Back to the big project - Signal diagrams

Can I suggest you settle down somewhere quiet with a glass of your preferred beverage before embarking on reading this blog entry... it's a bit of an epic... :-))

While I have read a couple of books (British Railways Signalling, G.M. Kichenside & A. Williams and Pictorial Record of Southen Signals, G.A Pryor) and think I'd given a fair fist at creating signal diagrams for the project. I was still unsure if I'd understood signalling practices correctly. While members of my local Scalefour Group are very willing to offer advice and documentation, they're knowledge is heavily LNER influenced. So a few months ago I sent my thoughts to a long time friend who might help. Fortunately he new Paul Severs who is very knowledgeable of SR practise and wow... what a response. I feel indebted to him for taking the time to read and understand my thoughts then produce the following diagrams. Paul also supplied comprehensive explanatory notes, which, with his permission, I copy out in full below.

----------

Grogley Junction and Polbrock Shed

a] Distant signals on single lines were invariably 'fixed', i.e. not operated from the signal box, and never in the 'off' position; the very short distance between station and shed boxes would not require any distants [though for interest I have included a repeater for the down station home on the post of the Polbrock down starter, and a fixed distant arm on the post of the up main advanced starter on the Grogley Station diagram]; therefore this also simplifies signalling: those numbered 24, 25 in shed box would exist as fixed distant, and so would not have levers allocated in the frame - those numbered 1, 2 in same box, and those shown on same posts as 21, 22, 23 would not exist at all. Very sad for modellers who would like to have as many different coloured levers in their signal boxes as possible - if you want yellow levers you must have long stretches of double track!

b] Junction [DOWN] end of station too complex - I realise it is inspire by the multitrack junction at the north end of Barnstaple station, but that was highly unusual - at first I thought that the line behind platform 2 was platform 3 - I see it is labelled as a goods loop, presumably to be used for the exchange sidings. Therefore this would be connected to the up line [Platform 2] at the point of the junction by way of a double slip - greatly loved by the LSWR! See revised plan suggestion, Grog Jcn Revision 1.jpg. This also simplifies the signalling. Small suggestion - junction signal box would be better on down side, as per SBD.

c] Exeter/Wadebridge [UP] end of station would be better without the facing crossover [necessitating two FPLs] and replaced by connection from down main to loop, with trailing connection from loop to up main, forming a single slip, and up to down connection via a trailing crossover [Grog Jcn Revision 2.jpg]

d] Ref. revised SBD [station/junction] [Grog Jcn Sig Diag.jpg] - There are 34 active levers required, so the box in reality would have had a 36 lever frame with two spare, though if society levers come in fives, you could have 35 with one real spare and another imaginary spare! Here's the lever numbering with labels as they would appear in the levers::

1 UP MAIN HOME [R]
2 UP MAIN STARTER [R]
3 UP MAIN ADVANCED STARTER [R]
4 UP MAIN TO LOOP GOODS SIGNAL [R]#
5 FPL ON No 6 POINTS [Bu]
6 UP MAIN POINTS [B]
7 FPL ON No 8 POINTS [Bu]
8 UP MAIN TO LOOP POINTS [B]
9 UP BRANCH HOME [R]
10 FPL ON No 11 POINTS [UP] [Bu]
11 BRANCH POINTS [B]
12 FPL ON No 11 POINTS [DOWN] [Bu]
13 UP BRANCH TO LOOP GOODS SIGNAL [R]
14 BRANCH TO DOWN MAIN SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
15 FPL ON No 16 POINTS [Bu]
16 BRANCH TO LOOP POINTS [B]
17 DOWN LOOP GOODS SIGNAL [R]
18 DOWN MAIN TO UP MAIN & DOWN SIDING SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
19 DOWN MAIN TO UP MAIN POINTS [B]
20 UP MAIN TO DOWN MAIN SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
21 SPARE [formerly shunt signal to down siding*] [W]
22 DOWN MAIN TO DOWN SIDING POINTS [B]
23 DOWN SIDING TO DOWN MAIN SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
24 UP LOOP GOODS SIGNAL [R]
25 LOOP TO UP MAIN POINTS [B]
26 UP MAIN TO LOOP SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
27 LOOP TO DOWN MAIN SHUNT SIGNAL [R]
28 DOWN MAIN TO LOOP POINTS [B]
29 FPL ON No 28 POINTS [Bu]
30 DOWN MAIN TO LOOP GOODS SIGNAL []R]#
31 DOWN BRANCH ADVANCED STARTER [R]
32 DOWN BRANCH STARTER [R]
33 DOWN MAIN ADVANCED STARTER [R]
34 DOWN MAIN STARTER [R]
35 DOWN MAIN HOME [with repeater] [R]
36 SPARE [W]

