Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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.

 

The only change to the track as previously laid that I had hitherto considered was the addition of a headshunt to enable the yard to be shunted independently of the platform road to ease congestion.

 

This current proposal, of two single lines running into the station, would be a further change. 

 

It is the intention to retain a single platform face. Thus, if two lines ran in, it would be necessary for them both to reach the platform road.

 

This would need not to interfere with the operation of the run round loop and the engine shed loop (envisaged as the de facto run round loop, so that the actual loop can store stock if required).

 

The proposal to run two single lines into the station not only potentially solves the junction format conundrum, but might also help to relieve congestion on the approach to CA Station; if need be a train from Achingham could, presumably wait on its own line outside the station, say, whilst a mainline train left?  

 

13 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

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.

 

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me

 

 

13 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

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

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

 

That would mean losing the ability to shunt the yard without blocking the mainline.

 

That might be OK, depending on the timetable pressures.

 

13 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

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!

 

There is no particular 'in-world' need for the divergence toward Achingham to be as far north of CA as the route map suggests, it could, rather, start to diverge after a significant, but relatively short, distance such as at County School.  

 

13 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

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

 

[Schooner]

Tight on time, but

 

As is:

 

A more sympathetic Junction:

 

Alongside lines:

 

And...a bit left field this, cos it'd require changes in the Lore, but if A Proper Junction is important, then it might be better sited across the way:

 

 

[Edwardian]

Thank you again.

 

With this one ....

 

 

Is there a room to put a block in whereby an Achingham branch train can be held if necessary at a signal while the train engine runs round its train and departs on the mainline?  

 

I say this because the branch line must function as the headshunt for platform road and inner loop.

 

[Edwardian]

Here is County School. Thank you to Ian for pointing to this example.

 

 

 

It's a 2-platform through station, but I don't see why the idea of 2 single lines meeting in a single-platform terminus shouldn't work, indeed, Schooner has now drawn that configuration. Northroader has given Bodmin General as a terminus example.

 

The map shows the two single lines converge and run a parallel course to the station where cross-overs give both lines access to each platform, which are presumably conventional up and down platforms, before the loop closes (off the map's left edge) and the line continues as a single track

 

 

A = the Wymondham & Wells branch

B = the East Norfolk Line Western Extension, to Wroxham

C = County School station with a crossover linking both branches to both platforms. In greater detail below.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Is there a room to put a block in whereby an Achingham branch train can be held if necessary at a signal while the train engine runs round its train and departs on the mainline?  

 

I say this because the branch line must function as the headshunt for platform road and inner loop.

I don't see why not..

[Nearholmer]

On 26/08/2022 at 16:47, Edwardian said:

What carriages and for which other railways I have yet to discover, but it is certainly the case that the panel design is reasonably typical of the 1870s. 

 

 

A lengthy search through The Engineer might answer the question, and even produce a drawing, because significant orders from overseas railways especially were often the subjects of short articles that must have been based on what we would now know as boastful press releases from the suppliers.

 

On another tack: do you know which vehicles inspired the Hattons Genesis Brake Thirds? The way the windows are placed in the ends look very odd to my eyes, but my eyes have been trained pretty much exclusively on South of England prototypes.

[Nearholmer]

I knew I recognised your invented 4W brake/luggage van, even without The Engineer!

 

Isle of Man Railway E Class vehicle, MC&W, 1873. https://www.accucraft.uk.com/products/isle-of-man-e-van/

 

Well, yours isnt exactly like theirs, but possibly theirs show what your should be like, especially the very distinctive tops to the duckets. IIRC the same design was also supplied to overseas customers, in various gauges. The antipodes maybe?

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

A lengthy search through The Engineer might answer the question, and even produce a drawing, because significant orders from overseas railways especially were often the subjects of short articles that must have been based on what we would now know as boastful press releases from the suppliers.

 

Good idea.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

On another tack: do you know which vehicles inspired the Hattons Genesis Brake Thirds? The way the windows are placed in the ends look very odd to my eyes, but my eyes have been trained pretty much exclusively on South of England prototypes.

