|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 13 Oct 2017 17:05 from: Ian Bunch click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
1815_131204_200000000.jpg | ||
posted: 13 Oct 2017 17:09 from: Ian Bunch click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
This is Stretford Bridge junction at Craven Arms where the BCR diverged from the Shrewsbury Hereford line. I’ve been trying to design something similar but with the inside curve on a more consistent radius. |
||
posted: 13 Oct 2017 17:23 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Ian, It is a double track mainline with a double lead junction to the branch that soon becomes single track. It doesn't offer any real advantage over a single lead junction except that it can protect a train coming off the branch from a head-on collision with a train that overruns a signal (SPAD)travelling from the bottom of the picture. Rob |
||
posted: 13 Oct 2017 17:49 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Ian, I don't know a specific name, but it needs one. It's not an ordinary double-junction because the branch tracks are converging and do not need to maintain a running clearance between them. That means that there is no need for the two turnouts to be of the same crossing angle and slightly staggered, as in a conventional double-junction. In fact I think I can see in the photo that the turnouts differ in crossing angle. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 13 Oct 2017 18:21 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Ian, To create this, see the second part this video, starting at 4mins-15secs: http://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=z3LZpZ1HyGx4Mzpft5UXUA2 At 4mins-39secs, instead of making double track, insert a turnout and then make branch track. Then it is much the same for the remainder of the video. Some trial and error on the size and position of the inserted turnout may be needed for an optimum result. The video is also available directly within Templot from help > watch a video > Scruff curviform double-junction. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 13 Oct 2017 18:32 from: Ian Bunch click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks both | ||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 15:12 from: Ian Bunch click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
There was this compact example, just down the road.1815_161012_070000000.jpg | ||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 15:17 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Ian Bunch wrote: There was this compact example, just down the road.That was at Bewdley. The SVR ripped it out within minutes of taking over. So much for "Preservation" I thought. It coloured my attitude to the whole thing for years. Martin. |
||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 18:42 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I would imagine that it was a real pain, too maintain and that's why they did away with it. A nice piece of S&C though. | ||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 19:20 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Phil O wrote: I would imagine that it was a real pain to maintain and that's why they did away with it.Hi Phil, On that argument they could have done away with the steam locomotives and gone over to DMUs. Martin. |
||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 21:10 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Phil O wrote:Hi Martin,I would imagine that it was a real pain to maintain and that's why they did away with it.Hi Phil, On that argument they could have done away with the whole railway and gone over to buses and private cars. That would have been a shame though.... Maybe the H&S at work book only allows preserved railways to operate plain track and simple single turnouts. Rob |
||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 23:09 from: d827kelly
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: Could simply just be cost grounds. Either that or there are limits on what they're allowed as they're run using the Light Railway Acts iirc.Hi Martin, |
||
posted: 16 Oct 2017 23:26 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
d827kelly wrote:Could simply just be cost grounds. Either that or there are limits on what they're allowed as they're run using the Light Railway Acts iirc.It happened more than 40 years ago. Martin. |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 12:20 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Phil O wrote:Hi MartinI would imagine that it was a real pain to maintain and that's why they did away with it.Hi Phil, Having relaid a plain diamond and fettled a second, I can safely say that they are bad enough, I for one would not like to fettle that formation very often. Using DMUs may only increase the time between maintenance periods and I doubt whether they could get a replacement lump for the outside slip if that was worn. As a piece of trackwork I do admit, it does look nice. Phil |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 12:32 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Phil O wrote:Having relaid a plain diamond and fettled a second, I can safely say that they are bad enough, I for one would not like to fettle that formation very often.Hi Phil, But their stated aim at the time was "Preservation". Nowadays many of them have dropped that, and simply call themselves "Heritage" lines. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 17:29 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
My guess is: Number of people who were interested in the preservation of steam traction : hundreds Number of people who were interested in the preservation of historically interesting track formations: negligible. |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 19:03 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
