|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 30 Jul 2019 09:39 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A friend is planning on building Grafham station on the MR Kettering - Huntingdon line. The running line is single and the goods loop is also a single line. As a 10ft way is not needed for PW workers safety, would a standard 6ft way have been used. Keith Armes 2116_300438_200000000.png |
||
posted: 30 Jul 2019 10:25 from: Ariels Girdle click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Midland standards were published in an early MRJ. From memory, all goods loops were supposed to be greater than 6ft | ||
posted: 30 Jul 2019 10:40 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Keith, If it was just a running loop it's more likely to be at 6ft way on a single line. If it was a working part of the goods yard, used for loading vehicles, etc., then it needs to be at 10ft way. Given that there is only one short siding and a large area marked "Goods Yard", that use seems very possible. But that doesn't mean that it complied with the rules -- many country branch lines remained largely "as built" until the end, regardless of subsequent changes to the rules. Looking at the map, it seems more likely to be 6ft way. I found this photo of the next station on the line, Buckden, which has a similar layout. I think it is fairly clear that the loop there was at 6ft way: Buckden_Station_1931512.jpg Buckden station © Ben Brooksbank Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 So I think I would go for 6ft way unless you can find a photo showing otherwise. It's interesting that there appears to have been a recent track renewal with concrete sleepers, on a line which closed early (1959). The contrast with the pointwork on timbers is very evident, and not often modelled. cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 30 Jul 2019 12:38 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks, Gentlemen. Sadly, I lost my early copies of MRJ to water damage in the cellar a couple of years ago. However,Martin's picture really answers the question, doesn't it. Keith |
||
posted: 30 Jul 2019 14:19 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
KeithArmes wrote: Thanks, Gentlemen. Sadly, I lost my early copies of MRJ to water damage in the cellar a couple of years ago. However,Martin's picture really answers the question, doesn't it.Keith, I have all the early copies of MRJ if you want me to take a look. Any idea which issue ? Rob |
||
posted: 30 Jul 2019 15:40 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
That's kind of you Rob, but Martins picture has solved my question. Keith |
||
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. |