 

I don't recall much if any discussion about the brake ends. Stephen's was the main and co-ordinating role, so he might recall something on that.

 

I do seem to recall that the flat top ducket that Hattons had decided upon prior to our involvement. Perhaps too the end windows. Certainly I do not recall it as a matter we were called upon to comment. That Hattons was already some way into design is evidenced by the inability to shift them from a lav. comp. to the much more useful luggage comp. 

 

The odd brake end windows are a thing confined to Hattons's 4-wheel brake third (they don't do a 4-wheel full brake):

 

 

I'm not sure I shall bother with 4-wheel 1890s coaches (as this style would be on the WNR), but I am very keen on using the Hattons 6-wheelers.  Here is the brake third

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I knew I recognised your invented 4W brake/luggage van, even without The Engineer!

 

Isle of Man Railway E Class vehicle, MC&W, 1873. https://www.accucraft.uk.com/products/isle-of-man-e-van/

 

Well, yours isnt exactly like theirs, but possibly theirs show what your should be like, especially the very distinctive tops to the duckets. IIRC the same design was also supplied to overseas customers, in various gauges. The antipodes maybe?

 

Mine don't have a flat top ducket and, indeed, I may change that feature on the Hattons duckets, not because I dislike them, but simply because that will not have been a feature on any of the previous WNR coach styles.

 

For the 4-wheel 1870s brake I had thought of a central brake and ducket flanked by luggage compartments, but ultimately thought that I liked the brake end, also seen on the pukka brake third design, and wanted a shorter vehicle.  The luggage brake anyway would run as a set including the brake third, with brake ends outward.

 

I have my own preferences. I like the guard to have a distinct compartment and his own single door so that he doesn't have to use the luggage doors. A single pair of luggage doors seemed appropriate and it was possible to incorporate an appropriate luggage compartment along with one for the guard, who could enjoy his own door, quarter light, ducket and end windows, whereas he is reduced to using the luggage doors on the brake third. 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Rule 1 applies to carriages, I’m sure, and I very much like yours (I very much like the IoM one too!), besides which I’ve noticed that the beading/panelling is very different. Makes me wonder whether MC&W either had various standard specs that customers could choose from, like a book of wallpaper, or were working to LSWR drawings. Doubtless there is a MC&W expert out there somewhere who could tell us.

 

 

[uax6]

I'm not a fan of the quarterlight for the guard, there's something that doesn't quite look right. It might be the beading in the cantrail that doesn't help (a simple circle here might look better, and was often used by the Highland), Could the quarterlight be on the other side of the door, away from the ducket? That might balance it better, as it just looks a bit odd.

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

I'm not a fan of the quarterlight for the guard, there's something that doesn't quite look right. It might be the beading in the cantrail that doesn't help (a simple circle here might look better, and was often used by the Highland), Could the quarterlight be on the other side of the door, away from the ducket? That might balance it better, as it just looks a bit odd.

 

Andy G

 

 

A contemporary GER vehicle, albeit one-off conversion to a brake from a brake third

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Edwardian

[uax6]

That looks better, the cantrail moulding will be continuous over the three plain panels and the quarterlight as well...

 

Andy g

[Edwardian]

31 minutes ago, uax6 said:

That looks better, the cantrail moulding will be continuous over the three plain panels and the quarterlight as well...

 

Andy g

 

Yes, it's approximate derived from cut and paste of the brake third design.  I agree, if the quarter light is moved as you suggest, the recessed eaves panel, and, indeed, the raised waist beading, should continue across it and the three blind panels, in conformity with the GE example.  

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

On another tack: do you know which vehicles inspired the Hattons Genesis Brake Thirds? The way the windows are placed in the ends look very odd to my eyes, but my eyes have been trained pretty much exclusively on South of England prototypes.

 

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I don't recall much if any discussion about the brake ends. Stephen's was the main and co-ordinating role, so he might recall something on that.

