A Moretonhampstead station question

[Cowley]

Good evening history types.

Talking to my friend tonight and looking at photos of Moretonhampstead station, we got to wondering what the length track leading on from the run around points to the buffers would be used for?

Basically the short length of track beyond the points to the left of the coaches, in this photo from the Mike Morant collection:


It’s something you see quite often and symmetrically it looks tidy, but it also seems like some added expense to put in an extra point, point rodding, track, buffer stops etc, which made us think that there must have been a reason?

Any thoughts most welcome (as long as you don’t ask me to type out Morestupidtonhampstead). again).

 

[Gloster]

You must have points at the buffer stop ends to protect the passenger/platform road and you must have points at the other end of the loop (behind the photographer) to protect the single line. When the land was purchased the boundary would have run parallel to the loop line as far as level with the buffer stops in most cases. So you have the land, you have the points: why not level it and stick a bit of track there to create a short siding that can be used for stabling the odd coach or wagon somewhere where it doesn’t get in the way, which would happen just about anywhere else on the layout. It is a short, extra siding at minimal cost.

 

[30907]

Moretonhampstead isn't particularly unusual though: I would think that there were more branch line termini with such a siding than without.

I know it's the Other Railway, but every LSW station West of Salisbury had one (OK, Bude was more complicated and at Seaton the SR put the loco shed there).

 

[riley1489]

Good evening history types.

Talking to my friend tonight and looking at photos of Mortenhampstead station, we got to wondering what the length track leading on from the run around points to the buffers would be used for?

Basically the short length of track beyond the points to the left of the coaches, in this photo from the Mike Morant collection:
View attachment 196738

It’s something you see quite often and symmetrically it looks tidy, but it also seems like some added expense to put in an extra point, point rodding, track, buffer stops etc, which made us think that there must have been a reason?

Any thoughts most welcome (as long as you don’t ask me to type out Mortenhampstead again).

Could a moderator please correct the spelling of the title to Moretonhampstead? Oh, hang on…

But joking apart, good question.

 

[DerekC]

I have always assumed that's because you might want to put a train into the loop whilst the platform road is occupied by a train long enough to foul the points at the buffer end, in which case it's safer to have the crossover because an overrun in the loop will end in the buffers rather than a side collision between two trains.

 

[Cowley]

Could a moderator please correct the spelling of the title to Moretonhampstead? Oh, hang on…

But joking apart, good question.

I’m having such a bad time with this name.

Right! Edited!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I would concur with Gloster generally, where there's no specific use for siding. A handy bolt hole for failed (ie hot box etc) stock, that wouldn't hinder the workings of either the station (loop) or what were often smallish goods yards. But in this case there were cattle pens alongside that siding.
Source: From GW Engine sheds 1947 (OPC/Lyons).

 

[LYradial]

That train shed was there in broad gauge days, also there is a barrow crossing beyond the shed leading to a gate into the goods yard with convenient access to the highway.

i wonder if it found occasional use for loading seasonal traffic,,

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

Seasonal traffic as in broccoli new potatoes etc, load them straight into a van rather than use the goods shed

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

Seasonal traffic as in broccoli new potatoes etc, load them straight into a van rather than use the goods shed

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

I’m all uncontrolable fingers toda.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

But in this case there were cattle pens alongside that siding.
Source: From GW Engine sheds 1947 (OPC/Lyons).

That train shed was there in broad gauge days, also there is a barrow crossing beyond the shed leading to a gate into the goods yard with convenient access to the highway.

i wonder if it found occasional use for loading seasonal traffic,,

Just to be clear, the cattle pens, as per the track diagram in the book I referred to above, were outside of the train shed, at the buffer stop end. Not prepared to upload the diagram from the book, as there are clear copyright comments therein.

 

[LYradial]

The remains of the cattle pens can be seen on one of the many images on the Cornwall railway society site, dated 1976
so must have arrived between 1904 -1937, although the track leading to them has been truncated by then

so that stretch is not just a spur but was used for cattle and maybe other things not welcome in the goods shed

 

[Gloster]

The 1885 25” map doesn’t show the siding, but it doesn’t show the points for the run round either. However, the area does appear to be levelled. There is no sign of the cattle pens and they aren’t visible on the 1904 map, although Cooke has them, but they are clear on the 1936 map. The road behind the stops is visible on all of them, but appears to be a short dead end in 1885 and 1904, but ends in a proper turning area in 1936.

However, going back to the general point, once you have laid out the station and yard in the most suitable way possible for the expected traffic, taking into account engineering costs, land purchase costs and the like, you will have a layout that does exactly meet the requirements. Having done so railways soon learned that it is best to have a bit of room to stable stock out of the way as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Therefore a siding that is available for any contingency will be welcome if added, but as £sd counts, it should be provided as cheaply as possible. For the reasons mentioned in #2 alongside the end of the platform road was often the cheapest. Of course, it also be the place where it was cheapest to add the extra siding needed for, say cattle pens.

 

[Rescars]

Further to DerekC's #5, from the image it appears that the train, presumably waiting to depart, has been set back far enough to foul the points which would have released the loco on arrival. Was there a requirement to equip the loop with a trap point to protect the platform road, and the opportunity was taken to extend this as a short siding?

The MoT Railway Construction and Operation Requirements dated 1950 state: "Connections between freight lines or sidings and passenger
lines to be provided with trap points to protect the latter unless other connections will serve for this purpose." The loco release is a connection and presumably the loop is not a passenger line.

