Dave_Hooe

Figure 53 (Photograph view point A marked on Figure 52): Shows the corner of the retaining wall as it curved in to meet the steps up to the Station. The steps would have been behind the mesh fence on the left. The bridge parapet leading into the Station is on the far left. Detailed spot heights all the way around the retaining wall and road are marked in the surveyors’ survey referred to in previous posts (11/01250/FUL).

Figure 52 shows the site plan from Figure 49 again, but zoomed in and with some photograph reference points added in blue circles. Perhaps we could begin on Barton Road near the former Station steps site (photograph view point A in Figure 52) and work our way right round the former naval oil fuel storage compound and back to the Station site, drawing out some details en route. Some of information in the posts that follow will add a detail about the fate of the Turnchapel Station site after closure of the branch line. (To see text in the photos, it may be necessary to click on the images to expand them or download the associated tiff files via the links provided.)

Returning to the historical development of Turnchapel Station and the military facilities flanking it, we’ve noted that the Air Ministry sidings were only added in 1939. So these do not appear on the 1911 ADM 140/1484 site plan shown in Figure 49 of post #56 above. Instead a 30-in gauge quarry tramway was present, shown in orange in Figure 49 (and also in the zoomed in view of Figure 50 below). A stone crusher and quarry engine house (orange rectangles) were located at the site which eventually hosted the spur to the Air Ministry sidings. The quarry engine house can be seen in early photographs of Turnchapel Station, notably in a picture that appears in both Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch (on page 55) and in The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve (on page 239). This photograph was taken from or close to the pre-bombing signal box (marked in Figure 49) and at this stage the quarry bank parallel to the passing loop was much higher –– it was cut down when the Air Ministry sidings were constructed (cf. Figure 23b key note [H] post #47 above). The high grassy bank partially obscures one end of the quarry engine house and all of the stone crusher therefore. The tops of oil tanks ‘D’ and ‘F’ are visible in this same photograph together with the fence at the top of the bank between the platform and the naval oil depot. This would have been a prominent feature from the platform up until the end of 1940 and is defined on the 1911 ADM 140/1484 site plan as a ‘7-ft 0-in iron fence’, marked in Figures 49/50 with the red line around the bunded depot. The photograph shows it to be a spear fence and an inner hand rail can be made out running around the narrow walkway at the top of the concrete bund. The ADM 140/1484 plan indicates that the iron fence ran right around the compound and atop the retaining wall (light blue in Figures 49/50) that lined Barton Road Undercliff Roads. A particularly good picture from 1926 that shows the swing bridge in profile and the retaining wall topped by the original fence can be in Branch Lines Around Plymouth by Victor Mitchell and Keith Smith (photograph 91). The fence and compound handrail can also be seen in several of wartime photographs showing the firefighters tackling the burning oil tanks following bombing in the evening of Wednesday, November 27th, 1940. These photographs show that in places the firefighters were stationed within the spear fence to direct their hoses –– an unenviable place to be when the tanks exploded. An example is included in Figure 50. [Photographic detail may be clearer to see by downloading the tiff version of the image from the link just below.] The Figure 50 photograph was taken on 28-Nov-1940, with the fire still confined to tanks ‘E’ and ‘F’ at this point. The image would have been taken from the quarry cliff top above the railway line and with the Station itself just out of view to the right. The Hooe Lake swing bridge can just be made out on the right however, together with a chimney in the background on the left –– the chimney being part of the Bayly’s site across on the other side of The Cut into Hooe Lake. Looking carefully, it is possible to make out the spear fence segments running along the top of the Turnchapel Station bank (clearer to see in the tiff download perhaps) and map these precisely to the ADM 140/1484 map (red line) between points (a) to (f) marked on the Figure 50 plan. The inner guard rail can also be made out at the top of the concrete bund. Also to be seen is a small concrete platform at the top of the Turnchapel Station bank within the spear fence on which some of the firefighters are positioned. A pair of windlasses were mounted on this concrete block to operate manifolds within the tanks by means of cables that ran from the windlasses to pulleys located at the top of the tank cylinders. A number of these concrete windlass mounting blocks were located around the bund perimeter. Two of them were on the bank above the Turnchapel Station platform, the second of these being just out of sight to the left in the Figure 50 photograph (but marked on the map). These would have been prominently visible from the Station platform. Indeed, they can be seen in some station photographs from rail tours in the 1950s and 1960s [e.g. Bernard Mills’ Then & Now: Backtracking Around Friary, Laira, and the Plym; Pen&Ink Publishing (on page 105)]. The blocks remained right up until site clearance for development in 2012/13, and the exact block featured in the Figure 50 Nov-1940 photograph can be seen (circled) in the Dec-2012 photograph of Figures 51a/b below. Some additional detailing photographs of these blocks at Turnchapel could be added in further posts later. Additional posts could be added about the tank structure and fittings too. There is excellent recent photographic reference material (in colour) available for identical tanks from other naval oil storage sites, and this would provide superb detail for anyone wishing to include the adjacent tanks in a model of Turnchapel Station. We can come back to that in a later post perhaps. The pair of windlasses that were mounted on the block seen in the Figure 50 photograph (right hand block in Figures 51a/b) probably operated Tank ‘B’ at the back of the compound, with the cables running between tanks ‘C’ and ‘D’ to reach it. The block to the left in Figures 51a/b would have operated Tank ‘C’, and a third block (also circled in Figures 51a/b) just around the corner on the western slope would have operated Tank ‘D’. Access to the oil storage compound was through a gate in Undercliff Road at the northwest of the compound (marked in the Figure 50 site plan). A flight of steps led up to a narrow concrete walkway around the bund and allowed personnel to reach the windlasses and operate the hinged manifolds located within the tanks themselves. It would be useful to post some of the historical photos of Turnchapel Station and the adjacent depot to accompany this thread, but it’s not easy to track down the copyright holders for permission. If it can be done, I’ll add some better images in the future, but if anyone else has any photographs tucked away in family collections it would be great to share them! In the meantime, in the next post perhaps I could follow up with some recent images from the site that might be useful for reference purposes, beginning with photos taken around the bunded compound in 2012. We can then come back to some of the tank detail alluded to above after that.