 

I do seem to recall that the flat top ducket that Hattons had decided upon prior to our involvement. Perhaps too the end windows. Certainly I do not recall it as a matter we were called upon to comment. That Hattons was already some way into design is evidenced by the inability to shift them from a lav. comp. to the much more useful luggage comp. 

 

As far as I recall, the brake end widows were something I didn't poke my oar into. They seemed reasonably possible to me; if they don't identify as any particular company, so much the better, in my view. I was more concerned to make sure the 6-wheel brake third had a plain end; I was never happy with the rather short compartments on this vehicle compared to the presumed thirds in the other 6-wheelers; it looks as if it belongs with a mingy 6-compartment third of the same dimensions.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

As far as I recall, the brake end widows were something I didn't poke my oar into. They seemed reasonably possible to me; if they don't identify as any particular company, so much the better, in my view. I was more concerned to make sure the 6-wheel brake third had a plain end; I was never happy with the rather short compartments on this vehicle compared to the presumed thirds in the other 6-wheelers; it looks as if it belongs with a mingy 6-compartment third of the same dimensions.

 

Some things work very well, but others not, so the Genesis coaches are not the panacea for the WNR fleet I once thought they would be.

 

As the coaches will need a repaint, there is no reason, however, why they cannot be cut and shut to suit. 

 

I don't mind the compartment width of the 6-wheel brake third. The Midland may have treated third class passengers with a degree of equality reminiscent of the worst excesses of the French Revolution, but for most companies, West Norfolk included, the compartment spacing is absolutely fine for third in a mainline coach. 

 

 

The problem is rather with the 5-compartment 6-wheel coach, as the spacing is much more suited to an all-second.  

For an all-third, it would be better to have a shorter coach with the brake third spacing, or a long, 6-compartment third, again, with the brake third spacing. 

Now Hattons were confined to a standard length of chassis, a scale 31' IIRC. I am not and am tempted to kipper brake third compartment ends, probably as a 5-compartment coach on a shortened frame.  This configuration would be better for the WNR:

 

The other problem coach is the lavatory first/composite.

The WNR has no need of lavatory compartments, even it's longest mainline journeys are unlikely to be more than an hour and a half! Much more common and useful would be a luggage composite, which can be achieved by inserting luggage doors from the full brake.

 

Like the brake third, however, the full brake is a very usable vehicle just as it is.

 

 

 

Here a WNR mainline Norwich Set:

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Edwardian

[uax6]

Could you actually make the full third a 3rd with one 2nd compartment, and there by keep the full length chassis? I'm not sure what the chassis are going to be like, but cutting them down might be difficult? Or maybe make them luggage thirds?

 

Otherwise looking good!
 

Andy G

[Compound2632]

The 6-wheelers are 32 ft over body, so the 5-compartment carriage has compartments about 6' 2" between partitions, which is not excessive. It's pretty close to a North Eastern third. (I'm not up on NER diagrams so I'm afraid I can't give chapter and verse.) But in some liveries, Hattons have it as a tricomposite - if I was their first class passenger I'd be disgruntled! Nevertheless, I think it's the best of the set, along with the passenger brake van.

[Edwardian]

31 minutes ago, uax6 said:

Could you actually make the full third a 3rd with one 2nd compartment, and there by keep the full length chassis? I'm not sure what the chassis are going to be like, but cutting them down might be difficult? Or maybe make them luggage thirds?

 

Otherwise looking good!
 

Andy G

 

Good points.

 

Perhaps it would help to explain the 'design philosophy' for WNR 6-wheelers. My thoughts are:

 

- Uniformity of length: The Hattons coaches are to a uniform length. That was often not the case with prototype companies, precisely because compartment widths of different classes tended to dictate differences in frame length. Some minor variation in coach length is, thus, prototypical as well as, IMHO, pleasing to the eye.   

 

- 31' and shorter: Having said that, the Hattons length, 31' I believe, is a good one. Ideal, I'd say, for the little WNR, as it puts their coaches just sub the 32'-34' lengths seen on companies like the GER and GNR.  This is why, should I would prefer a 5-compt. third under 31' to a 6-compartment one (like the GER's) over 31', though I would not rule out the latter.

