Hannet Purney

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

I'm not really keen on this particular plan. The junction and branch greatly increase the track complexity and seem to be forcing compromises without really adding any operational interest.  There are no facilities for wagon exchange or run round, so the branch trains can only pass through the station. On that basis, the junction may as well be off stage further up the line. I preferred your earlier plan based on Hungerford which had facilities for recessing trains etc.

 

That's what you get if you use as a basis for your design a prototype track layout of a junction where as far as the STTs are concerned wagon exchange didn't happen and branch trains passed through the station (although  from what i've seen so far some mainline trains reversed there).  It all depends what you're looking for in a layout and what you can do with a particular track layout if you want to do something from what happened there in the real world.

 

And don't forget trains were booked to be recessed at Patney - by shunting across the road, something which I don't think I've ever seen done on a model railway.

[Harlequin]

10 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

I'm not really keen on this particular plan. The junction and branch greatly increase the track complexity and seem to be forcing compromises without really adding any operational interest.  There are no facilities for wagon exchange or run round, so the branch trains can only pass through the station. On that basis, the junction may as well be off stage further up the line. I preferred your earlier plan based on Hungerford which had facilities for recessing trains etc.

 

Noted but remember that this is a smaller design than Upton Hanbury and so something's got to give! The Junction adds a different set of operations, which to some degree compensate for the loss of the dedicated refuge sidings and the simpler goods yard.

 

One of the major goals of both Upton Hanbury and Hannet Purney was/is simply to see mainline traffic running at speed - something which a BLT just can't do. I think (hope) Hannet Purney still ticks that box.

 

The difficulty in running round has been noted already. It can be done but you have to use the main line. I'm thinking about that.

 

And as Mike says, there are opportunities to use the branch platform loop, and maybe even the branch itself, as refuge for slow good trains (er, if I understand him right...)

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

I couldn't see an obvious place elsewhere on the forum for my photos of Patney so here they are:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q6PB1CSkSpPizKzB8

 

I believe the footbridge (or at least a footbridge) is retained to allow a public footpath to cross the line - even though the road bridge is only a hundred metres away.

 

Edit: Although the villages of East And West Kennett are only a few miles NNW of Patney the nearest river is the Salisbury Avon. In fact, the main line crosses over it just half a mile down the tracks without any drama because it's not much more than a stream at that point.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Harlequin

[Stubby47]

The lack of branch run round is easily resolved if you use an auto coach or two with a pannier.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Noted but remember that this is a smaller design than Upton Hanbury and so something's got to give! The Junction adds a different set of operations, which to some degree compensate for the loss of the dedicated refuge sidings and the simpler goods yard.

 

One of the major goals of both Upton Hanbury and Hannet Purney was/is simply to see mainline traffic running at speed - something which a BLT just can't do. I think (hope) Hannet Purney still ticks that box.

 

The difficulty in running round has been noted already. It can be done but you have to use the main line. I'm thinking about that.

 

And as Mike says, there are opportunities to use the branch platform loop, and maybe even the branch itself, as refuge for slow good trains (er, if I understand him right...)

 

You can use the branch platform loop Phil but in reality it was far too short (it could only accommodate =18 wagons for length) to recess some of the freights booked to be regulated at Patney so they would simply have been shunted across the road to the opposite main line to wait their path.   Up freights could have been shunted to the branch although I haven't yet looked at the STT for Up trains but the gradient was certainly suitable and probably better than being shunted to the Down Main (although the latter wasn't prohibited.

3 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

The lack of branch run round is easily resolved if you use an auto coach or two with a pannier.

Although my brief look so far at the STT suggests that the trains which did use that line to reverse were autotrains from Westbury via Lavington and not trains off the branch.   That's an interesting variant on the sort of thing we normally expect at a junction station. 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

You can use the branch platform loop Phil but in reality it was far too short (it could only accommodate =18 wagons for length) to recess some of the freights booked to be regulated at Patney so they would simply have been shunted across the road to the opposite main line to wait their path.  

