Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, ChrisN said:

 

I will look for pictures but they hardly photographed the locos so I will see if I can see anything.  The Cambrian Brake Third has three compartments, a guard and a luggage compartment, although I am not sure if they had separate doors.  What are the lengths of each type of coach?

 

Over the body:

 

1871 4-Compt 1st/2nd Composite: 24'

 

1872 Block set carriages:

3-Compt. Brake Third: 25'

5-Compt.Second: 26'

5-Compt. Third: 23'8"

4-Compt. First: 26'

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Over the body:

 

1871 4-Compt 1st/2nd Composite: 24'

 

1872 Block set carriages:

3-Compt. Brake Third: 25'

5-Compt.Second: 26'

5-Compt. Third: 23'8"

4-Compt. First: 26'

 

Thank you.  Looking at the list of what survived the vehicles on the Cambrian were slightly different, if only by a foot or so.  Oswestry works built carriages as well but I shall have to check how different they were, whether they were their own design or followed either Ashbury or Metro.  I will look out for some pictures but they are probably like hen's teeth.

[Edwardian]

Just watched an interesting short Youtube documentary.

 

We all recall the ship collision in Kind Hearts & Coronets, caused by obstinacy and a certain confusion of mind.

 

 

Well, the documentary concerns HMS Victoria, victim of the tragic incident that almost certainly inspired the scene.

 

 

 

 

[Hroth]

An interesting video, showing the effectiveness of rams in peacetime!  The RN certainly had some odd, almost experimental ships in the latter part of the 19th Century.  I found the commentary in the video rather odd, the pronounciation of certain words left me as puzzled as Admiral Tryons officers! 

[drmditch]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Just watched an interesting short Youtube documentary.

 

We all recall the ship collision in Kind Hearts & Coronets, caused by obstinacy and a certain confusion of mind.

 

 

Well, the documentary concerns HMS Victoria, victim of the tragic incident that almost certainly inspired the scene.

 

 

 

 

I think this has been discussed on this thread before. Amdrew Gordon's 'The Rules of The Game' has an interesting account of the context.

 

There is a famous picture of HMS Victoria just fitting through the Swing Bridge on the Tyne, having built upstream at Elswick.

 

The history of her 16" guns is quite interesting as well.

Edited August 29, 2022 by drmditch

[Schooner]

Junction

I think this is about the best I can do with Peco parts:

I'm sure we can all agree it's not good enough.

 

We can blame some issues on Peco, most of which stem from the straight diamond. @Edwardian, I don't know where you stand on hand-built track but I'd suggest taking the concept into Templot, use the previous (single-track) radius as the inner line and draw a more naturally flowing junction with each route curving away from the (curved) diamond. It will certainly be an improvement. Can't comment on how much of one. Templot is on my list of things to learn, but it's not at the top of it...is there a kind Parishioner willing and able to give this a quick try?

 

The other problem is the length these junctions take up. The proximity to CA is obvious, but I've shown a yard's worth (914mm) of headshunt/storage off the CA goods sidings to make the point clearer: a train could barely be free of CA (and across the bridge?) before getting into the junction.

 

Open to the floor for suggestions...

 

BM North - very rough, feedback required!

Minimalist approach to the same concept - the Branch (RH lowest road, LH upper) crosses the Main (RH island platform roads, LH lower) hopefully giving the impression that the two are headed in very different directions North of BM. Loads of open ground, which is nice and contrasts with the South end of the station - hopefully showing the change from twin-track mainline to two single-track lines. No utility loop, which is a bit of pain, but the slipped crossing (between SC and TT) allows for movements between the branch platform and goods facilities*/main platforms and TT. SC moved to platform end to free up space for TT ("...to allow the signalman to see approaching traffic through the bridge on both main and branch lines...")

 

*As a working hypothesis, I've got Branch/Down Goods drawing into the branch platform and stopping. Loco exchanges the inbounds (a cut at the front of the train) with the outbounds in the goods loop (prepared and parked there by the station pilot). Up goods can work directly from the goods loop or from the main up.

