Current and Proposed New-Builds

I wondered that myself. When first opened, as a single track railway, a blanket 25mph limit seems to have been in force on the Ilfracombe line. There was a 4mph restriction on the hairy 1:36 final descent into Ilfracombe. Doubling (excluding the link across the Taw Viaduct betwee the two Barnstaple stations) was completed by 1 July 1891. I'd imagine restrictions were eased at that point. An allowance of around 40mins (give or take) for stopping services on the 14m74c line (last LSW summer timetable) is hardly a blistering pace, but suggests something over 25mph.

Max permissable speed on the Ilfracombe line seems to have been 55mph on sections south of Braunton (can't find the restriction for the Barnstaple Jnc-Barnstaple Town section), thereafter 40mph to Morthoe and 30mph Morthoe-Ilfracombe.

The same timetable shows a 30-35min allowance for the 14.25mile Torrington branch.

Whatever complaints came from staff or passengers about the E1R's, a solution had to wait for nearly a decade and a new CME.

 

You're looking at the wrong line - they were rebuilt for use on the North Devon and Cornwall Junction, which was Halwill Junction to Torrington. The ND&CJR was very much in the mould of a light railway, and needed correspondingly cheap but powerful motive power, so Maunsell took the surplus E1 tanks and rebuilt them with a bigger bunker and an additional trailing wheel to carry the extra weight. By contrast, the Ilfracombe line was a mainline, albeit a very steeply graded one.

Tom

 

I actually like the E1/R, the essence of the Southern, adapting old stuff to new uses, they did this with EMUs too, converting hauled coaches then rebodying them later

 

With respect Tom, regardless of the reasons behind the (rather ugly) rebuild, my earlier post [#816] specifically referred to use of the E1/R's on the Ilfracombe line, which is supported by photographic evidence.

I know little about the ND&CJR (Torrington-Halwill Jnc), but note that until nationalisation it remained a part of the Col.Stephens empire which was operated by the Southern, albeit very much a line typical of that gentleman's ethos. Whether the Halwill-Torrington section operated seperately, or local services ran right through from Halwill to Barnstaple Jnc, I don't know.

To each, their own I 'spose!

Southern recycling didn't stop at rolling stock, or even rail built fence and signal posts. Ryde sheds were rebuilt with redundant gantries from the abandoned LBSCR overhead electrification used as roof trusses.

To judge by the lack of survivors, a couple of the very earliest ex-C&N carriages by Wright being a happy exception, t'would appear most the IWCR 4w stock which made it to grouping was fit only to be recycled as bonfires!

 

My late grandfather travelled by Southern from Plymouth to Barnstaple, and reported having to change at both Halwill and Torrington.

 

From memory, the Torrington line was added to Halwill Jn in such a way that it was largely independent of the main Bude/Padstow lines. Through running of passenger trains would have been rather tricky; it wasn't really signalled for that.

 

Quite likely!

 

At Halwill, I agree. At Torrington, I think it was a classic of the railway's tendency not to see the possibilities for through working - a recent Backtrack has a very interesting article on Oxford - Cambridge that makes that point in spades.

 

Indeed. This is Halwill Junction, with the Ivatt and one coach train in the ND&CJR platform - something of an afterthought - waiting to go back to Torrington.



The track plan makes the limited facilities clear:



Tom

 

Rather surprised to see the turntable in the photo and on the plan. Was there a specific reason for such a seemingly generous provision?

 

Essentially the station is a terminus for trains on one of the two main lines, so needed to turn locos, especially in earlier years when most traffic was handled by tender engines. The BoT tended to take a dim view of layouts that required tender-first working as a matter of routine.

Tom

 

Makes sense..... Many thanks for that.

 

To enhance the LNWR side, how about a 4' 6" 2-4-2T?

 

Or 2234-class 2-4-0T "Chopper Tank"?

 

As I understand the RVAR, if you do like-for-like replacement then you do not have to make any modifications. So, if you build a new body on an existing underframe, it must be a replica of the body that was on that underframe. Any modifications that you do make must conform with the RVAR 2010. If you take an existing body, you can put it on any suitable underframe because the underframe is not concerned with accessibility, only the passenger carrying parts. Again, you must not alter the basic design.

 

AIUI the Knotty heritage train folks at the Foxfield Railway are planning to build a brand new NSR four wheel brake coach. Also, I have a suspicion that the regulations apply on 'new' railways but not on 'heritage' lines; for example new build coaches on the WHR have to have their doors painted a different colour to the rest of the vehicle in order to comply with the DDA, whereas new build FR coaches do not.

 

Don't the folks at Knotty already have an approved chassis design? IIRC, their previous (rather superb) 4w restoration features a steel chassis under the visible wooden members, giving the appearance of traditional oak frames, coupled with the strength of a modern steel frame. Rather an elegant solution IMO.

 

There are potentially 4 Knotty coaches to form the Knotty train.
The two 3rd class coaches that have been restored are both on modified wagon steel chassis. On one chassis, the overall length has been increased by a few inches, this was done by fitting wooden headstocks over the existing steel headstocks. On the other chassis, the steel headstock has had the ends trimmed up so it looks the right shape for a wooden one (it's pretty convincing unless you are very close to it).

There is a 1st class body in existence in fairly good shape, however a good deal of searching hasn't yet produced a suitable length wagon chassis that could be doctored up look of the appropriate era. There has therefore been some discussion about a possible build of a brand new chassis (possibly re-using the running gear from something the wrong length but appropriate in size and style).
The 1st class coach also needs a complete new interior - I believe the cost of this alone approaches the entire cost of restoring one of the 3rd class vehicles!

The brake 3rd will go on the modified chassis of an LMS brakevan. This is more or less finished, and just needs the body to mount to it.
As I understand it, the body is officially a rebuild of a very sad example found rotting away at the side of Rudyard lake a few years ago. In practice, it's going to be 99% new, but I think this provides a fig leaf to save having to comply with all the DDA regs etc (ironically, one of the main attractions of having a brake 3rd is it will have double doors, and an area where wheelchairs can be accommodated).

Disclaimer to the above - I'm not a Knotty Trust member, merely someone who associates with some Knotty Trust types, so this is purely based on my understanding from collected hearsay, not a statement from the trust!

 

Sounds a damned sight closer to the horse's mouth. Unless I can dig out the relevant article, I'll defer to your explaination. Boy, will I be glad when my filing and storage gets sorted out!