 

That's really interesting and, as you say, would make a really unusual manoeuvre for a model. I had an inkling that's what you meant but I've never heard of it being done before - it sounds a bit dangerous!

 

Quote

 

Up freights could have been shunted to the branch although I haven't yet looked at the STT for Up trains but the gradient was certainly suitable and probably better than being shunted to the Down Main (although the latter wasn't prohibited.

 

Excellent. That adds even more to the operating potential.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

The accidents at Abergele and Norton Fitzwarren were both in part the result of this practice, but by your period block regulations had been tightened up and it was perfectly safe in the normal run of things.  You need to change the lamps on the shunted train so that they are correct for a train on that line, i.e. the loco carries a tail lamp and the brake van shows a white lamp in the direction of the road, otherwise the driver of the train it's been shunted for is going to have an awfully unpleasant few moments, and so are you when he catches up with you...

 

Procedure is, very roughly, something along the lines of this; a fast up train is closing on a slower up train, and either because it booked to happen or because Control instructs the signalmen, and there is a quiet period on the down line, it is decided that the slow train is to be shunted at Hannet Purney.  The slow train is offered to HP box by the box in rear, to the west, and accepted into the section but HP keeps his up distant and home on, at danger.  HP then 'blocks back' his down main preventing his mate in the next signal box east from sending him anything.

 

The slow train slows ready to come to a stand when it's crew sight HP's up distant, and when the signalman is satisfied that it is going to stop, he clears his home signal.  As the loco comes level with the box, he informs the driver that he is going to be shunted to the up (the driver has usually already worked this out.  The train proceeds slowly until the brake van is clear of the crossover, and the guard handsignals this fact to the signalman, then handsignals the loco crew to stop.  He then changes his lamps from red to white and the fireman changes the loco's lamps from white to red  The crossover turnout levers are thrown and the relevant ground signal pulled off.  

 

Guard now calls the train back from the up line to the down line through the crossover, and when the loco is clear on to the down line past the ground signal, the driver signals the signalman by hand or with a pop on the loco whistle.  HP can now clear back to the next box in rear to the west, which can offer him the express bearing down on the bucolic scene.  Box in rear can clear all his signals for it, as can HP, so it ploughs it's impressive way towards Paddington without anything to check it's magnificent progress.  Once it's clear into the section in advance of HP, the slow goods can be moved back onto the up road and the lamps changed back.  By the time it has regained the up road, the express has probably passed the next box's clearing point and the HP's starter can be pulled off for it to enter the section.

 

And so the long night wears on.  The interlocking has prevented any unpleasantness, and so long as the slow train's crew have been diligent with their lamps and rule 55 has been observed so that the signalman does not forget that his down main is blocked, everybody is happy, the traffic is running to time, and everything has been accomplished in complete safety.  All in a day's work...

Edited June 22, 2019 by The Johnster

[mdvle]

15 hours ago, Harlequin said:

One of the major goals of both Upton Hanbury and Hannet Purney was/is simply to see mainline traffic running at speed - something which a BLT just can't do. I think (hope) Hannet Purney still ticks that box.

 

 

When you are doing your stuff of operational interest, do you still want the mainline traffic running past at speed?

 

It seems to me that a possible drawback of this design is that it doesn't allow the mainline trains to continue going in loops at the same time if you need to use the mainline to do any of your operations...

 

If that is acceptable / what you want, then great.  Otherwise maybe replacing the branch with an industry / goods facility that can be shunted without blocking the mains would be something to contemplate.

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

That's really interesting and, as you say, would make a really unusual manoeuvre for a model. I had an inkling that's what you meant but I've never heard of it being done before - it sounds a bit dangerous!

 

Excellent. That adds even more to the operating potential.