Thanks chaps. No worries at all on that score, Kevin. The interest is very personal. It’s all stuff that’s accumulated over 7-8 years of gradually digging into the history, and this is giving me an opportunity to marshall things. Apart from a fascination with the engineering skills of those who built the railway and fuel oil installation –– how do you keep 6000 tons of oil in a tank that’s built with riveted plates and has no welded seams? –– a focal point for me is a strong interest in the wartime events around the Station. The following short extract from the records of the Plymouth ambulance service (PWDRO file 773/15) may explain why ... “Friday November 29th 1940 DUTY AT GREAT OIL TANKS FIRE, TURNCHAPEL At about 5-30 a.m., owing possibly to the collapse of the fabric of one of the tanks, there was a huge overflow of blazing oil which engulfed many fire pumps and destroyed them. The flaming oil flowed into the Hooe Lake and burnt the two Plymouth Fire Floats. Two Firemen lost their lives and the body of one was rescued later in the morning at great risk by a St John Ambulance First Aid Party and the co-operation of Mr Middleton, Petroleum Inspector. The other was taken from the water burnt and drowned. Casualties: killed in action A.F.S. Thomas J. Callicott (at side of tanks) A.F.S. Robert W. Widger (in Hooe Lake)” In clearing the site for development, I can’t help but feel that the struggles and sacrifices linked to the site have been largely overlooked.