 

 

Cassette Yard:

Just as another example of what can be done in the space really, heaps options!

 

Overall:

So that's the WNR as per my current working version...but emphasis very much on 'working version'. It's functional, but the junction is nasty, and the North end of BM is only a geometry check really. Worth persuing these avenues, or changing tack?

 

Oh, I tried tidying Achingham up a bit. No drastic changes -the loss of the side loading dock is the main one - but opinions are cordially invited!

 

Cheers :) 

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Schooner said:

Junction

I know it's been discussed here at length before but I really do feel that the junction is too complicated.

[Northroader]

Mumble, mumble, Fodderty Junction, mumble........

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I know it's been discussed here at length before but I really do feel that the junction is too complicated.

 

Requirements of the Board of Trade: junctions on single lines to be laid out as double. Section B, paragraph 10, here. In the present case, this does have the ludicrous consequence every move, rather than only half of moves, traverses a facing point and hence four rather than just one facing point locks are required! There would be some simplification if the line from Castle Aching to Achingham was laid double but both stations would then run foul of the requirement at section B paragraph 11. Anyway, I understand we are to imagine some miles of single line either side of the junction, with it forming a scene on its own between scenic breaks. What is unclear to me is whether the double track section should be long enough to act as a passing place - I suspect so, with the double junction at one end (the right-hand end as the plan is drawn.)

 

However, there is a weaselly get-out in the wording of the requirement: the 1885 wording was "in ordinary cases"; being revised for the 1902 edition as "to be, as a rule". If this junction is old enough, as I suspect is the case, it might get away as being a single point (perhaps with a trap siding on the branch) though it must still of course be a block post with staff, token, or whatever for each of the three sections, so all trains will come to a stand at the box.

 

Would there be any model railway operational simplification in continuing double line from the junction into the fiddle yard? Or is the fiddle yard accommodating trains in and out of Castle Aching that don't run through to Birchoverham Market? 

[Edwardian]

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

Junction

I think this is about the best I can do with Peco parts:

I'm sure we can all agree it's not good enough.

 

We can blame some issues on Peco, most of which stem from the straight diamond. @Edwardian, I don't know where you stand on hand-built track but I'd suggest taking the concept into Templot, use the previous (single-track) radius as the inner line and draw a more naturally flowing junction with each route curving away from the (curved) diamond. It will certainly be an improvement. Can't comment on how much of one. Templot is on my list of things to learn, but it's not at the top of it...is there a kind Parishioner willing and able to give this a quick try?

 

The other problem is the length these junctions take up. The proximity to CA is obvious, but I've shown a yard's worth (914mm) of headshunt/storage off the CA goods sidings to make the point clearer: a train could barely be free of CA (and across the bridge?) before getting into the junction.

 

Open to the floor for suggestions...

 

We seem to be faced with two unpalatable alternatives:

 

1) a single turnout junction, which is unprototypical, and, I believe, contrary to what the BoT was likely to require. Are there exceptions (outside the realm of special Acts or LR Orders)?

 

While typing, Northroader has kindly replied:

 

 

 

2) Something that represents prototype practice, but which looks hideous (especially in the set-track configuration, but the site is probably too cramped for the junction to look right). 

 

This leads to questions:

 

(a) How were such junctions worked? Why were they set out like this and how did up and down traffic use the 2 lines leading into and out of the junction?

 

(b) How were they signalled?

 

Finally, there purpose of these double-track elements of the junctions will presumably dictate their length. If the junction lines on the layout are two short to be used as they would have been, we have something that not only looks questionable but that cannot be worked prototypically. so,

 

(c) How long should these double-track leads-in reasonably be?

 

(d) Is there any point in the mainline going back to a single line before hitting the cassette yard? 

 

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

BM North - very rough, feedback required!