 

 

We used to shunt trains across the road regularly at Witham on the patch where I worked in the mid-late 1970s.  The one that it happened with most regularly was the Fawley - Tiverton jcn loaded tanks, mostly petrol at that time.  If it was a short train it could be shoved back inside but if it was the more usual load it was shunted Down Main to Up Main to allow a West of England passenger train to overtake it.  Unlike the shunts at Patney it wasn't a timetabled shunt but the crew were so used to it happening they didn't need to be told they were going to have to shunt.

 

It was never a dangerous practice if it was done properly and must have been quite common pre-war before loops became more widespread although there were of course refuge sidings at many places.  I think the only time it ever seriously went wrong was at Quintinshill (very seriously in that case alas) but in reality it was no different from having any other sort of stationary train standing in Station Limits so protect it with lever collars, a TRB entry and a Block Back if it was foul of the Clearing Point.

Edited June 22, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

When you are doing your stuff of operational interest, do you still want the mainline traffic running past at speed?

 

It seems to me that a possible drawback of this design is that it doesn't allow the mainline trains to continue going in loops at the same time if you need to use the mainline to do any of your operations...

 

If that is acceptable / what you want, then great.  Otherwise maybe replacing the branch with an industry / goods facility that can be shunted without blocking the mains would be something to contemplate.

That if course is the beauty of it.  In the real world you have to shunt one train to allow the following one to overtake it, makes a nice change from everything running straight through.. 

[Compound2632]

On 16/06/2019 at 18:14, The Stationmaster said:

The only thing I would wonder about is the double slip in the Up Main Line - yes there was one at Patney of course but they were pretty unusual things in running lines at minor through stations - it's really whether you're after 'spririt of Patney' or something 'typical'.

 

And at least you have a proper, archetypal, junction to the single line - something which so many folk miss out notwithstanding the BoT and successors requiring such an arrangement until relatively modern times although they tended to be associated with branches used by through trains where the preponderance of trains were running through from the 'main' line and hence were not unusual on the B&H and B&H Extension lines so again adding to sense of place.  

 

 

It's often not possible to distinguish crossings and slips on the OS 25" maps, so I had been wondering about that double slip - interesting that you confirm that that is how it was. 

 

As The Johnster implies, wouldn't the branch originally have had only trailing connections to the main line? Unless it was a double-track branch...

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's often not possible to distinguish crossings and slips on the OS 25" maps, so I had been wondering about that double slip - interesting that you confirm that that is how it was. 

 

As The Johnster implies, wouldn't the branch originally have had only trailing connections to the main line? Unless it was a double-track branch...

At Patney the branch was originally the main line - or rather it was the only line until what subsequently became the main line via Lavington was opened 38 years later.

 

Quite a number of GWR branches had double junction connections out of the main line route - irrespective of whether they were single or double line - because there was for many years a Requirement that a double junction had to be used, even if it ran into a single line before it was hardly clear of the double line it was leaving.   Thus any branch which had through working from the main route had a double junction in the main route - some examples being Maidenhead (onto the single line Wycombe branch), Twyford onto the double but originally single Henley branch, Savernake onto the single line Marlborough branch, Norton Fitzwarren into the Barnstaple and Minehead branches (originally both single lines, later doubled),  Durston Jcn and Athelney West in both cases onto the single Durston branch (which was only used by through trains), Exeter City Basin and Heathfiled - both onto the Teign Valley branch,  and many more.   Plus of course various junctions on single lines where the junction itself had to be on double line so both single lines became double for a short distance to create a double line junction such as Morebath Junction (although it also served as a crossing place on the Barnstaple branch).

 

In other words such junctions were far from unusual and it is rather misleading to suggest that such an arrangement didn't exist although by the 1930s there seems to have been some relaxation from the previous insistence on double line junctions and slightly different arrangements began to occasionally appear.  But the vast majority of the double junctions leading to branch lines, including single track branches, on GWR/WR routes survived until closures began to bite in the late 1950s and layout rationalisation and greater use of facing connections became more common in the early 1960s.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread it is something you rarely see modelled so Phil's layout is doing a spot of ground breaking in that respect.