To unpick some of the detail around the Turnchapel Station site in forthcoming posts, it will useful to be able to refer to the more detailed site map of Figure 49, which is based on a 1911 Admiralty map [referenced in earlier posts (National Archives record: ADM 140/1484)]. The map shows the Admiralty fuel oil base at Turnchapel Wharf together with the storage tank compound (shortly after its construction). The fuel oil storage compound next to the station was connected to the Admiralty fuelling installation at Turnchapel Wharf. Turnchapel Wharf itself was originally developed from a bankrupted Turnchapel Quay shipyard that passed into the hands of the Bulteel family (owners of the Naval Bank of Plymouth) in the 1890s. With the Turnchapel Branch scheduled for development, the Bulteels foresaw an opportunity for commercial development of the site. Thus, on 18-Mar-1896, some six months before formal opening of the Plymstock to Turnchapel section of the Turnchapel Branch on 1-Jul-1897, Thomas Bulteel concluded an agreement with the LSWR to construct and connect sidings at Turnchapel Wharf. An outline drawing that accompanied that agreement [National Archives record, RAIL 411/755] defines the termination point of the Turnchapel Branch as the entrance to the tunnel beneath Borringdon Row (marked in Figure 49). Bulteel’s were responsible for building the track through the tunnel and within Turnchapel Wharf. The plan defines radii of 260-ft and 250-ft for sections of the sidings within the Wharf. According to Plymouth-based journalist and historian, Crispin Gill, the Bulteels sold Turnchapel Wharf to a maltster business in 1898 [Plymouth River, 1997, Devon Books; ISBN 0861149114]. This firm expanded the warehousing facilities but ran into financial difficulties. The site then passed into the hands of the Admiralty in 1903, with formal conveyance of the sidings to the Admiralty concluded on 9-Jan-1904. Under that conveyance the benefits and obligations of the Bulteel-LSWR agreement were transferred to the Admiralty, and this was eventually dissolved following notice from the British Transport Commission in correspondence of 1961 [filed in the National Archives record, RAIL 411/755]. The Admiralty’s acquisition of Turnchapel Wharf was driven by a need to establish substantial fuelling installations and storage depots around the British coastline. Up until the turn of the 19th century Royal Navy vessels had been largely coal-fuelled, with the disadvantage that as much as 25% of the fleet could be constrained to ports for coaling purposes at any one time. Lord Fisher, First Sea Lord (1904-1910, 1914-1915), and Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, were substantially responsible for conversion of the Royal Navy to an oil-fuelled operation in the early years of the 20th century. As part of this drive, six 6000-ton oil fuel storage tanks were built on a 5-acre quarry site acquired by the Admiralty immediately adjacent to Turnchapel Station. The Station itself, built on an embankment within the quarry, therefore predated the oil fuel storage depot and tanks shown in Figure 49 by a decade or so. Whessoe Engineering played an important role in supplying early oil fuel storage tanks to the Royal Navy, with records indicating that four were supplied to Plymouth in 1908 [Guide to Storage Tanks and Equipment Part 1 by Bob Long and Bob Garner; Wiley-Blackwell, 2004; ISBN-13: 978-1860584312]. It is not clear whether the other two tanks at Turnchapel were supplied as a second installment before or after these four in 1908, but Crispin Gill notes that the first delivery of oil at Turnchapel arrived by tanker from the Bear Creek Oil Company in 1909. The tanks supplied by Whessoe were of a standard pattern and were also installed at several other naval storage sites across the UK in the early 20th century. According to the Whessoe records, the 1908 Plymouth tanks were of 90-ft in diameter with a cylinder height of 37-ft. These dimensions perfectly match the drawn diameter in the 1911 ADM 140/1484 Turnchapel site plan and are fully consistent with the ‘6000-ton capacity’ quoted in that plan. Thus, 6000 tons of fuel oil No 2 (density 57.4 lb/cubic-ft) requires a cylinder of 90-ft diameter by 36.8-ft height. The Admiralty plan shows that each tank was connected by 15-in and 4-in pipelines that exited the bunded depot compound through a culvert in the southwest corner to reach a pump house located next to the rail track just to the west of the station. The pipelines are marked in Figure 49 within the depot (dashed lines with crosses for valves at the point of entry to the tanks). An aerial photograph of Turnchapel (ca. 1938), in which the pump house is just visible, appears in the late Arthur Clamp’s monograph, Hooe and Turnchapel Remembered (see Figure 49 thumbnail inset 1). This is the only photographic record I’ve found for the pump house, which was destroyed in the first of two night-time bombing raids on 20/21-Mar and 21/22-Mar-1941. An Admiralty communication [PWDRO 1495/55] records the damage as follows: “Both attacks commenced with the dropping of large numbers of incendiaries and flares which started fires within a few minutes. This was followed by H.E. and more incendiaries. … Holes caused by incendiaries in roof of Nos. 4 and 5 Stores [NB refer to store houses marked in Figure 49] -- no damage to contents; number of bombs: 5 H.E. and a number of incendiaries.” Enclosure 6 to report on raids 20th/21st March and 21st/22nd March, 1941 TURNCHAPEL First Raid. At least five H.E bombs were dropped in the vicinity of the Oil Fuel Installation which was destroyed by fire as a result of enemy action in November, 1940. Of these - (a) One fell in close proximity to the Depot pump house at the west side of the Tanks and more or less demolished the building although the machinery appears to have sustained considerably less damage than might have been expected. (b) One fell on the inner side of the saucer alongside “C” tank, making a breach in the concrete slope approximately 18 ft. long by 12 ft. high. [NB see Figure 4 of post #23] (c ) One hit the ground immediately above the entrance to the railway tunnel between the Oil Fuel Installation and the Depot, dislodging earth and rocks which temporarily blocked the tunnel. There is no apparent damage to the tunnel itself. (d) The other two bombs fell on the railway line between the Oil Fuel Tanks and the Depot. Second Raid. A number of incendiary bombs fell in the Oil Fuel Installation and in the Depot. At the Oil Fuel Installation, incendiaries fell in the tank saucers and amongst the collapsed oil fuel tanks [NB destroyed following the 27-Nov-1940 bombing]. Fires were started in tanks “A” and “C” which contain a certain amount of thick oil fuel residue. The fire in “A” tank soon died down, but the one in “C” tank continued for some hours and was still smouldering in the morning.” Based on the ADM 140/1484 drawing, the dimensions of the pump house (minus the external machinery enclosure) would have been around 41-ft x 28-ft. It appears to have had an apex roof with a round window beneath the apex at the western end. A second, larger window and double door are also evident in the west end wall [Figure 49]. Photographic records for other naval oil storage site pump houses suggest that a brick construction with slate roof and light blue paintwork [Figure 49 inset 2] might be reasonable for this building at Turnchapel. Between 1913 and 1914 Whessoe supplied 20 tanks of the same 90-ft x 37-ft dimensions to the much larger tank farm at Invergordon. These tanks appear still to be standing, albeit derelict, and excellent photographic detail is available on the web for anybody wishing to model Turnchapel in the period up to Nov-1940 when the tanks were destroyed. In a later post we can come back to structure of the tanks and some of the features in the bank above the Station platform that were used to operate them. The pump house was connected to Turnchapel Wharf by a 10-in pipeline that ran along a culvert parallel to rail track on the inside curve [green dashed line in Figure 49]. This pipeline crossed beneath the track inside the tunnel leading to the wharf and then ran around the edge of the wharf through a filter and then to a set of 8-in and 5-in distribution pipes at the northern mooring quay. The tunnel leading to the wharf appears to be slightly curved. An excellent reference photograph of the tunnel entrance on the wharf can be found on the Cornwall Railway Society’s Turnchapel Branch page (scroll down to the 1973 picture from K. Jenkins): www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/turnchapel-branch.html Photographs of the station end entrance to the tunnel are rare. The best one that I’m aware of is picture 98 in Branch Lines Around Plymouth by Victor Mitchell and Keith Smith. This picture also shows detail for the Air Ministry siding turnout (added in 1939) together with a second pump house that was added adjacent to the track (probably during WW2). This second pump house is not on the 1911 ADM 140/1484 site plan therefore, but its position is marked (blue rectangle) in Figure 49 for reference. It served three 1,000,000 gallon semi-buried tanks that were added to the quarry to the south of the Air Ministry sidings compound (marked as Tanks ‘1-3’ in Figure 1). We may come back to these in a later post too. Hope the small text in Figure 49 will be legible. More detail and photographs of features around Turnchapel Sation and the Admiralty oil depot will be added in a few days.

Hope some of the info in the last few posts proves interesting. I'll try to add some more information and reference photos from around the former Turnchapel Station site and Admiralty fuel oil depot, but may be out of contact for the next 2-3 weeks. Best wishes, Dave

Figure 45-47 show detail for quarry gate marked at position [P] in the Sellick photo (Figure 23b). Here rusted and aging in Jul-2012, the gates may go back at least to the early 1950s, as they seem correspond closely to the gates seen in the Sellick photo. And one more picture (Figure 48) for good measure, taken in Dec-2012, now with site clearance underway for the Barton Road housing development:

Another small detail, but potentially useful for modelling Barton Road around the bridge parapet, Figure 43 and Figure 44 show details of the road surface. These photos were taken respectively in Jul-2012 and Dec-2012 and are looking northwards along the road. In recent times various bits of the road have been tarmacked over and had speed bumps installed, even more so with the new housing development. The photographs here show the concrete construction that I believe I read somewhere was laid down in WW2. I think I measured the concrete slab width at 6-ft. Figure 43 also highlights the spear fence that surrounded the quarry site with the large buried tanks ‘1’-‘3’ (location [P] in Figure 23b). Figure 44 shows the concrete trestle piles, the top of which was noted (in previous posts) to be roughly level with the Barton Road surface in front of the bridge parapet. The road does dip slightly at this point. Good spot height detail along the road is available in the 11/01250/FUL site survey.

A further small detail to expand from the Sellick photograph (Figure 23), but one that may be useful to anyone modelling in larger scales, is the nature of the lampposts at Turnchapel Station. There were three, one of which can just be made out towards the left (west) end of the platform in Figure 23. A second can just be made out in Figure 23 to the right of the Turnchapel Station sign on the platform and is located near to the top of the ramp by which pedestrians would access the platform. The third was located at the top of the station steps; in Figure 23b this would be just to the left of where the signal post is located at , but it’s not really visible against the background of the downstream bridge dolphin in that image. Some photographs showing detail of that third lamppost are attached in Figures 38–40. These reference photos were taken in Dec-2012 and Jul-2012. The 1939 photograph on p 205 in Mike Oakley’s Devon Railway Stations (previously referred to) reveals that the concrete lampposts pictured in Figures 38-40 had already been installed by then. Very early photographs of the station show cast iron lamp standards on the platform. One reason for drawing attention to the lamppost at the head of the station steps and to the nearby telegraph pole is that both features are accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts –– see Figure 41 –– and this may help laying out a plan for anyone wishing to model Turnchapel Station accurately. Figure 41 highlights some other relevant features cross referenced on the Sellick photograph in Figure 23b. Figure 42 shows a couple of additional reference photographs taken in Dec-2012 for the post-bombing replacement signal box site. Good reference photographs of this signal box are available in a number of books and online (e.g. Cornwall Railway Society website). My original estimate, based on block size estimates of 18-in x 8.5-in x 4-in and an interior width of about 9.5 block lengths, was that the width across the face of the signal box might have been around 14-ft 0-in to 14-ft 6-in. However, on reflection, that seems much too large, and even 12-ft seems too large. From Figure 42, the block dimensions in the rear retaining wall appear to be very close to 1 : 1.5 : 3. Blocks of 4-in x 6-in x 12-in would give an internal clearance of around 9-ft 6-in across the width for a possible signal box width of only 9-ft (?). Some of the reference photos may suggest it was rather deeper than it was wide.

To expand a further detail from the Sellick photograph (Figure 23b), the small building at site [N] is shown in Figure 37, again photographed in Dec-2012 prior to site clearance for the housing development. The location of this structure is also accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. Was it a toilet?

Sticking with the Air Ministry siding compound for now… although the sidings were cleared following complete closure of the branch line, the pump house itself (Figure 23b [M]) remained intact for many years, until it was demolished for the recent Barton Road housing development. Consequently, good photographic records are available for this building. My best estimates of building dimensions are summarised in Figure 27. Figure 28 to Figure 36 are added to provide photographic detail for the pump house (minus machinery), photos taken in Dec-2012. Window and ventilation grill details are shown in Figure 28, pipework detail in Figure 29 and Figure 30. Figure 32 suggests that entrance was gated by a sliding door. The location of the pump house is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. You may be able to access a rotatable/zoomable model at the following Shapeways location (probably best click on the arrow to close the guideline information panel and expand the model pane): www.shapeways.com/model/3dtools/5450070/0/6?key=7a584f6cd1d51050f0033325f22b9b17

Figure 24 shows my current best guess in relation to the Turnchapel Station platform dimensions. This is based on a 175-ft arc length for the front edge of the platform –– see note [G] in preceding post. Distances marked along the platform in blue (if they can be made out in small print) are length estimates in decimal feet units, based in part of the Sellick photograph of Figure 23. The line gradient quoted from working regulations in Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch is 1 in 80 falling from the signal box to Turnchapel Wharves. There was a single catch at the western end of the passing loop with a sand drag in the platform line (marked in Figure 1 with a short turnout in the blue track plan). The stated 1 in 80 gradient seems to accord quite well with spot measurements in the previously mentioned 11/01250/FUL site survey prior to the housing development. I wonder if this means that the platform top itself would have been built with a gradient (e.g. as in Figure 25). In Figure 26 I’ve tried to correlate the platform length dimensions proposed in Figure 24 with the 11/01250/FUL site survey mapping so that the platform ends would correspond to features seen in photographic records. Scale estimates suggest a platform arc radius of the order of 316 m, although in reality the curvature may perhaps not have been uniform. I know little about track and stations in general –– so comments/revisions welcome from all. Here’s a quotation from Anthony Kingdom’s book: “WORKING AT TURNCHAPEL ADMIRALTY WHARVES When a train requires to run on to the Admiralty wharves at Turnchapel, the Porter Signalman at Turnchapel must first proceed to the wharves, obtain permission from the Admiralty authorities there for it to do so, and arrange for the gates across the single line, which are situated about 200 yards from the Turnchapel station, to be opened. He will then return to the station and accompany the train to the wharves, taking care that sufficient brake power is applied to safely control it. OIL DEPOT SIDING These sidings which are under the supervision of the Yard Master at Plymouth Friary, are situated on the down side, and are connected with the single line leading to the Admiralty Wharves. The siding connection is worked from the Signal Box. The gradient of the platform line, loop and single line is 1 in 80 falling from the signal box to the Admiralty Wharves and attention is directed to the requirements of Rule 151. Wagons left standing on the loop or platform line must be placed on the signal box side of the catch points in those lines. Wagons must not be allowed to stand on the single line between the catch points and the Admiralty Wharves. Catch points are provided in the siding connection at the clearance point with the single line. A gate, the key of which is kept in the Signal Box, is provided at the Commission's boundary. A gate, the key of which is kept by the Oil Depot representative, is also provided at the entrance to the sidings and before vehicles are worked to or from the sidings, the Shunter or person in charge must arrange for the gate to be opened by the Oil Depot representative. After completion of the work the Shunter or person in charge must advise the Oil Depot representative that the gate can be closed and locked. The sidings are worked by shunting engine. The Commission's engine must not proceed into the sidings beyond the engine restriction board situated at a point 15 yards inside the gate at the entrance to the sidings.”

To expand features in the NRM Sellick 1997-7219_RJS_BW_1 photograph, an annotated version (Figure 23b) is attached here, cross referencing to the notes in the key below. Figure 23b key: [A] Admiralty fuel oil storage compound. If there’s interest, more detail can be added in future posts –– history, tank construction and dimensions, suggested reference photographs, accounts of the WW2 bombing etc. The corner visible here hosted oil tank ‘F’ (cf. Figure 1). A local newspaper account notes the discovery of a 500 lb bomb tail section during post-war clean up of the site in June 1950 (presumably predating the Sellick photograph by at least a year). This may possibly have been the bomb that made a direct strike on tank ‘E’ or tank ‘F’ on the evening of 27-Nov-1940. BOMB FIN FOUND: Workmen uncover war relic at Turnchapel. An R.N. bomb disposal squad from H.M.S. Defiance was called to Turnchapel yesterday, where workmen had uncovered part of a bomb. Employees of H.M. Dockyard were cleaning the compound which formerly enclosed oil. During the war a high explosive bomb hit one tank and the whole compound caught fire. The squad dug around the body, and seeing it to be only part of a bomb, it was removed from the hole. It was identified as the tailend a 500-pounder. [Western Morning News (Saturday, June 3, 1950)] Concrete blocks with iron hoops. These look like the sort of blocks used (I believe) to tether Sunderland flying boats on the slipways outside the RAF Mount Batten hangars (further along the Cattewater). [C] Chain link fence. As originally built, and at the time of the bombing in Nov-1940, there was only a handrail around the top of the concrete bund. Instead of the chain link fence seen in the Sellick picture, a 7-ft iron spear fence ran right around the perimeter atop the retaining wall of Undercliff and Barton Roads, beside the station steps and over the grassy bank between platform and bund. This is visible in several early photos of Turnchapel Station and in many of the wartime firefighting pictures. The position of the fence is clearly marked in a 1911 Admiralty map (National Archives ADM 140/1484) –– more information to come from that in a later post. [D] Post-bombing replacement signal box. [E] Pre-war signal box position. The original was destroyed in Nov-1940 bombing and subsequent fire –– more on this later perhaps. [F] Site of station building. [G] Station platform. Dimensions quoted in a surveyor’s notebook (1896-1906; PWDRO record: 1023/124) are: 3-ft height, 52-yds length, 3-yds width. The note book indicates construction with a masonry retaining wall and brick coping with a gravel top, features that are clearly seen in early photographs. Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch quotes a longer platform length of 175-ft. Seven under-platform alcoves are seen in the Sellick photo. These were not present as originally constructed. A photograph on p 205 in Mike Oakley’s Devon Railway Stations (The Dovecote Press) captures the point in 1939 when the platform was being modified to add these, which was also the point when the Air Ministry sidings were constructed. The photo in Mike Oakley’s book is one of only two or three pictures that show the pre-war signal box [E] and it also shows the spear fence on the bank above the platform, as mentioned in [C]. Prior to modification, the passing loop had single catches at both ends with point rodding running along the outside (south side). I have wondered whether the buffered double catch stub (not sure of correct terminology for this – but see blue track marked in Figure 1) was also first introduced during the 1939 modifications, possibly with the rodding transferred to the platform side at the same time. Or were those changes only made when the track and signal box were rebuilt in Dec-1940? It would be good to hear comments from others with greater knowledge of track and stations about what those under-platform alcoves might be. [H] Grassy bank. Early photographs show that prior to the 1939 construction of the Air Ministry sidings a much higher, fence-topped bank separated the station at [H] from quarry workings just to the south. Local diary records capture the build up to the WW2 and indicate that this bank was cut down to make room for the Air Ministry sidings commencing in April of that year: “Wimpey's of London commenced removal of rubble bank beside Turnchapel Station for construction of sidings, with the rubble used to bury the Radford oil tanks.” (Apr-1939 diary extract from Henry J. Hurrell) The Radford oil tanks were located just to the south east of Hooe Lake (off scale on the Figure 1 site map) and connected via a pipeline. For photographic detail of the high pre-1939 bank between the station and quarry site (before installation of the Air Ministry sidings) see: two photographs on page 55 of Anthony Kingdom's Turnchapel Branch four photographs on pages 239 and 240 of The Okehampton Line by John Nicholas and George Reeve (Irwell Press, 2016 / 2nd edition) Up starter signal post. [J] Station steps down to Barton Road. Surveyor’s notebook (1896-1906; PWDRO record: 1023/124) indicates 28 steps; 1911 Admiralty map (National Archives ADM 140/1484) marks two flights quite clearly. [K1/K2] Oil tanker loading / off loading gantries. These correspond to the two black lines between sidings marked in the Air Ministry compound on the Figure 1 site map and would probably have been prominently visible from the station platform. (Brian may be able to comment from memory.) Photographs where glimpses of the gantries can be seen (mostly without much detail) are found in: Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch on p 29 Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch on p 27 (accessible online, PWDRO search P000095076 and P000095078) Gerald Wasley’s Plymouth – a Shattered City on p 77 Bernard Mill’s Then & Now: Backtracking Around Friary, Laira, and the Plym on p 102 [L] Gang planks. Presumably hinged at the base and folding out to allow access to the top of the tanker wagons. [M] Pump house. The location of this pump house is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. More on this (including photographic detail and dimensions) in a later post. [N] Toilet? Again location of this is accurately marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey referred to in earlier posts. [O] Steps down to Barton Road. Marked in some maps. [P] Quarry gate. Position also marked in 11/01250/FUL. Photographic detail available to upload in later posts along with features around the Admiralty fuel oil compound and Barton Road etc. [Q] Spear fence along Barton Road. Road surface was concrete – possibly added by US military during WW2. [R] Buried oil tank. Tank ‘2’ marked on our site map of Figure 1. Tanks ‘1’-‘3’ of Figure 1, probably wartime additions, were linked to another lineside pump house that still stands today (within a private garden) on the former track route to Turnchapel Wharves. More details later. Upstream dolphin. [T] Timber elevator? The location of the break in the quay wall (now filled in) can still be seen today. Track connection to branch line. Connection was to the west of the station with a turnout installed on the line to Turnchapel Wharves at the time the sidings were constructed in 1939. The position of a gate across the entrance to the sidings can be found in the 11/01250/FUL site survey. In that site survey a wire mesh fence is marked (FWM) which corresponds to the straight Air Ministry compound wall, shown in the Sellick photo running upwards from the bottom of the photograph past the pump house towards Barton Road. A Sep-1961 photograph of the gate across the Air Ministry sidings entrance can be found in Mitchell and Smith’s Branch Lines Around Plymouth (photograph No 96), which also shows catch point detail, albeit with the track slightly overgrown. [V] Remodelled bank section. After branch closure and removal of the station and sidings, section [V] of the bank between the station and Admiralty compound was cut through to allow conversion of the compound for civil petrochemical use. The cut through section can be seen in the photograph of Figure 2, prior to site clearance for the recent 11/01250/FUL housing development. I’ll try to add further detail and additional photographic information for relevant aspects keyed above in future posts.