Minimalist approach to the same concept - the Branch (RH lowest road, LH upper) crosses the Main (RH island platform roads, LH lower) hopefully giving the impression that the two are headed in very different directions North of BM. Loads of open ground, which is nice and contrasts with the South end of the station - hopefully showing the change from twin-track mainline to two single-track lines. No utility loop, which is a bit of pain, but the slipped crossing (between SC and TT) allows for movements between the branch platform and goods facilities*/main platforms and TT. SC moved to platform end to free up space for TT ("...to allow the signalman to see approaching traffic through the bridge on both main and branch lines...")

 

This looks great.

 

 

Here we see how (1) the top line in your diagram ('Branch') takes the reasonably significant traffic of the Fakeney Branch; and, (2) the 'Main' carries the mainline traffic to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea plus the rather slight traffic that divides off to Birchoverham Staithe a little further north. 

 

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

*As a working hypothesis, I've got Branch/Down Goods drawing into the branch platform and stopping. Loco exchanges the inbounds (a cut at the front of the train) with the outbounds in the goods loop (prepared and parked there by the station pilot). Up goods can work directly from the goods loop or from the main up.

 

Sounds good, but my dull brain would need to see the movements in order to understand.

 

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Cassette Yard:

Just as another example of what can be done in the space really, heaps options!

 

I cannot retain all the various iterations, but do we need all this?

 

If there is a double track leading into the cassette yard from both sides, these could simple be continuous with  a line or two leading to where cassettes would be placed. 

 

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

Overall:

So that's the WNR as per my current working version...but emphasis very much on 'working version'. It's functional, but the junction is nasty, and the North end of BM is only a geometry check really. Worth persuing these avenues, or changing tack?

 

Oh, I tried tidying Achingham up a bit. No drastic changes -the loss of the side loading dock is the main one - but opinions are cordially invited!

 

Cheers :) 

 

Looks pretty optimal to me. Many thanks once more.

 

 

[Compound2632]

There's always the option of the junction being hidden, so all these questions are swept under the carpet! that would give a bit more country run to the line out of Castle Aching.

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Requirements of the Board of Trade: junctions on single lines to be laid out as double. Section B, paragraph 10, here. In the present case, this does have the ludicrous consequence every move, rather than only half of moves, traverses a facing point and hence four rather than just one facing point locks are required! There would be some simplification if the line from Castle Aching to Achingham was laid double but both stations would then run foul of the requirement at section B paragraph 11. Anyway, I understand we are to imagine some miles of single line either side of the junction, with it forming a scene on its own between scenic breaks. What is unclear to me is whether the double track section should be long enough to act as a passing place - I suspect so, with the double junction at one end (the right-hand end as the plan is drawn.)

 

Our posts crossed, but, yes, my concern here the wish to conform to prototype pratcice.

 

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

However, there is a weaselly get-out in the wording of the requirement: the 1885 wording was "in ordinary cases"; being revised for the 1902 edition as "to be, as a rule". If this junction is old enough, as I suspect is the case, it might get away as being a single point (perhaps with a trap siding on the branch) though it must still of course be a block post with staff, token, or whatever for each of the three sections, so all trains will come to a stand at the box.

 

Beginning of the 1860s, when the Achingham branch was built. Might that help?

 

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Would there be any model railway operational simplification in continuing double line from the junction into the fiddle yard? Or is the fiddle yard accommodating trains in and out of Castle Aching that don't run through to Birchoverham Market? 

 

My thought exactly. Indeed, it would surely be simpler to have a double track in and out of the cassette yard.

 

The cassette yard section needs to do 2 things:

 

(a) Run trains via a continuous line between CA and BM

 

(b) House lines terminating in space for cassette trays yo represent traffic via AC north and south junctions

 

 

In reality, the Achingham branch junction might go to a single line and back to a double. That wouldn't matter on the model, as I could just skip the singling.

 

However, I suspect in reality it would have  been double all along, as the intention was to relieve the congestion caused by the Aching Constable junctions by double the section in the box below.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

1) a single turnout junction, which is unprototypical, and, I believe, contrary to what the BoT was likely to require. Are there exceptions (outside the realm of special Acts or LR Orders)?

 

2) Something that represents prototype practice, but which looks hideous (especially in the set-track configuration, but the site is probably too cramped for the junction to look right). 

 

....

 

(d) Is there any point in the mainline going back to a single line before hitting the cassette yard? 

 

 

 

This may lead to the conclusion that the BoT compliant junction is actually a good thing to include, because it allows the line to double before the cassette yard.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There's always the option of the junction being hidden, so all these questions are swept under the carpet! that would give a bit more country run to the line out of Castle Aching.

 

Which is the other option, but how, then, do I separate off the Achingham branch?

 

 

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Which is the other option, but how, then, do I separate off the Achingham branch?

 

I can see that without the junction being modelled, operation might start to seem magical and the whole set-up apparently reduced to a collection of three disconnected stations.

[ianathompson]

41 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

1) a single turnout junction, which is unprototypical,

 

In addition to Fodderty Junction on the Kyle line there was another, relatively local example, at Lossie Junction.

This was just outside Elgin, on the GNoSR mainline, at the point where the sinle line Lossiemouth branch left the mainline.

There is a signalling diagram in the same source  that Fodderty Junction diagram was obtained from. (Not sure about copyright.)

Perhaps the north of Scotland was sufficiently far away from HQ in London to get away with it?!

 

I am aware that the Highland, and its infamous mixed trains, thumbed its nose at officialdom.

The GNoSR also tried to get itself exempted from the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act arguing that it ran so few trains on many of its branches that there was no need for interlocking!

It received the inevitable reply.

 

Ian T

Edited August 30, 2022 by ianathompson
typo

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

a single turnout junction, which is unprototypical

Not necessarily.

 

As well as Fodderty Junction and Lossie Junction (https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 324), I know of:

 

- Boscarne Junction, near Bodmin, albeit with a siding next to each that was not a running line. https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 386

 

- Coombe Junction on the Looe branch, which is perhaps a special case but still counts. https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 372

 

I'm sure there must be others too.

[Donw]

Agree about the junction. I think more normal for single track junctions is a simple loop on the major line with a single turnout in one side of the loop for the minor line.  I think this works on the principle that if say a train has left for Achingham while another is approaching towards the junction headed for CA. There would be a stop signal before the loop turnout where the train would be held until the Achingham train clears the junction the other side of the loop allows for the danger of an approaching train over running the signal.

 

Don

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Donw said:

Agree about the junction. I think more normal for single track junctions is a simple loop on the major line with a single turnout in one side of the loop for the minor line. 

 

Get that one past the Inspector. Can you give any examples?

[kingfisher9147]

2 things too suggested with this plan, is keep it simple due to cost but also if need replacing or fixing. The other one is have it on module boards but no bigger than 2ft x 4ft. I know it will cost more but would be easy to dismantle but also transporting if moving house. 

Mike 

[Northroader]

Probably this has been suggested before, and I can’t remember, old age and all that, just have the two single lines coming together and running parallel into CA. Bodmin General comes to mind, but I’m sure there’s others, Bodmin does keep its simplicity, too, as I’m sure you want to do the same for CA.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3272172

 

[Donw]

16 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Probably this has been suggested before, and I can’t remember, old age and all that, just have the two single lines coming together and running parallel into CA. Bodmin General comes to mind, but I’m sure there’s others, Bodmin does keep its simplicity, too, as I’m sure you want to do the same for CA.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3272172

 

 

Smallbrook on the Isle of wight ran into St Johns as two single lines in Winter but as double track during the summer. The junction was effectively switched out in Winter presumably to save on staffing.

 

Interesting that the Diagram at Boscarne shows no turnout or trap on the SR line running in that would stop a train approaching from Bodmin North until reaching the junction with the GW.  Also Coombe shows a very short piece of track that would take any runaway from the steeply climbing track to Liskeard.

 

Don  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Caley Jim]

44 minutes ago, Northroader said:

........ just have the two single lines coming together and running parallel into CA. Bodmin General comes to mind, but I’m sure there’s others, Bodmin does keep its simplicity, too, as I’m sure you want to do the same for CA.

Boat of Garten was similar, though only the GNoS Speyside line terminated there and the reason for that running side by side with the HR main line was the refusal of the latter to allow the former to form a junction further back!   The HR and the GnoS did not get on with on with another!

 

Jim

[ianathompson]

County School used the two single lines type "junction" if you want a local GE example.

The actual point connections for the lines were at the station but the two lines separated about a mile to the north.

The arrangement saved the expense of providing an additional box and of manning it.

I beleive that it was mentioned a few pages back in connection with an accident there. 

 

An alternative, slightly more complex junction arrangement was to gaunlet the points.

In this system the blades were operated close to the box but the crossing ,and hence the divergence, was at some distnace.

I might be wrong but I think that the Wymondham & Forncett branch used this sytem at Wymondham to quote anothe GE example.

 

I thought that the idea, though, was to model an isloted junction at some remove from any town.

Neither of the two "dodges" above would be credible if that is the aim.

 

Ian T

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

County School used the two single lines type "junction" if you want a local GE example.

The actual point connections for the lines were at the station but the two lines separated about a mile to the north.

The arrangement saved the expense of providing an additional box and of manning it.

I beleive that it was mentioned a few pages back in connection with an accident there. 

 

An alternative, slightly more complex junction arrangement was to gaunlet the points.

In this system the blades were operated close to the box but the crossing ,and hence the divergence, was at some distnace.

I might be wrong but I think that the Wymondham & Forncett branch used this sytem at Wymondham to quote anothe GE example.

 

I thought that the idea, though, was to model an isloted junction at some remove from any town.

Neither of the two "dodges" above would be credible if that is the aim.

 

Ian T

 

County School, as I recall, is as you say, actually two lines converging to run parallel into the station, so the 'junction' is the station itself, formed by means of the cross-overs there.

 

Some of the other examples mentioned seem to be this.

 

Could that not be a economical solution for CA?

 

How might that be translated into the station's track plan?

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

How might that be translated into the station's track plan?

 

It all tends to make Castle Aching a bigger station than you've always envisioned it, which, frankly and as previously discussed more than once (!) is necessary for the proposed traffic!

 

I think the existing single line would become the departure line with the arrivals line being on the inside of the curve. The platforms would retain their current functions, the main platform for arrivals and departures and the bay for departures - no connection to the arrivals line. You might be able to dispense with the long headshunt and shunt via the departure line.

 

Is it up or down to CA? - is an arrival an up train or a down train?

 

Sketch to follow, in a while.

[ianathompson]

20 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Could that not be a economical solution for CA?

 

How might that be translated into the station's track plan?

 

It could be a solution.

 

From the last diagram that I have seen of the proposed junction all you would do is take out all the points at the junction.

The two lines would leave the station and simply swing away from one another at the junction.

From the last diagram that I saw the headshunt almost reached  the junction.

You would simply use the headshunt as a second running line.

 

I have not examined the station layout in any detail so that might need modification.

If there was a need for shunting on one or either of the branches this would imply that an outer home was provided on that line.

The alternative would be that the Warning Arrangement was authorised.

 

I have not read the proposals in great detail so I am unaware of the distance between the junction and the station.

The Boat of Garten junction was about two and half miles away from the station which I would imagine made it one of, if not the most remote, junctions of two single lines.

I confidently await contradiction!

 

Whilst, as noted above, the Highland and the GNoSR did not get on during the nineteenth century they almost amalgamated just before WWI.

The Highland shareholders rejected the proposal because they were afraid that Aberdeen and Inverurie would take over from Inverness and Loch Gorm as the principal centres of the system.

 

Ian T

Edited August 30, 2022 by ianathompson
typo