 

 

[Compound2632]

Mike, thanks. I suppose I was thinking of the sort of humble branch line where the branch train rumbles to and from from the junction to terminus, rather than there being much through working. Also, I'm more familiar with Midland examples than Great Western ones, though a good example of a double junction on a single line is Eardisley on the Hereford Hay and Brecon section, junction for the Kington branch, which although a Midland installation saw both companies' trains. 

 

Re. wrong line recessing and lack of facing junctions, there was a particularly nasty accident at Sharnbrook on the Midland main line in 1909. A down goods on the down goods line was gaining on a queue of northbound mineral empties trains, so it was decided to cross it to the down fast. Sharnbrook didn't have a facing junction for this move, so the train was set back onto the up fast, with the intention of then crossing to the down fast. It seems the signalman in error pulled over the crossover from the yard to down main in place of the up main-down main crossover - which meant he could still clear his down main starter. The goods set out wrong line on the up fast; the signalman saw it clear the crossover and, assuming it was in fact on the down fast, replaced the (wrong) crossover lever and accepted and cleared his signals for a train on the up fast. By this point the driver of the goods realised that he was wrong line and set back with some haste then he and his fireman scrambled clear. The crew of the up Manchester express goods had no chance: they struck the down goods at 55 - 60 mph; both lost their lives and the destruction of rolling stock was appalling.

[Harlequin]

Update:

 

I thought about whether a true operating well would work but unfortunately that would make the layout wider and then it would only fit in one location in my house. Worse, the whole design would really have to be turned inside out so the operator could see the scenic area from the well but then the staging of the scene wouldn't work for exhibition. Operation of uncouplers in the goods yard will just have to be made as reliable as possible!

 

Station track plan

I decided that I was satisfied with the run round facilities as originally drawn because HP is a small station in the countryside with very few, if any, terminating services. When run round is needed the main Up line is used and for that reason I have also retained the double-slip at the west end of the station (J6). Part of the thinking behind that decision is not wanting to make the station busier with more trackwork, which would make it look more significant than it is and would squeeze out some surrounding scenery. Similarly I toyed with the idea of adding a second branch siding but decided on balance against it. Many small stattions on the B&H (extension) just had a simple goods loop directly off the main line with a siding at one end.

 

The double-slip could still be changed to a single if the run round manoeuvre was allowed to reverse from Up Main through the branch junction instead. I need some expert opinions on that, please.

 

Most goods services run through and the goods yard is only intended for local traffic, not for exchange. In special cases when wagons need to be transferred from mainline trains to branch trains (or vice versa) they can be left in the goods yard spur at R6-S6 or the branch siding, H5-K5. To make it easier for Down traffic to leave or pickup goods vehicles I've added a siding of the Down line behind the signal box (H6-K6) with catch point. Patney & Chirton had a similar siding off the Down military loops so it's in the spirit of the place.

 

I moved the goods shed as far right (east) as I could to help with shunting the branch siding.

 

Behind the scenes

I realised that the turning triangle wasn't very useful because a locos can be turned simply by running round the reversing loop and that's a simpler move that all the starting and stopping and changing points that the triangle would have required. Removing the triangle simplifies the reversing loop baseboard and opens up the centre of the loop for some loco storage spurs. Exchanging a small Y for a 3-way point at the left allows further storage spurs inside the end curves at the left.

 

Landscape

From my visit to Patney I realised that a big river or canal on the layout would be out of place. The area is a shallow valley between higher downland to north and south with only small watercourses crossing it. (That's partly why the railway is there of course, Duh!)

 

That also means my plan for a water mill a la Kintbury had to go - but that's OK because a simple scene will give a better sense of the place: Chalk downs in the far distance with beech hangers on their shoulders, small fields blanketing the more gentle undulations nearby, hedgerows full of hawthorn and blackthorn (possibly in bloom), red brick cottages with thatched roofs.