Figure 23a is a photograph (1997-7219_RJS_BW_1) from the National Railway Museum’s R J Sellick collection, mentioned in an earlier post, that gives one of the clearest perspectives over the Air Ministry sidings (foreground), Turnchapel Station site and the Bayly’s yard across The Cut (mid ground). The National Railway Museum/Science and Society Picture Library have kindly granted permission to post the image on this forum to stimulate discussion. In this picture the small station building on the platform has been removed, indicating that it was taken after the station was closed to passenger use on 10th September 1951. The supporting trestles have not yet been installed underneath the bridge outer span however, and so the picture must predate 1957/58. Our site map in Figure 1 (see earlier post) shows the approximate position from which the photograph was taken on the cliff top above Hooe Lake Quarry. This is shown with the black arrow marked ‘NRM Sellick photo’ in Figure 1. An annotated version of the image will be included in the next post to help draw out some key features.

Thanks for bearing with me chaps. Very interesting comment about the span to girder depth, Kevin! Although it’s not so relevant to the prototype discussion, Figure 22 shows a loosely assembled mock up of the bridge in 2mm scale. That’s more or less as far as I’ve reached with modelling attempts alas -- no track on it. Realistically it may also be as far as I am able to get, since I will be faced with a steep learning curve on scratch building track and an O2 to run on it! This is one reason why I’m keen to upload information on this forum in the hope that it will stimulate others to take Turnchapel on. But returning to your comment about oil tankers, Kevin, perhaps that’s a good cue to pick up on in the next post with some detail of the Air Ministry sidings … an excellent photograph of these coming in the next post, one that may strike a resonance with Brian’s memories of the Turnchapel Station site.

To summarise some of the information discussed so far, Figure 21 shows a suggested prototype outline for the fixed span on the Turnchapel Station side according to my current best guess. (Please feel free to dissent!) The parapet to pier centreline distance cited in Figure 5 is 91-ft 0-in. A plausible way to achieve this span with 12 crosses would be: · 2-ft 0-in end post on parapet; · first cross beginning 6” out from parapet; · 12 crosses at 7-ft 4-in spacing; · another 6-in gap; · and finally a 2-ft 0-in end post over the pier top. A 4.5” clearance gap would be required between this end post (Figure 21 plan view insert, dark brown) and the start of the centre span side girder (Figure 21 plan view insert, dark blue). The side lengths of the central span would be 100-ft 0-in, but the spacing between the two outer pier sets would be 100-ft 9-in.

Figure 19 and Figure 20 show an attempt to model the Hooe Lake swing bridge central span in 2 mm scale including the cage around the central pier and suspended maintenance platform. Photos of the prototype show two prominent lateral girders on the underside of the central bridge span above the pier just inside the stanchions from which the maintenance gantries were suspended eg in local historian Chris Robinson’s book, Plymouth then&now | Plymouth – an ever evolving city, page 149 If anyone has further information about bridge prototype dimensions, it would be great to post that. The dimensions and spacing of the outer twin piers remain unclear at present. From photographs, the top of the lower, larger cylinders (at the junction with the conical sections) appears to be approximately level with the tops of the concrete piles (Figure 15) that carried the supporting trestles for the outer spans, and these in turn were approximately level with the Barton Road surface in front of the station parapet. Available photographs also suggest that the diameter of the narrower, upper cylindrical section of the outer piers was 75% of the diameter of the larger, lower section. So if the lower cylinder was 6-ft in diameter, the upper cylinder might have been 4-ft 6-in in diameter (which seems a nice round combination of figures).