Legend: R = red lever [signals], B = black [points], Bu = blue [Facing Point Locks - always operated individually], W = white [spare]

* SR was very economical with signals, especially on single lines, so where possible, shunting moves made use of running signals; shunting signals were only used for movements for which there was no available running signal. Furthermore, where LSWR [like many pre-group companies, and as GWR continued to] used a shunt signal for each route, the SR used just one for all routes from a given stop point; after all, they argued, both driver and signalman knew which route was intended, and the latter could only set one route at a time. So under LSWR there would have been a Stevens drop-flap ground signal at 18 for down to up main shunts, and another [21] at the entrance to the down siding. Some companies used ground signals as 'detectors' operated by the point to indicate which route was set; neither LSWR nor SR used such a practice. Early LSWR signal practice economised on levers by having two shunt signals [covering the opposite directions through the same crossover points] operated by one lever, which in the 'on' position was vertical in the frame - to make one signal 'off' you pushed [to the 'normal' 'on' position], and for the other you pulled [to the 'normal' 'off' position in the frame] ! SR removed all such 'abnormalities' as soon as possible!

# Entry to the goods loop: from both the Bodmin and Mawgan Porth branches, entry does not entail crossing a running line, so LSWR/SR both economised by placing the goods arm on the same post as the home signal, below it, hence Nos. 4 & 13 signals; entry from the down direction requires crossing the up line, so that would be made clear by placing the goods arm in a lower position on a bracketed doll, hence the No. 30 signal.

(Where any signal [running or shunt] permitted movement through a facing point that was locked because of passenger running movements, the signal wire ran through a detector box on the line side which was operated by the FPL - if the lock had not engaged, the signal wire could not be pulled.)

e] Polbrock shed: owing to the very short distances [real or model] between the station and the shed the need for signals is greatly reduced. I offer a much simplified SBD [Polbrock Jcn Sig Diag.jpg] requiring only 15 levers - no ground signals needed for movements in and out, nor within the shed area. All movements governed by the running signals, or in the rare event of a light engine off the Exeter line needing direct access to the shed, by hand signals.The minor suggestion I would make is to move the scissors crossover points nearer to the points into the shed, and the signal box nearer to the junction as in the revised part plan [Polbrock Revision.jpg]. The alternative is of course two successive simple crossovers, as at e.g. Tipton St. Johns, but a scissors crossover is interesting, and a challenge to one's point-building schemes, so I can see why Ian has put it in! Anyway, the Polbrock lever frame would look like this:

1 DOWN STARTER [R]
2 DOWN EXETER HOME [R]
3 DOWN WADEBRIDGE HOME [R]
4 WADEBRIDGE TO ENGINE SHED CALLING ON [R]
5 FPL ON No 7 POINTS [DOWN] [Bu]
6 UP MAIN TO EXETER LINE POINTS [B]
7 FPL ON No 7 POINTS [UP] [Bu]
8 FPL ON No 10 POINTS [Bu]
9 WADEBRIDGE LINE TO DOWN MAIN POINTS [B]
10 UP MAIN TO ENGINE SHED POINTS [B]*
11 ENGINE SHED STARTER [R]**
12 WADEBRIDGE LINE STARTER [R]#
13 WADEBRIDGE LINE ADVANCED STARTER [R]
14 EXETER LINE STARTER [R]
15 EXETER LINE ADVANCED STARTER [R]
16 spare

* Being a 'trailing' crossover, no FPL is required
** This would be an interesting signal - a miniature arm, with or without ring, but painted YELLOW: in the 'on' position, like a distant, it could be passed when going from
headshunt to the shed complex, and no signal is required for the opposite direction; when pulled off, it signified that the points were set to cross to the up main, and thence
to No 3 signal for movement to the station, or in reverse to the No 12/14 signal for authority to proceed onto the Wadebridge or Exeter lines
# Although the Exteter route was the major route, in signalling, the taller arm refers to the route straight ahead, the lower arm to the route requiring crossing the points.

Now to the questions Ian asks:

1. Positioning of distant signals. I have already answered this in my notes above [Note [1]]

2. Operation of shunting [ground disc] signals. LSWR/SR virtually never used these as route indicators, so were always worked by a separate lever. As noted above, economy demanded that they were only placed and used when a necessary movement could not be authorised by running signals; pulling off a running signal authorises the movement you are supposed to do, not necessarily to proceed to the next block post!!

3. Facing Point Locks [FPLs]. These are only required on points which face the direction of travel of a passenger train. The necessary locks are indicated on the revised signal box diagrams.

4. Grogley junction complex [!]. The similar complex at the north end of Barnstaple station was of course necessary because of limited space, the sharp curve to the river crossing, and the number of passenger routes; since the third route here is into a goods loop, it would be accessed by a double slip point at the throat of the junction, obviating the necessity of the third crossing road - see Grog Jcn Revision 1.jpg for my suggestion.

5 & 6. Distant signals . Again see note [1] - they would all be 'fixed' distants, not operated by the signal box, and never 'pulled off'. There are no 'outer' and 'inner' distants, only inner and outer home signals [and outer homes were only required on faster, double track lines]. Sometimes because of the shortness of block sections on main lines, the distant for the next section is on the same post as the starter or advanced starter signal of the previous section, and where through running of expresses needed to be signalled, distant arms were used as 'repeaters' for the next stop signal, again mounted below the previous stop signal. However, even on a busy branch such as this [!] speed restrictions would mean that no operational distant was needed - strictly speaking, neither the banner repeater for Grogley's down home, nor the fixed distant on Grogley's up advanced starter would have been needed or used, but I include them for a bit of variety, on the authority of 'modeller's licence'!

I offer this as advice - none of it needs to be accepted, but it does reflect what the LSWR/SR would have done if this station/shed complex had been a reality.

Paul Severs 

------

I've sat on this information for some considerable time, trying to take it all in. Now the Lincoln exhibition is out of the way, the "Man Cave' back in some sort of order after our holidays away along with eBay sales creating a small hobby fund, my thoughts are back to the big project.

I'm fully in tune with the Paul's suggestions for the simplification of the junction and the alteration at the up end of the station, as I am with the minor alterations at Polbrock. The only suggestion I'm having a problem with is moving Grogley Signal Box into the remains of the quarry. I'd position the signal box on the platform to give a good view around the curve. Moving the box to the inside of the curve would severally restrict the view due to the contours of the surrounding land. Would the lie of the land have influenced the positioning of the box or its location close to a complex junction? As the building of the Grogley Junction section of this project is way in the future that decision can wait.

The only other problem I have is that I agree with Ullypug's comments on two previous RMWeb posts (1) & (2) about the scissors crossing at Polbrock and the double track being a little out of character for the North Cornwall line. However, I would still, somehow, like to replicate the two adjacent single lines that ran out of Wadebridge... I also need to find an example for the junction at Ruthernbridge or re-think that section of the line due to Compound2632 comments. Any suggestions anyone?

Well.. next project has to be a P4 loco chassis Pannier or Class 08 along with the Lincoln "show outcomes" on Tredethy Wharf, so I've still some time to mull over this quandary...

If you have read this whole post and reached this point my I thank and congratulate you.

The next project - Polbrock Engine Shed?

During more nights away for work before Christmas and last evening while in rainy Stalybridge, I've been continuing to consider what comes after Tredethy Wharf. Though I was now fairly certain it had to be Grogley Junction there was still doubt it might be one huge step too far. Ullypug made some good observations on one of my recent RMWeb posts and, though I've been wondering if I could split Grogley up into manageable projects, his comment spurred me on to think a little deeper.

So... after yet more pondering, along with drawing a few more track plans and I've come up with a "cunning plan mi Lord".

How about building Polbrock Engine Shed as stage one?

Either with a single track main line,

or double track main line?

I'm errring on going back to the double track version of Grogley v.14, but even so which ever one I decide on;

• Polbrock Engine Shed would allow me to build locos for Tredethy Wharf with the knowledge that they will also be used on the Engine Shed layout, then eventually Grogley Junction.
• The layout would fit nicely above my work bench and could easily be extended when I gain the time and or courage to progress to Grogley Junction.
• The track plan will give me more experience in building track, especially as it looks like there will be a 3 way turnout and a diamond crossing.
• It will test my skills further in constructing buildings, whether that be kit bashing or from scratch.
• Building a working turntable will be an interesting project in its own right.
• Polbrock will introduce me to the skills of building a selection of signals, along with the task to get them working.
• As Polbrock could be operated as an end-to-end it will allow/encourage me to gradually build coaching stock and further locos that could run between the fiddle yards and in the future be used for Grogley Junction.
• Once built Polbrock may, depending on where I can position the baseboard joints, be a possible exhibition layout.
• On an organisational level, to fit Polbrock into the "Man Cave" I'll have some major reorganising to do. This will entail lightening the load of items that I've collected over the years for projects that will not now be built. Once committed to Polbrook there will be no Taff Vale Colliery layout for starters and much less chance of that GWR branch line terminus.
• The final bonus is that as the engine shed layout will fit into one corner I'll still be able to keep Tredethy Wharf up and running along the back wall of the "Man Cave" until I extend it onto the Grogley Junction.

I'm starting to really like this idea. It feels like a "no brainer", though there are a few thoughts to be pondered during the next 6 - 12 months before the first timbers are cut for the baseboards.

• Will the main line be single track or double track?
• Position of the baseboard joints (Grogley Junction was being design as a permanent layout so until now I've not had to think about point work missing baseboard joints.)
• The design of the engine shed building. Will it be a timber shed as Wadebridge's, or a small version of Salisbury's brick built, or a shed built of stone?
• Would the LSWR have positioned the water tower over the engine shed?
• What signals will be required? To check this I'll need to create a signalling diagram and seek advice fron knowledgeable people. The diagram will include all signal boxes on my proposed route from Wadebridge Junction through Grogley Junction and onto Ruthernbridge
• Is the track plan for the engine shed OK? I feel I've covered all activities and the shed would work quite well but I may need to confirm this by doing little more research into the workings of a loco shed.
• Should I continue with DC or take the plunge and go DCC? (DCC would come into its own with an the engine shed, no need for any isolation sections so all locos, irrespective of size, would be able to be stored buffer to buffer).

BUT...and it is a big but... before I even think about another project in P4 I still have to convince myself I am capable of constructing a working loco chassis. There would be no point in building Polbrock Engine Shed in P4 if I can't build a Beattie Well Tank or two in P4...

When home I must put these thoughts to one side and get on with Tredethy Wharf...

Polbrock Engine Shed - first plan

Below is a screen shot from Google Maps of the proposed location for Grogley Junction’s Engine Shed at Polbrock. Last time I was there I remember this area (to the north of the road bridge at Polbrock) to be reasonably flat between the old track bed and the river. Scaled down to 4mm scale it would cover an area of approximately 12 foot long, from bridge to trees at the top just short of the river, by 3 ft 6 inches at its widest point.


Below is my first interpretation of how this engine shed might have looked. I've reduced the area that the engine shed to under 8ft long and the width down to just under 3ft.



Anyway…….I've tried to let the actual location dictate the layout of the engine shed but must admit that there is a little of GW’s Leamington shed in the design. Hope that carries no offence to the staunch LSWR followers. If I do build the layout it would work mainly as large moving diorama for displaying locos. The main line, running though the layout at the back behind the coach sidings, would initially be non functional.

I’m thinking of basing all structures on those at Wadebridge. The engine shed being constructed from wood cladding with a brick base to the water tower. The coaling stage was a platform with a corrugated roof where coal was shovelled from wagons on one side and loaded onto locos the other. With that said I'm still trying to research other LSWR engine sheds for ideas. Wadebridge's original engine shed was sympathetically extended in a rebuild. I'm proposing that the LSWR, instead of this rebuild, built a brand new engine shed at Polbrook so they might have considered a new stone structure rather than move the original wooden one.

I have increased the size of the turntable to 55 ft as 50 ft seems very tight to turn an N Class loco. A 50 ft turntable must have been big enough as Wadebridge had a 50 ft turntable which was used to turn N Classes. But a 55 ft should give a little bit more lee way when trying to operate the layout and position an N class on the turntable's deck.




The map above shows the relationship between Polbrock and Grogley Junction. The yellow line indicates the course of the track bed, The red area indicates the approximate area covered by my proposed Grogley Junction.

One thing that I'm not sure about with this layout is the way I am connecting the engine shed with Grogley Junction. I am proposing that the engine shed line exits the layout stage right and runs parallel with the main line to join Grogley's goods marshalling sidings loop, entrance to the engine shed being controlled by Grogley's signal box at this point. I'm also proposing two ground signals within the engine shed area, one for the carriage sidings and one at the exit of the engine shed itself, both being controlled by Grogley's signal box. I need to run this past my local P4 Area Group to see if this might be correct.

Overall I like this plan and think it has great potential. Viewing the engine shed across the river between a couple of trees with the coach sidings and a gentle tree lined embankment behind seems just right for this area. Perhaps there are couple of Maunsell two coach ‘P Sets’ in the coach sidings with an O2 backing on to one of them? A couple of Beattie Well tanks and a 57xx Pannier on shed while an N class is being turned and prepared for its next duty. Nice.......

Overall, with scenic areas, the layout is big at 28 sq ft. This makes me wonder how practical this track plan might be especially as it has been drawn with only two baseboards each being 4ft x 3ft 6in. I need to discuss this with the new boss. :-))

BUT….. possibly more importantly for this project, designing this layout has started me thinking about Grogley Junction again. I now have to decide if there is enough room or not for an engine shed and carriage sidings at the proposed site for Grogley Junction. The above plan looks good for a stand alone layout but for the whole project it has to be right and fit in. If there is enough room within the environs of Grogley Junction for an engine shed I doubt that the LSWR would have built a remote one 500 yds up the line.

Oh well, one thing is certain I’m enjoying using Templot and I’m also enjoying the thought process in creating this alternative universe. Not sure that I’m any closer to a layout but more will definately follow......

Universal thoughts

Thanks for your last comment Iain, I’ve not come across Schrodinger's Cat theory before. Wow...get your head around that one.

I'm currently reading Phillip Pullman’s 'His Dark Materials' it’s all about parallel universes and could not resist the mention in my last blog entry. It just seems to fit where I'm going with this project. Don’t we all, if we cannot find a prototype that fits our needs, invent a little history that could exist in an alternative universe? Just need a Subtle Knife to open a window and there it is.

Boscarne Wharf/Junction would make a perfect starter layout for me as it has minimal buildings. After some failures many years ago at scratch building buildings I'm very nervous about an Engine Shed layout. So much could go wrong with all the required structures. But as space is a big issue a smaller layout it has to be. Wanting to keep what ever I build as part of the overall project I’m struggling to think of another layout that would be worth while building that is smaller than Boscarne Wharf/Junction on this proposed branch.

My first thoughts with Grogley Junction were to keep it as real as possible and not over blow the ‘what ifs’. With this new “what if” I’m a little nervous that the project is drifting away from reality a little too much. I can hear the purists barking already. This sounds like I’m searching for a reason not to build this Engine Shed. Trouble is I’m getting to really like the idea. A small but busy Engine Shed backed up with a couple of carriage sidings and single track main line behind, all situated on the banks of the river Camel. It will be a real test for my track building skills as I’ve already included a 3-way turnout and a turntable but I’m now thinking a single slip might be needed. Oh dear what I’m I getting myself into?

Just need to stop planning and get started, though they do say that ‘the devil is in the detail’.

Change of tack

After much musing I'm gradually coming to terms with the possibility of an engine shed layout. Many designs have been sketched and much thought has been given to events that will create my alternative universe for this branch. All very 'His Dark Materials' stuff.

I'm currently Temploting a couple of plans for a loco shed but think I have almost settled on one in particular. Just need to get to grips with drawing a 3-way point and a turntable in Templot. Nearly there though. Once finish I'll publish the plan.

Extra background and events that I've so far thought through to justify an engine shed at Polbrook are as follows (my alternative universe events in red):

1862 - An extension from Ruthern Bridge to Withiel was constructed for the Iron Ore mine.

1873 - An extension from Ruthern Bridge to join the Cornish Minerals Railway was built and used to transport Clay, Iron Ore and De Lank Quarry stone to St. Blazey and Fowey which offering better sea access than Padstow.

1882 - North Cornwall Railway, with the backing of the LSWR, obtained an Act to build a line from Launceston to Wadebridge and Padstow.

1882 - The North Cornwall Railway with the backing of the LSWR obtained and Act to extend the line from Ruthern Bridge to Mawgan Porth.

1886 - An agreement drawn up between the LSWR, Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway and the GWR to control GWR access to Grogley Junction. The LSWR were to rebuild the Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway including a new station at Grogley Junction.

1888 - (3rd Sept.) GWR completed the extension from Bodmin to Boscarne

1895 - LSWR arrived at Grogley after the opening of the Delabole to Wadebridge Junction section of the North Cornwall Railway on the 1st June. But instead of running directly into Wadebridge the connection was direct to Grogley Junction and then on to Mawgan Porth. Mawgan Porth now being the end of the North Cornwall Railway not Wadebridge.

1907 Instead of rebuilding Wadebridge's engine shed the LSWR took the decision to build a new Engine shed at Polbrock and move all Wadebridge's loco facilities to this new location.

All the above means that my first thought of a triangle being formed at Wadebridge Junction does not happen. I've got to think a little deeper as to how all the above would affect operation on the North Cornwall Line but it does give me scope for creating an important junction station at Grogley.

Brief summary of traffic though my version of Grogley Junction:
Grogley Junction to Wadebridge/Padstow passenger and goods. (SR)
Grogley Junction to Bodmin North passenger and goods. (SR)
Grogley Junction to Bodmin General passenger and goods. (GWR)
Grogley Junction to Wenford Bridge goods including china clay traffic (SR)
Grogley Junction to St. Blazey/Fowey goods including china clay traffic (GWR)
Grogley Junction to Par passenger (GWR)
Mawgan Porth (Grogley Junction) to Okehampton/Exeter passenger (SR)
Mawgan Porth (Grogley Junction) to Exmouth Junction goods (SR)
The Ace would split at Grogley Junction – 2/3 coaches for Wadebridge/Padstow and 2/3 coaches for Mawgan Porth.

I'm debating whether Grogley Junction will become the main hub for all goods traffic in the area. i.e. all Exmouth Junction goods workings terminating at Grogley then split and forwarded on via local engine hauled pickup goods to Padstow, Bodmin, Wenford and even onward to Mawgan Porth. This would give me an excuse to shed an N class and other tender locos over night at Polbrook Engine Shed. I'll have to re work my proposed timetable a little.

I've also still to decide how the above would affect Shed allocations in the area. I would like to keep some identity with the real life location (Beattie Well Tanks, O2's, T9's, N Class, 57xx, 45xx, etc.) but I could have opportunities to pull in other locos (0-6-0 700's). In this universe I think Padstow and Wadebridge would not, by the 1960s, have ended up with any turntables. Which would mean, without the triangle at Wadebridge Junction, Polbrock Engine Shed may require a 60ft turntable. Mawgan Porth would have loco stabling facilities along with a turntable to turn the West Countries and other tender locos that would have reached the end of the line.

Would Grogley Junction also need coach sidings? I think it might. I've a rough idea how Grogley Junction would look but not completed any sketches yet. It will certainly be different to the one published earlier in this Blog.

A smaller project

On holiday in the Lakes. Sitting looking up at Hallin Fell from our cottage window....... I'm thinking about Grogley & Boscarne layouts. With all that has happened in the last four months I'm considering a smaller project. Just a couple baseboards using the two points I've nearly completed. Enough to get my teeth into and keep the project rolling towards Grogley. The constraints being, any starter layout will be part of the overall project, be an extension not a distraction. Any stock built/collected to be used on all layouts. But what to build?

During the last couple of weeks I've given some thought to a shunting puzzle but been struggling to justify one within the overall project. Also struggled to find a location in the area that would warrant an extra Wharf siding. Considered Wenford Bridge but to do it justice would take more than two baseboards. I have almost resorted to sticking to my original plan of Boscarne until another 'what if' cropped up.

The original premise for my version of Grogley Junction was the LSWR extending the Ruthern Bridge branch to Mawgan Porth. Also a proposed branch was built to link Ruthern Bridge to St. Blazey via the Newquay branch. Any North Cornwall train would have a reversal at Wadebridge to continue though Grogley. My 'what if' is that this reversal could be removed by the building of a triangle junction outside Wadebridge. Being away from reference books and with no access to the internet, I cannot remember the name of the junction between the North Cornwall main line and the Bodmin Branches (Shame on me). Wadebridge and Padstow would be operated as a branch from Grogley. This would probably give justification for moving the Wadebridge engine shed to Grogley. Shedded there would be branch engines like the Beatties/13xxs to operate the Wenford Bridge branch and O2s/57xxs for Bodmin North to Padstow passenger. Mawgan Porth would have facilities for larger locos. Would Grogley be the focal point for all goods traffic? If so, it would become an important junction for transfer of freight and passenger workings including an engine shed. The ACE would split at Grogley. Rear coaches for Padstow front coaches to continue to Mawgan Porth.

The engine shed would basically mirror Wadebridge facilities minus the turntable, the triangle being used to turn any locos that might need turning. Could this engine shed be built as a separate item on two baseboards? Probably yes. Until I get home and check, I'm thinking of sighting it at Polbrock. I seem to remember there is enough land Wadebridge side of the road overbridge between the river and railway. Can it be built with just two points? No, but a smaller almost selfcontained layout at the present time might be an advantage. Something that would fit on the dining table and allow me to run a few locos backwards and forwards. Time to get sketching a few plans. I'll post these as soon as I can but this 'what if' would also change my original Grogley plan.

Hmmmm..... gives me something to do while I'm away and may well produce a very interesting Grogley Junction.

(Posted while in The Crown at Pooley Bridge have a swift half).
-- Posted from my iPhone