Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 00:29 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A fellow SSMRS member has asked me about building some pointwork for a model of Ventnor, I.o.W - the tandem in the station throat and the two slips in the yard. At the moment I'm trying to identify what the slips actually were. From what few pictures I can find on the Internet, the slips look like normal slips but a BR plan of the station (attached) that I found shows the slips to be Barry slips. It appears that the track at the station was modified quite a lot over the years so it could be that the Barry slips existed at one time, to be replaced by "proper" slips at a later date. I'll also dig out my 1963 Constructors which has a series on the I.o.W railways. Jim. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2985_3604_Ventnor-01.jpg 140 | |||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 01:32 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Jim, There are some pictures of Ventnor in 'Isle of Wight Railways Remembered' by Peter Paye. One does show the throat tandem but the slips ( if indeed they are slips ) are rather indistinct. The pictures are quite early with wagons lettered as 'I W R' in some pictures. Rob P.S. I have more IOW books but can't quite lay my hands on them just now. |
||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 01:33 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: but a BR plan of the station (attached) that I found shows the slips to be Barry slips.Hi Jim, In your BR plan those don't look to be Barry slips in the usual sense. Or any kind of slip -- just opposed turnouts: 2_012022_290000000.png  Perhaps that lower formation could be called a Barry outside-slip?  Given that they lead to dead-end sidings there doesn't seem to be any reason to provide full slips. It is not often that a connection is needed directly across from one siding to another. Nor to provide a trap, because there are two trap catch points separately shown. But if you have photos showing full slips ... p.s. if the plan is accurate, the tandem is in fact a 3-throw -- both switches are shown together. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 08:54 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob, Martin, Thanks for your responses. I haven't dug out my 1963 Constructors yet and hopefully there's a better picture in there. The "best" picture I found of the yard certainly gave the impression that the slip closest to the throat was either a proper slip or a Barry type with both crossings and switches overlapping. But the attached drawing is an official railway one and why would it show an arrangement which was extremely peculiar for British railways when it would have been more acceptable to draw a "proper" slip or a "Barry" Slip if that is what was actually there. From the discussion I had with the SSMRS member, he is wanting to model the station after the alteration of the track plan to remove the turntable at the platform ends and the drawing shows this alteration. I wonder if the attached drawing was of this altertion. Re whether it's a Barry slip or not, I took the fact that the crossings overlapped as the criterion but maybe crossings and switches overlapping should be the criteria for a proper "Barry" example. I do like "Outside Barry". :-) I'm also hoping to persuade the member to use a tandem. I built a layout of Dursley in the 1980s which had the three-way in the yard as in the prototype, and that turnout provided all manner of problems over the years. It could have been the same on the prototype since the LMS re-built the station throat to remove the three-way around the start of WW2. I actually obtained an excellent picture of the station before this rebuild which featured a PWay gang working on the switches. :-) If I keep using the term "tandem" the member may be persuaded to accept that. :-) Jim. |
||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 13:23 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've just dug out my 1963 Constructors and there was one high angle view of the station aqnd yard which I hadn't seen before, but there was also a short goods train right on top of the "slip" closest to the throat which covered all the detail of what was there.  There wasn't enough detail on the more distant "slip" to show what might have been there. It was a small picture and maybe access to the original nregative woudl have had sufficient detail.Jim. |
||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 14:00 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Google ventnor station track plan and there is a load of stuff on the web. The Disused Stations site has a load of pictures including one taken after closure which seems to show the first "Barry" as a double slip, but it would have to be because all the trackwork asssociated with the second "Barry" has been removed. The RMweb thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65368-ventnor-isle-of-wight-1970/ also has a number of pics including one of the station throat which might show what the "tandem" actually is. |
||
|
posted: 2 Feb 2020 16:28 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've done a bit more digging, but on the NLS site. A map of 1907 revision shows the station with the turntable at the end of the platforms and outside Barry slips in the yard, just as in the plan attached to my first post. The next map is a 1939 revision and that shows the turntable gone and double slips in the yard. So it could be that the slips were changed some time in between. Possible they were so non-standard that PWay replaced them with the closest double slip arrangement they had on the shelf. I also note on my attached plan that the switch blade tips in the throat were very close to the adjacent crossings and it could be that this was the non-standard element which caused a major rearrangement in the throat area to use standard parts when relaying some or all of the track. A bit different from Scotland where original pre-Grouping practices were maintained well into BR days. Jim. |
||
| Last edited on 2 Feb 2020 16:35 by Jim Guthrie |
|||
|
posted: 9 Mar 2020 22:14 from: roythebus
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
From memory there were 2 double slips at Ventnor in BR days. Maybe the place to ask would be the FB Group "Isle of wight Railways pre-1967". I have an IoW signalling book, that may show the yard details as well. |
||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2020 19:23 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim, If you have the (mis)fortune to have facebook, try accessing the 'disused station' group. There is someone on there who posted pictures from IoW and I'm sure Ventnor was included. I'm currently serving a facebook ban for disagreeing with someone about something so I can't ask for you I'm afraid. Derek |
||
|
posted: 11 Mar 2020 01:01 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DerekStuart wrote: If you have the (mis)fortune to have facebook, try accessing the 'disused station' group. There is someone on there who posted pictures from IoW and I'm sure Ventnor was included.Derek, I am on Facebook for my sins. I had to join for one particular reason a couple of years ago - to get a chat setup when AOL stopped their chat service. I'll have a look - I've just applied to join the Disused Stations group. The problem I find with Facebook is actually finding things. I see lots of people recommending that a forum or email group should be closed down in favour of a Facebook group, archiving of information probab;ly being the last thing they ever considered. Jim. |
||
|
posted: 15 Mar 2020 22:02 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Jim TBH I really don't like facebook at all. I find it slow, full of rubbish and arguments. But it has a few hidden gems- this being one of them. I would *never* encourage anyone to close a forum in favour of facebook. You OWN the data on your forum and can always download or transfer it; with social media you are always at their mercy. Archives are a perfect example, yes. I run a FB and Twit page at work. I am seriously considering getting rid of them and replacing them with a (non-registration) forum on the website. Derek |
||
| 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. |