John isn't wrong there. A local "siding with locos" masquerading as a preserved railway, has spent much of its money on signals, signal boxes and other infrastructure. The result? It hasn't the money to extend the line. Further result? It's hardly the NYMR, SVR, Nene etc in terms of visitors. That said, if the formation was still in good enough condition for continued use it does seem a shame to remove it, after all it wasn't an intensive HST service over the top of it. |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 19:54 from: Dave Summers
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gents Can I just remind you of the thread title. This is drifting into the philosophical areas best suited to a pub rather than Templot Club. If you wish to continue your 'discussion' can you please start another thread which I (and no doubt others) can delete without fear of losing anything remotely relevant. Ta! Dave |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 22:29 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: It's not an ordinary double-junction because the branch tracks are converging and do not need to maintain a running clearance between them. That means that there is no need for the two turnouts to be of the same crossing angle and slightly staggered, as in a conventional double-junction. In fact I think I can see in the photo that the turnouts differ in crossing angle.It's interesting that this junction was remodelled some time between 1883 and 1901. On the 1883 map it is a conventional double-track double-junction with the single-line junction some way along the BCR branch. It looks to have been a nice long curved turnout: 2_171654_550000000.png By 1901 it is as shown in the photo: 2_171656_420000000.png This may have been done to bring the single-line points within the 350yd limit for rodding runs. As best I can measure it is just about on the limit on the older map. Also to improve the signalman's view of the signals -- the branch advanced starter (S.P.) has been removed on the later map. BCR trains were short, so it may have been intended to hold a BCR down train at that signal clear of the main line while waiting for a BCR up train on the branch. Assuming of course that the BCR had more than one train? Possibly the discovery that they didn't, and weren't ever likely to, led to the decision to remodel the junction. Here is Google's present day view of the junction: http://goo.gl/maps/jhHxPNUPGkT2 regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 22:41 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, could you kindly delete my comment above. It seems that Mr Summers has has been upset by a reply to your own post. I was not aware that members were taking it upon themselves to police your forum as happens in 'the other place.' My sincere apologies to you, Mr Summers. I do hope in time you will manage to overcome your horror. And your lack of manners. Dave Summers wrote: Gents |
||
posted: 17 Oct 2017 22:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Steady on folks. I'm not deleting anything substantive. We don't have any moderators here. If anyone wants to edit their post down to the single word "delete", I will then delete it. There isn't a lot of point doing that, bearing in mind that everyone will have received it in an email, and it is also in the message archive on Yahoo. The original diversion was my fault, so apologies. Martin. |
||
posted: 18 Oct 2017 01:40 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
It's a bit hard to work out the signalling arrangements for the junction. The splitting (home?) signal immediately to the south of the overbridge doesn't appear on the 1883 survey, and both ordnance plans show another signal post further out on the branch, and not visible on the extracts from the plans shown in this thread – probably the distant for the junction. That prompts a query as to whether there was a down home signal for the branch pre-1883, and if so where it was located. I too wondered whether the more capacious layout of 1883 was intended to provide standage for a Bishops Castle-bound train, but I don't see how one could properly permit such a train to pass over the junction points after acceptance of a train coming from Bishops Castle. Whilst I can see the advantage of being able to clear the main line in this way, one would normally do so either by sending the train on its way down the branch or by holding it in the BCR bay at Craven Arms where it wouldn't conflict with main line movements anyway. I am unable to tell from any photographs of the junction whether the branch connection from the main line was trapped. If it wasn't then the employment of a double lead junction in this case provides little by way of flank protection. |
||
posted: 18 Oct 2017 05:28 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DerekStuart wrote: Martin, I have abandoned 'the other place' entirely. I was finding the intolerance intolerable, if you see what I mean Carry on. Sorry for the distraction. |
||
posted: 18 Oct 2017 06:10 from: Dave Summers
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The current view taken from the same place as the original post: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/stretford_bridge_junction/index2.shtml This shows the halt platform which had appeared by 1906 http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/stretford_bridge_junction/stretford(bcrs1906)bridge_old2.jpg Dave |
||
posted: 23 Oct 2017 10:37 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Presumably the primary reason was to remove the need for a crossover on the double line to allow single line trans to regain the correct running line on the double track Though the trend with modern track seems to be a crossover followed by a simple turnout , removing the diamond etc. |
||
Last edited on 25 Oct 2017 01:11 by madscientist |
Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |