Is this track configuration realistic (odd location of run-round loop)?

[Rhydgaled]

I starting building a modified Inglenook sidings layout some time ago and in the past year it has finally come close to looking complete in some respects. However I did not ballast it as I started to think that if I was to keep it long-term I would want to extend it and the idea I had for the extension didn't seem realistic to me. So I thought I would ask if the resulting layout seems sensible. Here is the track plan: the yellow border bottom-right is the 4ft x 2ft existing layout which is all OO set-track except for a small length of flexible track leading into the two double straights that form the platform road. Above that is the Inglenook itself.

 

 

The idea is that all passenger trains would be DMUs or auto-coaches, so the lack of a run-round facility is not a problem there. However, due to lack of space on the existing board my extension idea has a run-round loop for freight trains just beyond the cutting through the hill that forms the scenic break on the existing layout. This seems implausible to me, to have a run-round so close to the station yard but not within it and out of sight of the signal box. Operationally I would propose that freight trains arrive from A to B with the loco hauling and a brake van on both ends. The loco would then run-round, remove the brake van from the A end and shunt it into the siding at C before attaching at the A end and pushing the train (now with just one brake van, which would be the leading vehicle) into the shunting sidings. On the way back, the loco would haul the wagons from B to A and retrieve the brake van from C before continuing towards the fiddle yard (which also doesn't exist at present).

[Nearholmer]

I can't instantly think of an example, but it seems perfectly feasible, and if I was to look, I'd look somewhere steep, where the real railway faced constraints like your own - South Wales, Cornwall, bits of Yorkshire maybe.

 

I think the signal-box would most likely be located by the loop, with the home signal somewhere just outside the FY. Goods trains would probably arrive into the loop, run-round, drop the brake-van into the passenger platform if no passenger train was scheduled, or C if its long enough, shunt as required, tack the van back on, and form-up for departure - I see no need for two brake-vans.

 

No reason you couldn't run-round a passenger train at the loop, if it happens not to be a push-pull.

 

I think I would signal to allow goods arrival into the loop, and departure from the loop, but I think I would put the starter for the passenger train at the platform, so that it could be used to hold a train while shunting goes on, as below, but Stationmaster and others may have different/better ideas.

 

Feels as if it ought to be GWR to me, given the number of signals I’ve given it! The other option would be to have it ‘one engine in steam’, and have either none or just a few ‘shunts’, but it would be half so pretty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

Could you move the run round back towards the fiddle yard and model it as the previous station?  You seem to have a good scenic break in place already.  Then you can just run round the goods there in station limits and propel to the terminus.  I think that might be permissible but it would probably depend on the method of working the branch as there are passenger trains involved, but I'll leave that to the signalling gurus.

 

BTW do you need quite,so many roads in the fiddle yard? The number of points is making them rather short.

 

[TonyMay]

There were a few stations with the run-round before the platform.  Passenger trains would arrive, set back into the loop with no passengers, run round, and then set back into the platform.  Actually makes a more complicated operation than just a simple run-round.

 

Loop in platform is uncouple, forward, points, points, back, points, points, forward, couple is 9 operations)

 

Loop before is arrive, set back, uncouple, back, points, points, run round, points, points, back onto train, couple, propel, i.e. 13 operations.

 

[Zomboid]

...Though because of that that railway company would only resort to such an arrangement if there wasn't the option of having an in-platform run round. So in terms of believability I'd come up with some reason for them not building it conventionally.

 

You don't need a brake van on both ends of a freight either, just shunt it as usual.

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Though because of that that railway company would only resort to such an arrangement if there wasn't the option of having an in-platform run round.

 

Hmmmm ........ not entirely true.

 

It was typical practice in early years, even where the other option was available, and some places retained it to the end through lack of need to change. There were even a few late-built examples where other options were clearly available, e.g. Callington, which was a very "model railway" station. 

 

The great advantage of it is that it allows one to stable a passenger train out of the way at the platform, while running round a goods train, so it has a lot to commend it at a model railway BLT.

[The Stationmaster]

Apart from a very over-signalled loop I go along very much with 'Nearholmer's original reply.   As we are potentially talking diesel age, even in the 'green period'. I can make sense of the original idea although it's hard to come up with an example where the loop is that far away from the terminal platforms (not that it is very far in scale terms but the scenic feature makes it look further.

 

So a simply signalled loop used both to run round freight and to cross a freight and passenger .  Then put in a trap for the yard at the terminus to lock ina freight if needed and you're away with an NSKT section between the loop and the terminus.  and yes, you definitely only need one brake van.

 

Shades of Old Ynysybwl?   EWell not quite but the terminus is similar apart from having sidings alongside.

[Rhydgaled]

  

  Thanks for all the replies so far. Sounds like it may be worth ballasting the layout after all.

 

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I can't instantly think of an example, but it seems perfectly feasible, and if I was to look, I'd look somewhere steep, where the real railway faced constraints like your own - South Wales, Cornwall, bits of Yorkshire maybe.

Interesting; when I was designing the yard originally I tried to think of somewhere that would have a constrained site but thought of North Wales, not South; specifically Blaenau Ffestiniog - lots of high mountains in Snowdonia which I felt could create a tight spot. While I'm not trying to recreate any specific location with this layout, I'm taking inspiration from the Ffestiniog - Trawsfynydd - Bala route.

 

Quote

I think I would put the starter for the passenger train at the platform, so that it could be used to hold a train while shunting goes on, as below, but Stationmaster and others may have different/better ideas.

 

Feels as if it ought to be GWR to me, given the number of signals I’ve given it! The other option would be to have it ‘one engine in steam’, and have either none or just a few ‘shunts’, but it would be half so pretty.

I wonder whether I could fit a starter signal there... Originally I was going to have one in the cutting, at the limit-of-shunt, but decided the signal post might make my cliff look too short (and, since it is a Setrack curve, most of my passenger stock would probably be out-of-gauge if I put anything tall there). Ffestiniog - Trawsfynydd - Bala was a GWR route I believe and my heritage fleet has a definite GWR/BR(W) lean to it (though there's all sorts really) so that suits me.

 

Quote

 

What are the dots on sticks? I'm assuming the flags are full passenger signals, are the dots on sticks ground signals? A side question I was going to ask is how many levers I need to paint in each colour for the signal box, so this should be helpful (although you are missing the long siding of the Inglenook and it doesn't have the dedicated headshut you have drawn).

 

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Could you move the run round back towards the fiddle yard and model it as the previous station?  You seem to have a good scenic break in place already.  Then you can just run round the goods there in station limits and propel to the terminus.  I think that might be permissible but it would probably depend on the method of working the branch as there are passenger trains involved, but I'll leave that to the signalling gurus.

Good idea; if I can find space to have a nice long run between the two stations, I may well do that and I'd be much happier about it that way than having a random loop so close to the terminus but not actually part of it. At this stage there's no space for anything beyond the station/yard baseboard, so I'm not too bothered about the specifics of the extension other than whether there is the potential to add one and have the end result be plausable. The main question is whether it's worth putting much more scenic development into the bit I have, which depends on whether it could form a useful part of any future larger layout.

 

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It was typical practice in early years, even where the other option was available, and some places retained it to the end through lack of need to change. There were even a few late-built examples where other options were clearly available, e.g. Callington, which was a very "model railway" station. 

 

The great advantage of it is that it allows one to stable a passenger train out of the way at the platform, while running round a goods train, so it has a lot to commend it at a model railway BLT.

Never thought of it that way. I guess any remaining doubt about the plausability of it comes down to the fact my scenic break seperates the loop from the rest of the station.

 

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Apart from a very over-signalled loop I go along very much with 'Nearholmer's original reply.   As we are potentially talking diesel age, even in the 'green period'. I can make sense of the original idea although it's hard to come up with an example where the loop is that far away from the terminal platforms (not that it is very far in scale terms but the scenic feature makes it look further.

I fear my rather random collection of rolling stock can only be explained in one way, that it is a modern image heritage railway, although I could of course just not run the modern stuff. The colour scheme of the railway buildings (chocolate and cream) makes it BR Western Region I believe.

 

Quote

So a simply signalled loop used both to run round freight and to cross a freight and passenger .  Then put in a trap for the yard at the terminus to lock ina freight if needed and you're away with an NSKT section between the loop and the terminus.  and yes, you definitely only need one brake van.

You only need one brake van, but shouldn't it always be at the opposite end to the loco? Thus, when propelling from the run-round to the shunting yard the van needs to be leading, so it'd need to be run round as well leaving the wagons with no loco or brake van attached. Obviously there are suituations where wagons are allowed to be left without a loco or brake van coupled to them, but I'm not sure what those are.

 

Edit: thought it might be clearer if I show the current state of the layout (ignore the blue diesel bodyshells in the car park, they are just being stored here while I try and overhaul their motors (unsucessfully so far)). The third photo confirms the lengths of the sidings for the Inglenook as 2x 3-wagon and 1x 5-wagon - when on the 'headshut' the loco and 3 wagons do block the platform road unfortunately but there is room for quite a large loco to be used for shunting. The Hymek in the background for example, if only it wasn't a non-runner.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Rhydgaled

[Nearholmer]

40 minutes ago, Rhydgaled said:

What are the dots on sticks? I'm assuming the flags are full passenger signals, are the dots on sticks ground signals? A side question I was going to ask is how many levers I need to paint in each colour for the signal box, so this should be helpful (although you are missing the long siding of the Inglenook and it doesn't have the dedicated headshut you have drawn).

 

The little lollipops are shunts signals, and the flags full semaphores, yes.

 

Whoops, yes, missed a siding (maybe because I thought the sidings looked incredibly short). The "headshunt" I've included isn't a headshunt, its a trap that I included to mirror real railway practice, acting as the means to prevent errant wagons sneaking out onto the main line.

 

40 minutes ago, Rhydgaled said:

I wonder whether I could fit a starter signal there..

 

If you want to run two trains into the station, one passenger and one goods, you need a signal at the platform to hold the passenger train safely while the goods train arrives and is put out of the way in either the loop or the sidings.

 

As Stationmaster has pointed out, I have gone a bit OTT with signals, covering all sorts of combinations of moves, and thereby created the need for more levers than the strict minimum. I think the minimum would be the home on the approach to the station, and the starter at the end of the platform.

 

You really don't need a goods brake-van at all once you are inside the home signal, because all the moves are shunts ...... it's all one, slightly straggly, station. 

 

I wouldn't split it into two stations personally, I think it works fine as one, and I rather like its quirkiness.

 

Can I move my signal-box, though? I think it would be better on the apex of the curve at the cutting, so that the signalman can see both the loop and the yard/platform.

 

MkII for critique. I have my doubts about the subsidiary signal at the home, which I intend to be used to allow a goods train in while the platform is occupied. Should it be a shunt signal, or a 'calling on' signal? I'm used to seeing the latter used to signal the incoming train right into the platform, on top of the train already there, for coupling portions together. Should I go back to my first instinct and make it a ringed-arm giving entry to the loop, in which case I feel I ought to give the loop a starter too?

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Love the Snowdonian scenery!

 

PS: please add a footbridge over the chasm-cutting, so that it looks like Devil's Bridge. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/03/2021 at 22:17, Nearholmer said:

 

The little lollipops are shunts signals, and the flags full semaphores, yes.

 

Whoops, yes, missed a siding (maybe because I thought the sidings looked incredibly short). The "headshunt" I've included isn't a headshunt, its a trap that I included to mirror real railway practice, acting as the means to prevent errant wagons sneaking out onto the main line.

 

 

If you want to run two trains into the station, one passenger and one goods, you need a signal at the platform to hold the passenger train safely while the goods train arrives and is put out of the way in either the loop or the sidings.

 

As Stationmaster has pointed out, I have gone a bit OTT with signals, covering all sorts of combinations of moves, and thereby created the need for more levers than the strict minimum. I think the minimum would be the home on the approach to the station, and the starter at the end of the platform.

 

You really don't need a goods brake-van at all once you are inside the home signal, because all the moves are shunts ...... it's all one, slightly straggly, station. 

 

I wouldn't split it into two stations personally, I think it works fine as one, and I rather like its quirkiness.

 

Can I move my signal-box, though? I think it would be better on the apex of the curve at the cutting, so that the signalman can see both the loop and the yard/platform.