Figure 18 shows an attempt to model the Hooe Lake swing bridge post-1927 dolphins in 2 mm scale. These were constructed before the PWDRO 982/31 drawing came to light with the information now shared in Figures 16 and 17. The models were constructed simply from 2 mm square cross section styrene lengths smeared with a light layer of Polyfilla to add texture and then painted and weathered.

As noted above, the longitudinal symmetry to the central span (Figure 16, preceding post) indicates that the bridge was not constructed with the speculated ‘scarfed’ junction of Figure 10. A plausible alternative, based on information from the PWDRO 982/31 drawing, is shown in Figure 17. The plan view of the central span in the open/swung state aligned with the dolphins is shown in the horizontal direction. (This is extracted from Figure 16.) Proposed detail for the span junction is shown in the vertical direction of Figure 17 (corresponding to the closed position of the central span. In order for the 100-ft by 18-ft central span to open by rotation, a minimum clearance of 3.8-in would be required to pass the inside edge of the fixed span end post. If this was set to a 4.5-in clearance in practice and if the fixed span ends were aligned to the outer pier centrelines, then the total pier-to-pier centreline spacing would be {4.5-in + 100-ft 0-in + 4.5-in}, thus precisely matching the distance of 100-ft 9-in specified in the Figure 5 drawing. Minimising the rail gap between moveable and fixed spans requires the central span rails to extend close to the turning circle (large blue dashed circle in Figure 17). Another Kingdom book photograph (from page 27) deposited in the PWDRO and available online shows detail for the rail junction: PWDRO, search ‘P000095078’. The span ends at the junction do not appear to be curved. Instead the photograph shows two straight square cut metal floor plates more or less flush with the ends of the massive longitudinal timbers that host the bridge rail chairs. I’ve estimated the cross section of the timbers as at 18-in by 8-in (wxd), perhaps over generously in the width estimate. With the outside points of the central span timbers at the turning circle limit and the leading edge centerline point of the fixed span metal plate also at the turning circle limit, then a minimum clearance gap of fractionally over 1.25-in would be required between the two opposing span ends, as highlighted in Figure 17. In practice the rail gap might be reduced to less than 1.25-in, if the rails themselves extend beyond the timber ends. Looking at the Kingdom book photograph (PWDRO reference P000095078), it may be that the timber bulks stopped a little short of the metal plate ends and the rails extended slightly beyond to provide a close fit. In the 1894 Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Co correspondence to the Board of Trade (see above, National Archives record MT 10/639), a figure of 40-ft 0-in was cited for the opening in the navigation channel either side of the central bridge pier. If we assume that the outer pier centrelines were located exactly beneath the fixed span end post limits (Figure 17, dark brown) and take the waling enclosure to be 14-ft 6-in (as drawn for the original bridge in PWDRO 982/31), then an outer span pier base diameter of 75-in would provide the navigation channel clearance of exactly 40-ft 0-in. A figure of 75-in for the pier base diameter is close to a visual estimate of 6-ft (72-in) made during a site visit to survey the trestle piles. With currently available information, the diameter of the outer pier bases remains uncertain, although something in the range 72-in to 75-in seems probable.

To continue with information relating to the Hooe Lake swing bridge that led into the station, there is a (rather delicate) 1927 scale drawing for replacement dolphins in the Plymouth and West Devon record Office (PWDRO record 982/31). The drawing is (surprisingly) bundled with plans linked to Devonport Tramways, although there is no associated correspondence or architect name to add context. However, it gives some useful dimension information that is reproduced in Figure 16. The focus of the drawing is on the replacement dolphins, but an outline of the central span and pier are included in plan view and elevation. The dimensions of the central span itself appear to be exactly 100-ft by 18-ft; its sides are drawn with a width of 18-in, narrower than the 24-in width postulated for the fixed span sides in Figure 7. One important detail in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing is that there is no longitudinal asymmetry on the central span and so the ‘scarfed’ junction between fixed and outer spans considered in the earlier posting (Figure 10) can be scrubbed. (See next post for more discussion on this.) Scale measurements from the PWDRO 982/31 drawing set the column width for the central pier at 12-ft 0-in. It is topped by an octagonal plinth that appears to be 15-ft 0-in across and 12-in thick. The twin piers that support the ends of the outer, fixed spans are not shown in the drawing alas. These piers had a larger diameter cylindrical base topped by a narrower upper section with conical tapering at the junction. When surveying the trestle piles (Figure 15), I was unable to measure the circumference of the outer span piers, even at the lowest spring tide point, because the water around the pier base is too deep to wade. My estimate was that the pier bases might be around 6-ft in diameter. Based on additional analysis (next post), it is possible that the pier base diameter may have been a little larger (eg 75-in rather than 72-in). The original dolphins were diamond shaped structures and enclosed in ‘box-like’ surround that ran all the way around both the dolphins and enclosed the bridge’s central pier. These are marked in dotted lines in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing. They appear to have been constructed with 12-in cross section vertical piles that supported 9-in cross-section horizontal beams. These were clad with a layer of waling planks (probably of 3-in thickness). A good picture of the original structure is in Kingdom’s Turnchapel Branch book on page 46 (dated 1-Oct-1896 when the bridge was nearly new). At this point the waling planks were vertically aligned. By 1924 the vertical walings had been replaced by horizontally aligned boards. An old collector postcard with a photograph from H. C. Casserly gives excellent detail. This is available to see online: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search ‘Turnchapel Steam’; image available as 3893/15/18. The image shows that there was a ladder over the side of the central span allowing personnel to descend to a stage suspended beneath and thence, via further ladders, to a walkway running along the length of the dolphin enclosure. Additional ladders from the walkway up to the diamond-shaped dolphins are also seen. The PWDRO 3893/15/18 image also gives interesting detail of Bayly’s yard in the background. The 1927 plan for replacement dolphins in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing shows a composite structure comprising 1-ft 2-in square cross section concrete piles with wooden bracing in two tiers. The structure of these dolphins appears to match available post-war photographic evidence except that the bracing was actually constructed in concrete. Possibly the PWDRO 982/31 plan was an early draft in a tendering process or perhaps the wooden bracing and associated metal fixing plates specified in the plan were temporary features to set up the structure pending installation of concrete braces. The plans indicate that the dolphin piles were to be driven into the channel bed initially as 40-ft lengths. The topmost 3-ft of these was then to be broken off and vertical extensions to be added with the bracing superstructure. In addition to the dolphins a diagonally braced concrete cage of apparently similar construction to the dolphins was added to protect the central pier when the original walings were removed. This cage around the central pier is not included in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing. The bridge superstructure was dismantled in 1963, and a photo (dated 28-Oct-1963) of the operation in progress can be seen in Kingdom on page 67. This photo reveals the structure of the trestles supporting the outer spans in some detail. The dolphins and cage around the central pier remained for a further 30 years. They were eventually removed in 1993. Two photos of the dolphin demolition in progress are available online: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search (i) ‘P000086241’ (ii) ‘P000086242’. These show interesting detail of the structure and suggest that the slightly shallower 1-ft 0-in depth of the horizontal bracings drawn in the PWDRO 982/31 plan was translated into the fully concrete structure. Similarly the planned 1-ft 2-in by 10-in cross section of the diagonal braces appears to have been conserved. Another useful picture with dolphin and central cage detail, used in Kingdom’s book and also deposited in the PWDRO, dates from 1979: go to the PWDRO online catalogue and search ‘P000095083’. See also photos on the Cornwall Railway Society site [www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/turnchapel-branch.html]. As a postscript to this post, a rather grainy and undated photograph on page 29 of the late Arthur Clamp's monograph, Hooe and Turnchapel Remembered, may capture the point at which replacement dolphin work was ongoing. The image shows the vertical wooden piles of the original dolphin and pier enclosure in place but with horizontal beams and waling boards removed. A scaffolding erection and ladder can be made out around the position of the upstream dolphin and what looks like possible wooden shuttering around one of the upright piles. This might be consistent with the instruction in the PWDRO 982/31 drawing for the extensions to be added to the initially driven piles.