 

I have started to sketch in a possible landscape:

 

The fields looks small but they are deliberately compressed and I would aim to play perspective tricks to by making hedgerows and other features under scale towards the backscene.

 

I've got a cunning plan for making the tracks disappear on the left without using the hackneyed overbridge or tunnel mouth. I'll have to do some experiments to see if it will work.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

30 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I moved the goods shed as far right (east) as I could to help with shunting the branch siding

 

It still looks a right pain to shunt though.  Would it be better taken directly off the branch platform road, between the slip and the junctions?

 

Not tempted to make the down siding a simplified version of Patney, with a loop and single slip across the main?

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I think if you put in a single slip instead of the double in the Up Main it would effectively be the wrong way round becauses the slip road should actually be making the Main lines trailing crossover.  So leave it as double because looking at you scenic drawing you won't get  a separate pair of crossovers in.  it is an unusual arrangement and rather atypical but on the other hand it is 'the place',

 

Incidentally one thing worth bearing in mind was that there were far fewer trees in the vicinity in the past and there were virtually none growing inside the railway boundary especially in cuttings and on embankments.  All too often the undergrowth, overgrowth, and trees inside the boundary fence help to date lineside scenes as 'modern' rather than steam age railway.

 

On continuing reflection I'm not very keen on the scissors crossover on the branch platform and goods siding and I can't really see the point of it.  It will considerably shorten the platform length and that was short enough (realistically so) to start with.  And I do wonder about the siting of the goods shed - I think I'd be more inclined to put it on the dead end siding at the Down end bearing in mind that it probably won't be very busy in any case whereas the use of the sidings for full loads, especially in a country area. is likely to be much busier than the amount of traffic passing through the goods shed.  In fact you might even find it useful to copy one past feature of Patney and connect that long dead end siding into the branch making it even easier to shunt..

 

I was wondering about the Down side sidings before Simon ('Flying Pig') commented but I don't think there is much room to provide something akin to the original looped sidings and they were possibly there for the military traffic to enable trains to be made up or broken up to suit the pace of work on the military platform but they were also the goods yard according to one source so they won't add much operational value.  By using your short siding (which needs a trap point) you have a useful little siding to exchange freight traffic to/from the yard or branch should you introduce a branch freight trip.

[Zomboid]

55 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think if you put in a single slip instead of the double in the Up Main it would effectively be the wrong way round becauses the slip road should actually be making the Main lines trailing crossover.  

If installed like that, a run round of a train in the third platform would use the inner (up?) line and the branch as the headshunt. Which certainly feels like a move that could be permitted. Probably more likely than using the main.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

If installed like that, a run round of a train in the third platform would use the inner (up?) line and the branch as the headshunt. Which certainly feels like a move that could be permitted. Probably more likely than using the main.

Depends how it's signalled and on what other trains are about.    it might or might not be a signalled move from the Up Main to the Branch and in any case it would mean shunting outside the (Branch) Home Signal which would not be possible if a train has been accepted on the branch.  It would definitely have been a signalled move from the Up Main to the Down Main (and the through sidings).

[Harlequin]

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think if you put in a single slip instead of the double in the Up Main it would effectively be the wrong way round becauses the slip road should actually be making the Main lines trailing crossover.  So leave it as double because looking at you scenic drawing you won't get  a separate pair of crossovers in.  it is an unusual arrangement and rather atypical but on the other hand it is 'the place',

 

Yes, I think that's best on balance.

 

Quote

Incidentally one thing worth bearing in mind was that there were far fewer trees in the vicinity in the past and there were virtually none growing inside the railway boundary especially in cuttings and on embankments.  All too often the undergrowth, overgrowth, and trees inside the boundary fence help to date lineside scenes as 'modern' rather than steam age railway.