 

MkII for critique. I have my doubts about the subsidiary signal at the home, which I intend to be used to allow a goods train in while the platform is occupied. Should it be a shunt signal, or a 'calling on' signal? I'm used to seeing the latter used to signal the incoming train right into the platform, on top of the train already there, for coupling portions together. Should I go back to my first instinct and make it a ringed-arm giving entry to the loop, in which case I feel I ought to give the loop a starter too?

 

 

We do face some particular problems here because if the signal box is by one lot of points it won't be by the other lot of points so although they are well within the legal distance the signal box can't work them because the signalman can't see them.  Logically the signal box would be at the loop and the yard connection at the station would be worked by a ground frame because that puts the signal box in the correct place to not only work the maximum number of points but also allows the Signalman to properly apply the Signalling Regulations.

 

If the signal box is at the station it means the loop points will have to be worked by ground frames - hardly the end of the world but it needs a bit of signalling and Instructions jiggery-pokery to make complete sense of it.  So signal box at station and the Home Signal sited to protect the furthest loop connection (so as in Nearholmer's latest sketch but without the co-located disc signal) OR simply the loop with the two ground frames and treat it as being in the section.   But you will then definitely need a Home Signal at the toe of the points leading to the sidings - but no gound disc and definitely not a Southern style semaphore arm with a ring on it (rings on southern signal arms had a different meaning from rings on Western signal arms).  So let's go with this as it is the simplest way.

 

An arriving freight trains halts with teh train clear of the loop points at both ends and the engine detaches and runs round via the loop to take the brakevan off the rear of the train.  it then propels the brakevan onto the running line clear of the loop points at the station end and the engine then returns through the loop to the other end of the train and the loop points are all set for the single line.  The engine then propels the train onto the brakevan and propels the complete train through to the station before starting to shunt the sidings.  the brakevan is now of course on the correct end for departure of the freight train once it has been formed up.

 

In reality a line like this is most likely to be worked on a 'One Engine In Steam' basis using a single train staff as the authority to be on the line so while the freight train is there no other train can come onto teh single line or to the station - very much a typical way of working a line such as this model represents.  IF (a very big if in real world terms) you want a passenger train to approach when a freight is at the terminus it would mean operation by Electric Token (= extra cost in the real world) but the freight train could then be 'shut-in' in either the loop or the sidings at the station to allow a passenger train into the section to reach the station and return before the freight train is allowed back out.  Using one sort of electric token operation called NSKT working (NSKT = No Signalman Key Token) there is no need for a signal box or any signals at the station or the loop - just ground frames released by the token and that is how plenty of branchlines were worked particularly from the early 1960s onwards.  What you cannot do is shut-in a passenger in the platform line because that line is in the token section and obviously you couldn't do that on 'One Engine In Steam' section  either.

[Michael Hodgson]

Whitby comes to mind.

Not for freight though.

[Rhydgaled]

 

On 16/03/2021 at 22:17, Nearholmer said:

The little lollipops are shunts signals, and the flags full semaphores, yes.

Thanks; do the shunt signals need the same colour lever (red if I recall correctly) in the 'box as the full-size signals?

 

Quote

Whoops, yes, missed a siding (maybe because I thought the sidings looked incredibly short). The "headshunt" I've included isn't a headshunt, its a trap that I included to mirror real railway practice, acting as the means to prevent errant wagons sneaking out onto the main line.

Ah, I think that means even as an isolated layout what I have is wrong - I cannot put a trap point in because my 'headshunt' (I'm not even sure if I have the correct meaning of that term) extends onto the point that leads into the passenger platform - just look where the Terrier is on the photos above and that's probably my shortest loco. Perhaps squeesing a 3-3-5 inglenook and a passenger platform into 2ft by 4ft in OO was too much compression...

 

Quote

On 16/03/2021 at 21:48, Rhydgaled said:

I wonder whether I could fit a starter signal there..

If you want to run two trains into the station, one passenger and one goods, you need a signal at the platform to hold the passenger train safely while the goods train arrives and is put out of the way in either the loop or the sidings.

I wasn't suggesting you were wrong or that I don't want one there, I just wonder whether it would physically fit without making the overall scene look very wrong. I guess it might have to go ON the platform, like W7 at Whitland but much closer to the end of the platform (pic here (not mine)).

 

Quote

Can I move my signal-box, though? I think it would be better on the apex of the curve at the cutting, so that the signalman can see both the loop and the yard/platform.

Sure; I think it's the only place where the singaller might be able to see all the points - but taking the signal box off the station board might leave it looking a bit empty.

 

On 16/03/2021 at 22:36, Nearholmer said:

Love the Snowdonian scenery!

 

PS: please add a footbridge over the chasm-cutting, so that it looks like Devil's Bridge. 

I think it may have been one of the Welsh narrow gauge lines, quite possibly even Devil's Bridge, that gave me the idea of using a tight cutting in a scenic break. If it was Devil's Bridge that inspired me though, I had forgotten about that footbridge - I was deliberately trying to be a bit different by having the train pass through my scenic break without a bridge or tunnel.

 

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

signalling and Instructions jiggery-pokery

Oh dear, I seem to have openned a can of worms here... My knowledge of Signalling Regulations is quite close to zero - I know you mustn't drive past a home (red-arm) signal at danger and that horrizontal is danger, but I don't know how the little disc shut signals are used - I'm guessing the red line being horrizontal means danger too, but it what ways are they treated differently from the full-size signals?

 

Quote

An arriving freight trains halts with teh train clear of the loop points at both ends and the engine detaches and runs round via the loop to take the brakevan off the rear of the train.  it then propels the brakevan onto the running line clear of the loop points at the station end and the engine then returns through the loop to the other end of the train and the loop points are all set for the single line.  The engine then propels the train onto the brakevan and propels the complete train through to the station before starting to shunt the sidings.  the brakevan is now of course on the correct end for departure of the freight train once it has been formed up.

Which of course leaves the wagons unattended with no brake van while the loco is propelling the brake around the train, which feels wrong to me (wagons at risk of running away unless somebody applies the handbrake on them). Obviously wagons are left without a brake once in the sidings, but I don't know what makes that 'allowed' but running a train without a brake van 'not allowed' (the trap point I don't have room for would help with the ones in the sidings, but not with the loop).

 

Quote

In reality a line like this is most likely to be worked on a 'One Engine In Steam' basis using a single train staff as the authority to be on the line so while the freight train is there no other train can come onto teh single line or to the station - very much a typical way of working a line such as this model represents.  IF (a very big if in real world terms) you want a passenger train to approach when a freight is at the terminus it would mean operation by Electric Token (= extra cost in the real world) but the freight train could then be 'shut-in' in either the loop or the sidings at the station to allow a passenger train into the section to reach the station and return before the freight train is allowed back out.  Using one sort of electric token operation called NSKT working (NSKT = No Signalman Key Token) there is no need for a signal box or any signals at the station or the loop - just ground frames released by the token and that is how plenty of branchlines were worked particularly from the early 1960s onwards.

I certainly cannot recall seeing any signals at Fishguard Harbour (electric token) - not even to protect the level crossing. Why would signals be required with the older 'One Engine In Steam' token system (maybe I should have put this in the signalling sub-forum - or layout topics).

 

Quote

What you cannot do is shut-in a passenger in the platform line because that line is in the token section and obviously you couldn't do that on 'One Engine In Steam' section  either.

Another black mark for me then - the DMU in the pics is permanently shut in the platform line at the moment, because there's nowhere for it to go except crashing to the floor. I think you can shut a freight in the loop at Trecwn on the Fishguard line though, is there any reason you couldn't lock in a passenger train?

[Compound2632]

A much more probable arrangement is for the sidings to branch off the loop, as at Dursley (top RH corner here). Alternatively, how about something like Barnoldswick, where the passenger station is on the loop but the coal yard right at the end of the line?

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

Thanks; do the shunt signals need the same colour lever (red if I recall correctly) in the 'box as the full-size signals?

Yes, They are stop signals which (apart from the yellow 'arm' type in certain circumstances) must not be passed at danger

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

Ah, I think that means even as an isolated layout what I have is wrong - I cannot put a trap point in because my 'headshunt' (I'm not even sure if I have the correct meaning of that term) extends onto the point that leads into the passenger platform - just look where the Terrier is on the photos above and that's probably my shortest loco. Perhaps squeesing a 3-3-5 inglenook and a passenger platform into 2ft by 4ft in OO was too much compression...

