Moretonhampstead goods yard access

[ejstubbs]

In one of his books that I have on my bookshelf CJF admits that the layout of Ashburton can be problematic - specifically, with regard to shunting the kickback siding - and suggests Moretonhampstead as a better prototype to model.

 

In a moment of idleness I had a quick look at Moretonhampstead on old-maps.co.uk and I noticed something a bit odd.  Thinking that it might have been an OS error I had a look on the SRS web site and it looks like the OS was right.

 

 

I'm puzzled as to why the goods yard is accessed from the run-round loop, requiring a diamond crossing across the platform road.  Why not a turnout straight off the platform road?  Could it have been purely to save on an FPL?  It does seem to make shunting the yard rather ungainly, in that wagons would have to be propelled through a reverse curve from the main line.  In a model that could be a little problematic.

 

Any thoughts?

[Nick Holliday]

I would think it is the FPL answer.  A similar situation existed leading into Helston engine shed, as I recall, and was common on a lot of single line branches.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Moretonhampstead connection was slightly smoother than the map maker has shown it.

[LBRJ]

Just the general avoidance of any facing points on passenger lines wherever practicable.

Edited March 15, 2017 by LBRJ

[Siberian Snooper]

A similar arrangement at Shepton Mallet, for the cattle pens / goods loop?

[Pannier Tank]

Just the general avoidance of any facing points on passenger lines wherever practicable.

 

It is indeed see:-

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmBtBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=board+of+trade+facing+points&source=bl&ots=ReX4ImlpVj&sig=8E5LZonsK8JBzwPS1G-Ul8qTxw0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi42sy_0djSAhXEJcAKHXunATUQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=board%20of%20trade%20facing%20points&f=false

[The Johnster]

It was not just a matter of saving a facing point lock, British Railways in the pre WW1 era had a cultural dread of facing turnouts as potential sources of derailments, and in the early days they had plenty to be in dread of!  It was simply considered bad practice to have facing points on running lines, and the provision of point locks did nothing to change what had by that time become entrenched in the Railway mindset.  This is why older track layouts often include layby sidings instead of loops.

[The Stationmaster]

It was not just a matter of saving a facing point lock, British Railways in the pre WW1 era had a cultural dread of facing turnouts as potential sources of derailments, and in the early days they had plenty to be in dread of!  It was simply considered bad practice to have facing points on running lines, and the provision of point locks did nothing to change what had by that time become entrenched in the Railway mindset.  This is why older track layouts often include layby sidings instead of loops.

 

Not so much a 'cultural dread' as a direct instruction in the Requirements - the extract below comes from the 1858 edition (the first one) -

 

 

And this is the 1892 edition duly amended in the manner shown for the 1902 edition -

 

 

As far as I can trace things did not change until the 1920s but someone else might know more about any editions issued intermediately)

[brianusa]

And all this time I thought it was because the LH Down loop allowed reversal into the yard via a crossover as at Yealmpton, and others. The platform line in this case being the UP line.

 

Brian.

[LBRJ]

As something of an aside, as opposed to being really O/T after seeing this thread I had a look in GW BLT by Paul Karau (for the umpteenth time in the 30 years I have had it)and Moreton really would make a fine basis for a model.

[Pannier Tank]

As something of an aside, as opposed to being really O/T after seeing this thread I had a look in GW BLT by Paul Karau (for the umpteenth time in the 30 years I have had it)and Moreton really would make a fine basis for a model.

I've been planning an EM Gauge Layout of Moretonhampstead for over 10 years, but that's as far as I have got. No point in rushing things!

[Joseph_Pestell]

The GW seems to have been particularly fond of trailing leads with diamond crossings. It's an attractive feature for a model.

 

Nothing wrong with Ashburton for shunting as and when someone produces working 4mm scale models of horses and men.

[Kris]

The GW seems to have been particularly fond of trailing leads with diamond crossings. It's an attractive feature for a model.

 

 

An attractive feature yes, but one not often seen. 

[Nearholmer]

I think there was a period when the facing point "accident waiting to happen" problem had become widely recognised, but interlocking and facing-point-lock technology were still a bit rudimentary, possibly the 1850s and 1860s, and I wonder if some of these go-to-extreme lengths-to-avoid-facing-point layouts date from that period.

 

Does anyone know when the track at Moretonhampstead was laid out like this, and what the surrounding signalling and interlocking was at the time?

 

K

[Siberian Snooper]

I think there was a period when the facing point "accident waiting to happen" problem had become widely recognised, but interlocking and facing-point-lock technology were still a bit rudimentary, possibly the 1850s and 1860s, and I wonder if some of these go-to-extreme lengths-to-avoid-facing-point layouts date from that period.