 

Yes, I am bearing that mind. I might use trees as view blockers in some places, maybe taking one or two considered liberties but I am mindful to keep the tracksides clear generally.

 

Quote

On continuing reflection I'm not very keen on the scissors crossover on the branch platform and goods siding and I can't really see the point of it.  It will considerably shorten the platform length and that was short enough (realistically so) to start with.

 

The NW to SE route through the scissors is the normal goods to branch loop crossover of course. The SW to NE route gives access to the dock siding without having to shunt through the goods shed and is quite a space-efficient formation. (See Pewsey.) I had hoped that trains using the branch platform could stand foul of the SW scissor points (P6). Is that wrong?

 

Quote

And I do wonder about the siting of the goods shed - I think I'd be more inclined to put it on the dead end siding at the Down end bearing in mind that it probably won't be very busy in any case whereas the use of the sidings for full loads, especially in a country area. is likely to be much busier than the amount of traffic passing through the goods shed.  In fact you might even find it useful to copy one past feature of Patney and connect that long dead end siding into the branch making it even easier to shunt..

 

Hmmm, I see, yes... I'm wary of expanding the station too far because that's the slippery slope to the scenic area being filled by station again (!) and I'm not sure I could make the connection west of the junction points like Patney because the line almost immediately starts a 2ft radius turn whose position is dependant on the connection to the fiddle yard. I wonder if that arrangement would be a bit outside the B&H style but I think I've seen something like it in my research. It would open up the possibility of using the current goods loop for running round branch trains without using the main lines and might remove the need for the scissors. So it's an attractive idea.

 

Quote

 

I was wondering about the Down side sidings before Simon ('Flying Pig') commented but I don't think there is much room to provide something akin to the original looped sidings and they were possibly there for the military traffic to enable trains to be made up or broken up to suit the pace of work on the military platform but they were also the goods yard according to one source so they won't add much operational value.  By using your short siding (which needs a trap point) you have a useful little siding to exchange freight traffic to/from the yard or branch should you introduce a branch freight trip.

Exactly. Part of the reason for dropping the military sidings was to control the length of the station. (On the 1924 map I posted earlier you can see the weighbridge is on the Down side near the military sidings.)

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

Edited June 24, 2019 by Harlequin

[clachnaharry]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

The NW to SE route through the scissors is the normal goods to branch loop crossover of course. The SW to NE route gives access to the dock siding without having to shunt through the goods shed and is quite a space-efficient formation. (See Pewsey.) I had hoped that trains using the branch platform could stand foul of the SW scissor points (P6). Is that wrong?

 

 

I think the sheer amount of infrastructure required - two points, a facing point lock, diamond crossing and all the associated signalling would make that arrangement unlikely, unless the dock was very heavily used. It would be much cheaper to shunt the dock via the goods shed (using other wagons as reach wagons if engines are not permitted to enter), pinch bar, or good old Dobbin.

 

I think the branch pick up siding greatly adds to the operational interest. As wall as its intended function, it is a great place to drop off a wagon with the coal supply for the signalman. (Was that a feature on GW lines?)

Edited June 25, 2019 by clachnaharry

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

The NW to SE route through the scissors is the normal goods to branch loop crossover of course. The SW to NE route gives access to the dock siding without having to shunt through the goods shed and is quite a space-efficient formation. (See Pewsey.) I had hoped that trains using the branch platform could stand foul of the SW scissor points (P6). Is that wrong?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

 

I think the sheer amount of infrastructure required - two points, a facing point lock, diamond crossing and all the associated signalling would make that arrangement unlikely, unless the dock was very heavily used. It would be much cheaper to shunt the dock via the goods shed (using other wagons as reach wagons if engines are not permitted to enter), pinch bar, or good old Dobbin.

 

I think the branch pick up siding greatly adds to the operational interest. As wall as its intended function, it is a great place to drop off a wagon with the coal supply for the signalman. (Was that a feature on GW lines?)