You have bags of room to put in a dummy single tongue trap point just where the line from the sidings starts to curve towards the running line.  Others have done it in the past.

 

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

I wasn't suggesting you were wrong or that I don't want one there, I just wonder whether it would physically fit without making the overall scene look very wrong. I guess it might have to go ON the platform, like W7 at Whitland but much closer to the end of the platform (pic here (not mine)).

Whitland is not comparable - completely different situation.  The only way you could do it - although in the real world it would be extremely unlikely - is if the line is worked as an Electric Token section and the signal box functions as a block post, a situation which would probably have vanished in the 1950s if it had lasted beyond the 1930s.  Then you could hold a passenger train in the platform BUT under the Block Regulations you would not be allowed to accept a freight train (or any sort of train) towards the station.  So what would have to happen is that a freight would have to be shut in the sidings so that a Passenger train could be accepted but either could leave first.  But generally on small brancj hes like this the freight ran during a gap in the passenger service.

 

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

Sure; I think it's the only place where the singaller might be able to see all the points - but taking the signal box off the station board might leave it looking a bit empty.

 

I think it may have been one of the Welsh narrow gauge lines, quite possibly even Devil's Bridge, that gave me the idea of using a tight cutting in a scenic break. If it was Devil's Bridge that inspired me though, I had forgotten about that footbridge - I was deliberately trying to be a bit different by having the train pass through my scenic break without a bridge or tunnel.

 

Oh dear, I seem to have openned a can of worms here... My knowledge of Signalling Regulations is quite close to zero - I know you mustn't drive past a home (red-arm) signal at danger and that horrizontal is danger, but I don't know how the little disc shut signals are used - I'm guessing the red line being horrizontal means danger too, but it what ways are they treated differently from the full-size signals?

See above regarding shunt discs etc.   But when they are cleared a shunt signal only indicates that the route is set anda movmenet must be prepared to stop short of any obstruction so it will move at slow speed.

Nothing wrong with your scenic break but you have left yourself with a srather unusual situation in respect of the loop but that is readily solved by usinga couple of ground frames - perfectly normal way of doing such a job.

 

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

Which of course leaves the wagons unattended with no brake van while the loco is propelling the brake around the train, which feels wrong to me (wagons at risk of running away unless somebody applies the handbrake on them). Obviously wagons are left without a brake once in the sidings, but I don't know what makes that 'allowed' but running a train without a brake van 'not allowed' (the trap point I don't have room for would help with the ones in the sidings, but not with the loop).

Provided the line is level or not steeply graded running round and shunting the brakevan like that is just another part of what used to be of everyday railway work.  You aren't 'running a train' without a brakevan.  You are simply shunting in order to get the brakevan to the other end of the train and making ready for the propelling movement to the siduings - there's no other way of doing that with you runround loop where it is.

 

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

I certainly cannot recall seeing any signals at Fishguard Harbour (electric token) - not even to protect the level crossing. Why would signals be required with the older 'One Engine In Steam' token system (maybe I should have put this in the signalling sub-forum - or layout topics).

Fishguard Harbour Signal Box was closed in the 1960s (1965?) and from then on the line was under the control of the Signalman at Fishguard & Goodwick with some points operated by ground frames and the few remaining signal were gradually removed during the 1970s.

 

Technically lineside signals were not required (except distant signals for public level crossings) on a line operated by One Engine In Steam (OES) except where it joined the rest of the railway.  The GWR, and others oiften provided a Home Signal and platforn Starting Signal at the terminus of such lines but inevitably in the situation post 1960s fixed signals were no longer provided although there might be a STOP board depending on circumstances.  Many branch lines were converted to this system in the 1960s/70s (the modern title is 'One train Working') and with such changes all signals were removed 

 

16 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 

Another black mark for me then - the DMU in the pics is permanently shut in the platform line at the moment, because there's nowhere for it to go except crashing to the floor. I think you can shut a freight in the loop at Trecwn on the Fishguard line though, is there any reason you couldn't lock in a passenger train?

