clachnaharry

Presumably the diamond between the refuge siding and the goods sidings was also a single slip, allowing the refuge siding to form a trap/headshunt combination.

The link I posted in my previous post shows most of the layout at Hungerford in 1936. Am I right in surmising that the long siding trailing from the up line was in fact a refuge siding, and that the yard headshunt doubled as a down refuge? How did the layout change in 1939? Were either of these sidings converted to loops? If you check the adjoining map showing the west end of the station, there is another crossover.

Have you looked at the Hungerford layout? It appears to have all the features that you are looking for (including the diamond in the goods yard). If you model the prototype track layout, but with a different name and in a different setting, then you can still have the freedom of doing your own thing scenically and operationally, but all the questions on the rightness of the track layout and signalling go away. https://maps.nls.uk/view/104197513 The biggest drawback that I can see is that the relief sidings are sidings rather than loops, but that is pretty characteristic of the classic era that you aspire to. In many cases these sidings were turned into loops during WW2, so you could stretch history a bit.

Newbury has that sort of layout, with the platforms on loops rather than the main running line.

Try Macduff GNSR - It also had an overall roof and a headshunt, Probably the most perfect branch terminus layout,

Yes - and these instances are the ones which produce the interesting layouts rather than the "standard" platform, loop and fan of sidings.

Come to think of it, Highworth and Malmesbury and also had yards accessed from the buffer stop end of the station - so perhaps not too uncommon.

I would say the "goods yard beyond the station platform" as exemplified by Fairford and Looe. At the other extreme is the "goods yard trailing in towards the buffer stops". Often a feature of models, but the only GWR branch line terminus with that feature which I can think of is Yealmpton.

This is somewhat surprising! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46028596 Do the HSTs run by LNER to Aberdeen and Inverness have holding tanks?

Very interesting - please scan them before the ink fades!. I just had a look at the Inverness diagrams, I was unaware that some loco hauled trains from Inverness terminated at Stonehaven. They must have had to run round via two crossovers and shunt the empty stock from the up to the down platform. I don't think I have see any pictures of that move. I just checked my Quail and two cross overs were still there at the time, although I'm not sure if that is still the case. Tha absence of freight diagrams for the Inverness locos is surprising. There was plenty of freight still around at the time, with the Speedlink network still in place.Was it all carried out by more southerly depots, or are the diagrams incomplete?

Thanks gooderz. Its great to hear the facts, but it was fun trying to speculate what was actually going on. Congratulations on reaching PR in such a novel and pragmatic fashion. I couldn't see the track layout at the south end of PR. Do you currently have 2 NR connections, one via platform 4 and one via the link at Thame junction? Will one of these be severed once the track alterations are complete?

There were two, one at each corner of the pier, with a line joining them across the end of the pier. This allowed direct tranfer of wagons between the east sidings and the west sidings (using a pinch bar) They were still in place in the early 80s, but I don't believe they were operational and they had not been used for many years.

On a related subject, does anyone know why the Chinnor branch, rather than Thame branch was chosen as a preservation project? They closed within a year of each other, and both required the station infrastructure to be built up from scratch.

That sounds very pragmatic, and as you say explains some of the alignments. Much of the parallel track was still in place, although I don't know if it would be in a useable condition. I was also surprised to see that the NR connection rails were shiny, so something must have used in very recently.

I looked back and saw that the position light for leaving the platform was showing red aspects when the train arrived. I can't be sure that changed for departure, but I assume that the Chinnor train be not be allowed to pass it if it remained at red.

As far as I could see, the trains were signalled into and out of platform 4 using position light signals in each direction.

That seems even more bizarre. In effect, you have a bit of Network Rail track joining two sections of Chinnor railway track. Given that there were originally two parallel running tracks as far a Thame Junction, surely it would have made much more sense for the Chinnor railway to lay a parallel track from there into platform 4 at Princess Risborough, and just retain the connection with NR at Thame junction. This would have removed the requirement for NR signalling, locking the toilets whilst on NR track etc.

The recently reopened link uses network rail metals from a point just beyond Thame junction into the reinstated platform 4. When travelling on the line yesterday, I noticed that we passed a network rail signal showing a red aspect, but with an elevated position light (ground) signal showing 2 white lights (clear). Presumably the red aspect referred to the link to main line. This raised a number of questions. Why has Network rail retained the running line into platform 4? This arrangement means that Network rail has to signal every arrival and departure. Why was the link retained in the first place after the closure of the Thame and Chinnor branches? Was it used as a turnback siding or something? Is the present arrangement temporary? Will the running line from Thame junction into platform 4 be handed over to the Chinnor railway, and will the signalling be altered so that network rail signalling is only required for access to the main line?

My 1998 Quail track diagram shows a kickback from the end of the BR line into the ICI complex where there is a number of sidings and what looks like a loco shed. There is no loop. Was there an industrial shunter there? The track layout would seem to support the assertions that the trains hauled up the branch and propelled back to Dumfries. However this must have mean a bit of a faff at the Dumfries end, propelling wrong road down the main line for a considerable distance before the loop in Dumfries goods yard was accessed. If there was an industrial shunter, was it ever used to shunt the outgoing wagons onto the BR line allowing the BR engine to haul back to Dumfries?

The last time I saw a fertiliser train in Great Yarmouth carriage sidings was in February 2000. The sidings were disconnected as part of the resignalling in October 2017.

When was the requirement for a brake van dropped on the nuclear flask trains? Wasn't that fairly late on?

That would better dumped in the landfill site.

Sugar beet traffic lasted into the early eighties with the ubiquitous 16T mineral wagons being used to carry beet to factories such as Cantley and Foley Park in Kidderminster. What sort of other traffic was delivered or dispatched from these factories? for instance I recall a picture showing dozens of 12T vans at Reedham, and the caption said they were being stockpiled for the sugar beet season. Would they have been used for dispatch of bagged final product? Was coal or oil delivered for power generation?

Counterproductive though, as the adverts bias me against that particular supplier. There are many others to choose from.

On a related topic, there are some advertisements on here that look a bit sexist to me.