 

Does anyone know when the track at Moretonhampstead was laid out like this, and what the surrounding signalling and interlocking was at the time?

 

K

 

The O/S survey of 1885, published 1886 shows it without the diamond whereas the 1904 revision, published 1905 shows it with the diamond.

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/106004261

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/106004264

[Pannier Tank]

The O/S survey of 1885, published 1886 shows it without the diamond whereas the 1904 revision, published 1905 shows it with the diamond.

 

Interesting comparisons, I would imagine that the track alterations took place at the time of converting from Broad Gauge.  I assume the Diamond Crossing was a Single Slip to allow running round. Also note the Signalbox had yet to be built on the side of the Engine Shed.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Pannier Tank

[meil]

Similar situation at Rubery: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/rubery.php

[BG John]

Interesting comparisons, I would imagine that the track alterations took place at the time of converting from Broad Gauge.  I assume the Diamond Crossing was a Single Slip to allow running round. Also note the Signalbox had yet to be built on the side of the Engine Shed.

As far as I know, this is the only broad gauge photo of Moretonhampstead. It seems to confirm the long platform road, and short siding under the trainshed. What looks like the start of the turnout leading to the crossing/slip is in the bottom right corner. Shame there's not a photo looking the other way, and if there is, I'd love to see it.

 

Ashburton station building and trainshed are a copy of Moretonhampstead, although in a different type of stone, so they look different. Like Moretonhampstead, it only had one siding originally, and the kick back siding was a later addition. It also had a turntable on the loco shed siding.

 

I think the ideal model would be a combination of features from the two stations, as they were so similar, but also quite different, if you see what I mean!

[ejstubbs]

Thanks to everyone for your responses, they do help to explain how things came about.

 

I was under the impression that the BoT was also not keen on crossings on the flat.  I could well be mistaken about that, though.

 

And all this time I thought it was because the LH Down loop allowed reversal into the yard via a crossover as at Yealmpton, and others. The platform line in this case being the UP line.

 

Moretonhampstead is a terminus on a single track main line with a single platform face (unless the line to the goods shed also had a platform face, which I doubt - any in any case, the difference is the same).  There is no "up" or "down" line - it's all bidirectional.

 

My understanding is that Yealmpton was originally going to be a through station - the line was intended to extend as far as Modbury.  If that had come to pass then the loop would have indeed had have "up" and "down" sides, and hence to have trailing access to the yard as it was oriented you would need to access it from the non-platform side of the loop, via a diamond.  As a terminus, the Yealmpton configuration looks a bit odd IMO.  (Come to that, as a placename Yealmpton looks a bit odd!)

 

References: Wiki Waybackmachine BBC Domesday Reloaded Cornwall Railway Society (caption under last photo)

 

I assume the Diamond Crossing was a Single Slip to allow running round.

 

If you mean in the modified configuration post-1885 then that would seem not to have been the case - see the signal box diagram in my OP.  There is a facing turnout on the approach to the station to complete the run-round.  See also the 1905 OS Map:

 

 

(The 1936 map shows that turnout as being slightly further east, beyond the road crossing.  It also shows the crossover as being partially hidden under the station roof rather than fully in the open.)

 

The O/S survey of 1885, published 1886 shows it without the diamond whereas the 1904 revision, published 1905 shows it with the diamond.

 

However, the 1885 map does show a diamond crossing on the loop, to give access to the loco shed from the platform road:

 

 

Unless there's a crossover hidden under the station roof - which BG John's photo plainly suggests there wasn't - then I assume this one must have been a single slip, otherwise how would a loco run round?

Edited March 17, 2017 by ejstubbs

[jim.snowdon]

The 1885 broad gauge layout almost certainly pre-dates the BoT recommendations that facing points in passenger lines should be locked, as well as the regulations requiring interlocking, which makes it quite probable that all of the points were hand worked using local levers.

 

The standard gauge layout follows accepted practice post the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act, and is a not unusual layout with just one facing point requiring locking. The issue as regards diamond crossings is not so much whether they were used or not, but the angle. Basically, the BoT recommendation was that diamonds with fixed crossings should not be flatter than 1:8 so as ensure proper guidance of the wheels through the obtuse crossings. Anything flatter than that should be provided with switched crossings (or moveable angles, as the GWR liked to call them) so that there was no flangeway gap for the wheels to cross (or deviate into). Switched diamonds, as they are more usually known, are more expensive, both as items of track and in terms of signalling, as they require interlocking and, inevitably, facing point locks, so track designers would for a long time go out of their way to avoid them, including introducing additional curves and greater track separations just to get the angle below the 1:8 limit.