 

- Other Third configurations:

(a) I would not rule out a 6-compartment third, extending the frames, though that is not my preference. Query whether the even narrower third compartments on the 4-wheel stock would help here. I'm not sure, however, that I want to shrink third compartments on mainline stock.

(b) I also have considered both centre brake Thirds (though I don't really need them); and,

(c) A luggage third. If I could insert a luggage compartment within a 5-compartment third, the resultant asymmetry could be quite pleasing and if, as you suggest, that could stretch it to a 31' frame, that would be well-worth doing. I wouldn't want all thirds to be such luggage thirds, however, so at least half of them would need to be shortened framed 5-compartment thirds.

 

- The Hattons 5-compartment coach. This would make an ideal second for the WNR and I could run a first (perhaps a luggage first to make up the 31' length and provide for 1st and 2nd uggage) and a second in lieu of two luggage composites. My problem is how to do a first. I will check to see if the 4-compartment 4-wheel coach offers anything wider.

 

Thus, in an ideal world I would still do all the variants outlined in my previous post, but would add a first and second and a luggage third.   

 

If I were to attempt 2 sets instead of jus one, that would allow the first and second to be utilised, but I could have a third and a luggage third in a single set.   

[uax6]

Are you going to keep them in sets? I only ask as I find the vac hoses on these early carriages a bit of an issue, it looks odd to see them all on their dummies while the train is in motion, its somehow more noticeable than the buffer beam mounted ones. It also leads to the question, why were the vac pipes not on the bufferbeam anyway? It must have been a real pain for the shunter to climb up to join them...

 

Andy G

 

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

The 6-wheelers are 32 ft over body, so the 5-compartment carriage has compartments about 6' 2" between partitions, which is not excessive. It's pretty close to a North Eastern third. (I'm not up on NER diagrams so I'm afraid I can't give chapter and verse.) But in some liveries, Hattons have it as a tricomposite - if I was their first class passenger I'd be disgruntled! Nevertheless, I think it's the best of the set, along with the passenger brake van.

 

I remain of the view that this would make a better second than a third for the WNR.

 

Learning that they are 32', which I must have forgotten, inventing false memory of you Midlandising the length, makes me even keener to vary the standard length with some slightly shorter versions.  

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

- Uniformity of length: The Hattons coaches are to a uniform length. That was often not the case with prototype companies, precisely because compartment widths of different classes tended to dictate differences in frame length. Some minor variation in coach length is, thus, prototypical as well as, IMHO, pleasing to the eye.   

 

Some did, some didn't. But by and large it was the larger companies, with works equipped for mass-production, that used standardised lengths, which even with standardised compartment widths could produce a good variety of designs - luggage / brake compartments being wonderfully elastic things. The smaller line, building carriages in small batches and more likely to be using the trade, even if to their own drawings, had less to gain from standardisation. The Cambrian is a wonderful example. 

[Edwardian]

Just now, uax6 said:

Are you going to keep them in sets? I only ask as I find the vac hoses on these early carriages a bit of an issue, it looks odd to see them all on their dummies while the train is in motion, its somehow more noticeable than the buffer beam mounted ones. It also leads to the question, why were the vac pipes not on the bufferbeam anyway? It must have been a real pain for the shunter to climb up to join them...

 

Andy G

 

 

It seems to me that the traffic patterns should allow working in fixed sets and, so, my preferences would be for a vac pipe and coupling arrangement that is represented as permanently connected between coaches. Addition vehicle and loco connections cannot be helped, but I agree, there is no reason why connections within the set should suffer.

 

I have yet to fund the idea product for this, however, though I've seen some 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

inventing false memory of you Midlandising the length

 

Heck I tried - but not very hard as Hattons were wedded to flat ends, which are doubtless simpler for manufacture, given the modular construction.

[uax6]

You might be able to do it with a soldered up screw coupling with a pin sticking up behind the other coaches bufferbeam (a la Tony Wright) with the vac hose being a length of black elastic with micro magnet glued to the end.

Ort if you are flush, theres the cast Bill Bedford ones.

Andy G