find several trains in e.g. a reception siding ... and so on.

 

2. One Engine In  Steam was an operational principle and the application of it in practice varies - a train staff was usual and part of the RCH standard Regulation but there were other alternatives such as a set of keys.  The 1934 Appendix is explicit that the One Engine In Steam principle applied on the Wenford Bridge line accordingly it cannot have been a siding.

 

3. The WR wasn't alone in 'being dfferent', all the BR Regions had their various foibles right up until the day they ceased to exist and even then differences remained between various areas etc within the business sectors.  Anyone who thinks the Western was 'different' probably never had much to do with the Scottish Region or indeed the LMR which was still running some freight services to steam train timings right up to the end of its existence  

[bécasse]

Some basic principles of railway operating -

 

1. There is no limit on the number of trains or units capable of moving under their own power which can be put into a siding at any one time other than the physical capacity of the siding, not at all unusual in some sidings to find movements taking place at both ends of a (double-ended) siding or indeed to find several trains in e.g. a reception siding ... and so on.

 

 

The OES staff for the 3.5 mile long Crumbles branch (at Eastbourne) was lettered "Gas Works & Ballast Hole Siding" and older operating staff habitually referred to the line as the Crumbles siding. Incidentally, although it was largely unfenced and diverged from a 3rd rail electrified line, its access had neither gate nor cattle grid.

 

The Stationmaster was more correct in stating that "all BR Regions had their various foibles" than in his pedantic definition of the meaning of a 'siding' - although I am more than happy to agree that his definition is a excellent description of the mode of working of the vast majority of groups of sidings (most single sidings being hard pushed to physically accommodate more than one train).

 

In fact, the Wenfordbridge line was unique in the totality of its operating practices, probably as a result of its very early inception before state regulation of railways had become formalised and the fact that little, other than routine track relaying, was done to it subsequently. It had probably never been inspected, even though passengers could be conveyed. Interestingly, although the shorter Ruthernbridge branch/siding had been worked the same way, the LSWR didn't note it as one engine in steam whereas they did so for the Wenfordbridge line.

[The Stationmaster]

The OES staff for the 3.5 mile long Crumbles branch (at Eastbourne) was lettered "Gas Works & Ballast Hole Siding" and older operating staff habitually referred to the line as the Crumbles siding. Incidentally, although it was largely unfenced and diverged from a 3rd rail electrified line, its access had neither gate nor cattle grid.

 

The Stationmaster was more correct in stating that "all BR Regions had their various foibles" than in his pedantic definition of the meaning of a 'siding' - although I am more than happy to agree that his definition is a excellent description of the mode of working of the vast majority of groups of sidings (most single sidings being hard pushed to physically accommodate more than one train).

 

In fact, the Wenfordbridge line was unique in the totality of its operating practices, probably as a result of its very early inception before state regulation of railways had become formalised and the fact that little, other than routine track relaying, was done to it subsequently. It had probably never been inspected, even though passengers could be conveyed. Interestingly, although the shorter Ruthernbridge branch/siding had been worked the same way, the LSWR didn't note it as one engine in steam whereas they did so for the Wenfordbridge line.

The definition of a siding is neither pedantic nor mine - it is an accurate reflection of the BR Rule Book and the principles incorporated in it.  

 

A vernacular local name for a section of railway is one thing - there were many such; basic principles are something else and are of course rather important when carrying out such activities as preparing or reviewing Rules & Regulations.  And yes many early railway ideas or methods hung on in some places, for example the lack of fencing on the Wenford Bridge Line and a number of its other operating characteristics.  But one swallow does not make a summer nor does it alter basic principles hence, for example our (i.e. BR) practice when reviewing and updating Rules & Regulations to increasingly confine specialised variations to the various more localised means of publication - for example the former GWR/WR Absolute Block Regulation 4A which only remained in use in very limited areas (entirely on the LMR as it happens) which was removed from the Block Regulations but still applied in precisely teh same manner by local publication.

 

Simple lesson in railway operational matters - first of all get your principles right.  But then my view probably doesn't count as I've only been doing it for 40 years and for nearly half of them it hasn't been on the Western and of curse I have had to keep up with current standards and methods.

[RailWest]

I have wondered for some time if in fact there was any 'formal' difference between "One Engine in Steam" (OES) as a means of block working, and 'one engine' or 'one engine in steam' as merely a descrptive term for the actual working of the line.

 

OES almost always involved the use of a train staff. Indeed, in their 1930 listing of single-line sections, the Southern had a table for lines worked by 'Train Staff' and this included examples such as the line to Hamworthy Goods, but there is NO mention of the Wenford line. Also, I would point out that the 1960 SA instruction does NOT mention 'one engine in steam' at all, but merely talks about 'one movement' - so in fact it could have been a siding in charge of (who - the guard with the keys?) who could have more than one train on the branch at a time as long as he only allowed one to move about at once. I wonder therefore whether the SA instruction was not therefore intended as a description of the means of *block* working, but just the practicalities of day-to-day operations?

 

[ I have vague recollection of reference somewhere that the Wenfordbridge line changed at some time from 'One Engine in Steam' to siding, but I can't locate it at the moment. I know by comparison that the Coombe Jcn - Moorswater line changed from 'Train Staff' to 'Yard' working, but that's probably irrelevant :-)]

 

Eventually of course OES became One Train Working (OTW), but the use of a staff continued. Now, of course, just to confuse us all, OTW = One Train working Without a staff, whilst OTS - One Train working with a Staff. At least it helps to clarify whether or not a staff is used!

[Stubby47]

Chris,

Can you replicate the passing of a staff or keys in 7mm ?

Stu