Just to add to David's preceding post... There is also David Mallott’s compact Chapel Wharf layout in 2mm scale, inspired by the Admiralty coaling and oiling depot at Turnchapel Wharves (but not encompassing Turnchapel Station) [www.2mm.org.uk/layouts/chapelwharf/index.htm].

Apologies for the swamp of posts this weekend folks. Hope some of the info will be useful. Will likely be radio-silence from me for a week or two now, as head down with work. I have some more info still to share on the bridge dolphins and hopefully we can then 'leave the bridge and pull into the station itself'. Best wishes, Dave

For a more detailed survey of the Hooe Lake swing bridge trestle piles, see Figures 12-15 attached.

Moving on to the Hooe Lake bridge trestles… As mentioned previously, these seem to have been installed around 1957/1958 to strengthen the outer spans. The concrete piles that supported the trestles are still there to be seen on both sides of The Cut. Figure 11 shows a rough pass survey on the Barton Road side together with an attempt to model the trestles in 2mm scale. Since doing this rough survey, detailed site survey information for Barton Road and the parapet area has now become available in the 11/01250/FUL planning files (previously discussed). I have also done a more detailed structural survey of the concrete trestle piles (next post), but there are a few points to draw out from the rough survey here. The width across Barton Road at the right hand end of the parapet was about 8.4 m. There’s a grassy verge from the edge of the road that drops down to a concrete ledge (this is also marked in the 11/01250/FUL site survey). The concrete ledge was perhaps a retaining wall installed to prevent subsidence of the road and quay edge crashing into the bridge support. At the point of measurement, the width of the verge to the outside edge of the concrete ledge was 2.45 m and from there to the quay wall (which is partially broken down) was 1.72 m. The distance from the concrete edge to the horizontal girder between the bridge piers, which was measured with a bit of slightly stretchy fishing line and a weight, was 16.0 m. The total distance from the parapet wall to the centre point of the bridge piers was estimated to be about 27 m or 88.5-ft, reasonably consistent with 91-ft distance of Figure 5 that came to light a year or two later. As another small detail, the square top of the concrete piles is roughly level with the surface of Barton Road. There are plenty of modern day pictures of the trestle piles and remaining bridge piers available online in various photostreams.

I don’t want to divert the thread of this discussion from Kevin’s initial focus on Turnchapel, but there is an interesting feature in Laira Bridge that may have particular relevance to the swing bridge leading into Turnchapel Station. Some of the spans had different length sides with ends that were not square on. This was to accommodate bridge curvature. It’s not drawn accurately in Figure 8, although there is a comment there to that effect. This difference in overall side length manifests itself in different lengths for the upright posts at the ends of spans that sit atop the piers. Presumably the cross dimensions, which effectively define the height of the bridge sides, remain the same on both sides. The significance of this is not to do with curvature in the Hooe Lake swing bridge, since that bridge appears to have been perfectly linear, but in relation to how the central span opened. Available photographs taken inside the bridge seem to show a closely fit straight junction between the outer spans and the moveable central span (i.e. not curved to accommodate central span rotation). Presumably the span ends over the piers in The Cut would therefore need to be angled, as per Figure 10, to allow opening of the bridge. If that were the case, then perhaps the post uprights in the fixed span ends were unequal in length on the two sides of the fixed spans (cf Laira). Not sure how much asymmetry in side length may have been required for opening where the central span is about 100-ft in length with a bridge width of 18-ft … estimate made in Figure 10. Comments on swing bridge design from any engineers out there welcome!