The SW to NE route through the scissors would add exactly what 'clachnaharry' has highlighted and for the reasons he has highlighted it.  By contrast Pewsey was much simpler involving only a trailing connection which in no way interfered with platform standage or anything else.   It would be far too complex to have trains standing foul of the SW point in the scissors.

 

There is nothing wrong with shunting the dock through the goods shed as it definitely happened in some places and it is going to be a pretty small goods shed anyway - Patney received an average of about 16 wagons of 'goods' weekly and a high percentage of that wouldn't have been shed traffic.   Lots of modellers seem to get the idea that goods sheds were busy but by the 1930s many at smaller stations were either defunct or receiving very little inwards traffic and sending little or no outwards traffic whereas full loads. (dealt with outside) could sometimes still be quite busy. 

[Harlequin]

Maybe a small lineside shed would be more appropriate, then. Perhaps with a few associated structures like a provender store, tin sheds and grounded vans.

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Maybe a small lineside shed would be more appropriate, then. Perhaps with a few associated structures like a provender store, tin sheds and grounded vans.

 

I think that might well be the case Phil although it is your railway of course.  It is interesting to see how the size of goods sheds varied even station-to-station on the same route and some were quite small especially if they hadn't been built in the first flush of new built railway enthusiasm.  Photos indicate that there was some sort of shed building on the military platform although whether its purpose was military is not apparent and the only picture of a train in that platform which I can find shows it to be passenger stock conveying infantry, who were in process of detraining,  although there was probably some sort of van out of shot.

[Tallpaul69]

Maybe, it is time to let Phil think the whole goods handling scene through, but I do think the following questions need to be considered:-

1) Did the yard handle anything except general agricultural needs and produce?

a) If so what was it, was the traffic seasonal or all the year round?

b) If seasonal, was it handled by expanding the normal timetabled trains or did it require "Q" paths?

c) Did other stations on the line or branch also participate in the traffic?

d) Did the traffic flow in one direction, if so, which direction was that, or did it flow along two or three of the directions away from the junction?

 

I really think the layout needs something to replace the Military Traffic, if it is going to satisfy long term.

 

2) Associated with the above, I do wonder if the return loop is really as useful as it might appear?

    It appears to me easiest accessed to/from the branch, but its use seems not prototypical to branch traffic, even though some traffic such as the Paddington   -Bristol trains was a step above typical branch traffic.

I think a branch yard, similar to the upper branch yard on your suggestion for my  Lower Thames Yard would be a better answer?

 

But as Mike has said previously, it is your railway, so it must tick all your boxes not mine, or those of any other contributor.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Patney & Chirton (information is drawn from a secondary source but is probably reliable)

 

Passenger tickets issued - 1903 10,124; 1913 - 8,127; 1923 - 7,093; 1933 - 3,650. (excluding season tickets of which 14 were issued in 1933)

 

Parcels forwarded - 1903 18,761; 1913 - 32,257; 1923 - 32,721; 1933 - 3,087

 

General goods forwarded - 1913 - 1,629 tons; 1923 - 1,679 tons; 1933 - 447 tons. (the station didn't open for goods traffic until 1904)

Coal & coke received - 1913  875 tons; 1923 - 26 tons; 1933 - 104 tons

Other minerals received - 1913 - 3,428 tons; 1923 - 1,759 tons; 1933 - 447 tons

General goods received  - 1913 - 824 tons; 1923 - 1,144 tons; 1933 - 850 tons

Wagons of livestock handled  - 1913 - 37; 1923 - 23; 1933 - 58

 

 

The most interesting figures in the above are the quantities of parcels forwarded in earlier years which average out to c.100 per day over a 6 day week and then the massive drop off down to 1933 and an average of barely 10 per day.   the other interesting figure is 'other minerals' which I suspect was probably roadstone (although there might have been some other use in the area of whatever the traffic was?).