See earlier comment - there is a way round it but the line would be worked by electric token and the station would have to be fully signalled - although that only requires two semaphore stop signals and one or possibly two ground discs.  the loop would still be operated by ground frames.

 

Trecwn is - again - rather different and that was the case even when the line was open throughout from Clynderwen to Letterston Jcn as it was originally accessed by a ground frame worked connection.   The through passenger service on that route was discontinued (for the second time) in 1937 so before RNAD Trecwn was opened in 1938.  The through route remained open for freight traffic until 1949 but after that date the line was effectively an OES siding from Letterston Jcn until closure.  Probably trains could originally be shut in at the depot which had a connection to the branch protected by a trap point.

 

i'm not sure what still survives at Letterston Jcn as it is now some time since Trecwn RNAD was closed and there might no longer be any need for the final remnant of the Rosebush line.  There would certainly be little point in using it to shut in a passenger train even if what is there is suitable (which I very much doubt).

[Nearholmer]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

there is a way round it but the line would be worked by electric token and the station would have to be fully signalled -

 

Yes, the reason I keep inflicting, probably far too many, signals on the place is precisely to allow a passenger train to be held in that platform, while a goods train arrives and is put out of the way.

 

I think that you are right that ground frames are the simplest option, and I was reading about a temporary terminus that was created that way in Cornwall (somewhere ending "dinnick" IIRC), and how the signalmen complained about having to walk up and down the site in all weathers to operate it.

 

Here were are, it was on the Parandillack Branch:

 

" .....a box was opened at Kernick in 1913 (see picture). Kernick box was unique in Cornwall and possibly elsewhere in that it had no levers. The box contained the electric staff instruments, but the points and signals were worked by 3 ground frames. There was a signal post at each end of the layout, each bearing two arms, one for up and one for down. Therefore there were up and down home and starting signals, but only two posts......"

 

Here is a picture showing the 'box (Wills Kit SS29??), but unfortunately not the signals or track layout.

 http://cornishmemory.com/item/WMA_P1_1_083#.VrnM2RrxpTY.mailto

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Nearholmer

[caradoc]

How about a Fairford style arrangement, with the platform on the single line where the loop is now, and the run-round loop and sidings at the end of the line, if there is enough room there ? 

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

A 'backward' Fairford arrangement was what i thought of when i saw the plan, and the reason for Fairford being the way it was could apply here too.

 

For the OP; Fairford had a single track station with the run round loop just beyond it. If i remember rightly, it was like this because Fairford wasn't planned to be the terminus of the line and should have been a through station, but the tracks never went further. 

 

Looking at what track you have already laid out, could you replace the curved track at the entrance of your yard with another point to create a short headshunt? (similar to how Nearholmer has drawn the catch point). You can limit your headshunt length to just loco+3 wagons for the full inglenook experience, plus keep shunting while a DMU arrives/departs without blocking the running line. 

 

A siding at each end of the run round loop like you've drawn could add to the operational fun of this design too. It all looks much more entertaining than having the run round right next to the platform.

[Compound2632]

On 19/03/2021 at 12:35, Nearholmer said:

Here is a picture showing the 'box (Wills Kit SS29??), but unfortunately not the signals or track layout.

 http://cornishmemory.com/item/WMA_P1_1_083#.VrnM2RrxpTY.mailto

 

OT: no two wagons the same.

[009 micro modeller]

On 16/03/2021 at 21:48, Rhydgaled said:

I fear my rather random collection of rolling stock can only be explained in one way, that it is a modern image heritage railway

 

That actually opens up more possibilities. A preserved line could have a newly-built station on an awkward site that requires something like this, or a previously through station now preserved as a terminus. I think Chinnor requires trains to run to a separate run-round loop slightly beyond the terminus, although that’s slightly different.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, Chinnor has a "fiddle yard" beyond the station, down by the old cement works. I rather like that arrangement, because it keeps the station "all in period", rather than having an accumulation of rolling stock there.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, Chinnor has a "fiddle yard" beyond the station, down by the old cement works. I rather like that arrangement, because it keeps the station "all in period", rather than having an accumulation of rolling stock there.

Agree. It preserves the illusion of it being a through station. Embsay when we visited about 17 years ago (! help) was similar, but the run-past was rather longer.