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

I'm further educated.

 

I'm still slightly surprised that designers went to such an extent to avoid facing points, once the technology to lock them effectively was available, given that the wording of the requirement allowed enough room for the application of common sense (risk proportionality) on the part of designer and inspecting officer.

 

" should be avoided as far as possible" wouldn't have been read as absolute in the days before the distinction between "possible" and "practicable" was legally nailed, and I don't think that was until 1947 (Edwards vs National Coal Board, if I remember my schooling correctly).

 

I'm pretty sure that, for every example of "moretonhamsteadism", there is a comparator of a similar date where the designer has elected to use a locked point in the passenger road, thereby saving the diamond crossing, and the inspecting officer has accepted it.

 

Kevin

Edited March 17, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Pannier Tank]

I'm pretty sure that, for every example of "moretonhamsteadism", there is a comparator of a similar date where the designer has elected to use a locked point in the passenger road, thereby saving the diamond crossing, and the inspecting officer has accepted it.

 

Kevin

 

I wonder the lack of space at Ashburton led to Goods Shed leading of the 'Main' rather than using the "Diamond" arrangement as at Mortonhampstead?

 

In modelling terms, Moretonhampstead provides a wide choice of Locomotives (14xx, 41xx, 57xx) & Rolling Stock and using a modellers licence,  a variety of ex-works locos from Newton Abbott works could also be used.

[Kris]

I've just dug out my track layout diagrams book for South Devon by R A Cooke. He has the loop being extended in 1894. Providing this is correct it would seem that this would have been the likely time that the diamond was put in. He also has the TT being removed by 1913 which would make the 1936 map rather out of date, not something that would be a great surprise. 

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting comparisons, I would imagine that the track alterations took place at the time of converting from Broad Gauge.  I assume the Diamond Crossing was a Single Slip to allow running round. Also note the Signalbox had yet to be built on the side of the Engine Shed.

 

The diamond crossing was a diamond crossing - no need for third crossover (and thereby adding a facing connection they were trying to avoid!) in order to run round.

 

I'm further educated.

 

I'm still slightly surprised that designers went to such an extent to avoid facing points, once the technology to lock them effectively was available, given that the wording of the requirement allowed enough room for the application of common sense (risk proportionality) on the part of designer and inspecting officer.

 

" should be avoided as far as possible" wouldn't have been read as absolute in the days before the distinction between "possible" and "practicable" was legally nailed, and I don't think that was until 1947 (Edwards vs National Coal Board, if I remember my schooling correctly).

 

I'm pretty sure that, for every example of "moretonhamsteadism", there is a comparator of a similar date where the designer has elected to use a locked point in the passenger road, thereby saving the diamond crossing, and the inspecting officer has accepted it.

 

Kevin

But notice the change of emphasis from the 1892 wording which you have quoted (I've highlighted it) to the 1902 wording 'to be avoided as far as possible' and the change at the latter end of the sentence.  So overall the 1902 edition could be read as more proscriptive than the 1892 version with that change from 'should' to 'to'.

 

The intense dislike and distrust of facing points undoubtedly goes back to the early days but the change between 1892and 1902 is the more remarkable because  by then I would have thought that the mechanism of the facing point lock ('locking' if you prefer) bar would have been well established thus positively ensuring that points could not be moved under a passing train (they are clearly mentioned even in the 1892 version).  Byles indicates that the adoption of lock/locking bars was apparently a consequence of the 1873 Wigan derailment although they would not appear to have been legally required until the passing of the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act (which in any case allowed time for the required changes and improvements to be made).

[57xx]

I've been planning an EM Gauge Layout of Moretonhampstead for over 10 years, but that's as far as I have got. No point in rushing things!

 

Ah good to hear I'm not the only one taking their time... It's a shade over 7 years since I built the baseboards for my N gauge rendition and got not a lot further. 

 

In modelling terms, Moretonhampstead provides a wide choice of Locomotives (14xx, 41xx, 57xx) & Rolling Stock and using a modellers licence,  a variety of ex-works locos from Newton Abbott works could also be used.

45xx were also seen on the branch, adding to the variety.

[57xx]

The diamond crossing was a diamond crossing - no need for third crossover (and thereby adding a facing connection they were trying to avoid!) in order to run round.

 

What third crossover? In the broad gauge track diagram and confirmed by John's picture, there is no other crossover under/near the train shed.