 

[Gloster]

From the image it appears that the train, presumably waiting to depart, has been set back far enough to foul the points which would have released the loco on arrival. Was there a requirement to equip the loop with a trap point to protect the platform road, and the opportunity was taken to extend this as a short siding?

The MoT Railway Construction and Operation Requirements dated 1950 state: "Connections between freight lines or sidings and passenger
lines to be provided with trap points to protect the latter unless other connections will serve for this purpose."

Yes, it was almost certainly a Board of Trade requirement that if vehicles with passengers in them should stand foul of, on or beyond the points of a runaround, then a trap should be provided to prevent vehicles running out of the run round and colliding with the coaches. (If not specifically mandated, it would almost certainly be implicit in the regulations. The Inspectors would also make their opinions known and they could be very forceful.)

It would be possible to avoid installing such points by having a rule that no vehicle was to left in the run round and all other points should be left in a position that meant that no vehicle could ’get away’ into the run round, but I suspect that the inspectors would be realistic about the likelihood of such a rule being kept. Such was probably allowed on occasions, but only when the alternative would be worse. See #2 for a bit more.

 

[Rescars]

The same MOT document allows the following relaxation for light railways "Worked scotches or derailers may be used instead of safety points, where protection is necessary."

 

[Big Jumby 74]

It would be possible to avoid installing such points by having a rule that no vehicle was to left in the run round and all other points should be left in a position that meant that no vehicle could ’get away’

Without checking the finer detail from my various books about the Ilfracombe road (a life time interest from my youth), the run round at IF was on a rising gradient at the Barnstaple end, so even if the head shunt behind the s/box had not been there in reality, there would have been no need for any CP's at that end of the loop (in theory), but we all (us of a signalling background at least) know that such cases were very rare, what ever the prevailing landscape.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

The same MOT document allows the following relaxation for light railways "Worked scotches or derailers may be used instead of safety points, where protection is necessary."

We had de-railers fitted in my time at Fratton depot on one or two shed roads*, for good reason, as the roads concerned were given over to the CM&EE dept, so had to be protected. But the down side was that this could (on paper) reduce the overall (car) capacity of the depot. Just an example of how stabling capacity can sometimes become extremely tight.

* Edited - 7 and 8 shed roads originally (in my time), may have only been 7 shed in later times, but a vague memory and lack of records....?

 

[Cowley]

A bit of a busy day today but thanks all of you for the replies. It’s been interesting reading them.

 

[Rescars]

Does anyone know when these requirements for trap points may have come into force? I have come across diagrams showing there were no such protections in place at Portpatrick in 1908. There were of course no such protections in place in earlier times either, when the platform headshunt doubled up as the headhunt to access the precipitous Harbour Branch (all passed for passenger working if only very seldom used). Galloway may be remote, but it was nonetheless subject to BoT regulation.

 

[overthere 2]

A few years ago I came across a book called: The Moretonhampstead Branch: A Railway from Shore to Moor which I would thoroughly recommend as it is really informative, has great photograph's and a really useful resource if you wanted to model it or just find out about the history of the branch.

If you do want to purchase this book then DONT buy from Amazon for a whole host of reasons instead either go to your local high street and hunt out an independent book seller or use this site: https://uk.bookshop.org/info/about-us

One of the things it said is that the initial plan was too build the line only as far as Moretonhampstead and make it a terminus but the resident's of Chagford wanted the railway built all the way to Chagford so the Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway Company said we will modify our plans and build Moretonhampstead as a through/passing station and if you raise the money we will extend to Chagford.


The resident's of Chagford tried to raise the money but couldn't so a bus service was run between Chagford and Moretonhampstead connecting with trains for many years.

 

[Gloster]

The book is by John Owen, but I am not sure of the publisher or date. There is also the Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway by S.C.Jenkins, a good solid writer on minor lines, from Oakwood in 1989. There is also Great Western Branch Line Termini by Paul Karau from OPC at various dates: Moretonhampstead is in Volume 2 or the Combined Volume: not much history, but plenty of photos, diagrams, and some timetables (that helped me unravel a query about one of Dorothy L. Sayers books).

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The goods shed at Moretonhampstead is still extant, but heavily modified as three flats and surrounded by a housing development on the station site itself. For many years the yard was in the hands of a haulage company - they still have a small presence but their main depot is now in Okehampton. This is rather more convenient for the A30 and avoids having to traverse the tricky roads to reach Moretonhampstead.

Chagford had another attempt at getting a railway in the Edwardian period after the Teign Valley Rly was extended to Exeter in 1903. A branch would have left this line at Christow and followed the River Teign via Fingle Bridge to Chagford. A pioneering bus service Chagford to Exeter was initiated instead.

 

[Gloster]

The goods shed at Moretonhampstead is still extant, but heavily modified as three flats and surrounded by a housing development on the station site itself. For many years the yard was in the hands of a haulage company - they still have a small presence but their main depot is now in Okehampton. This is rather more convenient for the A30 and avoids having to traverse the tricky roads to reach Moretonhampstead.

Chagford had another attempt at getting a railway in the Edwardian period after the Teign Valley Rly was extended to Exeter in 1903. A branch would have left this line at Christow and followed the River Teign via Fingle Bridge to Chagford. A pioneering bus service Chagford to Exeter was initiated instead.

I think that it is the loco shed that is still there; it was closed in November 1947. However, I think that it has lost the attached signal box.