Realistic LMS/ex-LMS BLT operation

[MiltonF]

I'm just going to keep this to a single thread to avoid spamming, I've got several questions regarding mainly the operation of the ex-L&YR branch line terminus Horwich. I'm thinking of building a layout loosely based on a compressed version of it and I want to get a good idea of how you would operate it in a few fine details just to avoid major model railway-isms like, for example having three or more locomotives in steam on a low traffic volume location.

 

 

 

 

1. this may just be up to modellers preference, but if it isn't, how would the private industrial sidings to the south east of the goods ayrd be shunted to/from? Would it make sense for whatever locomotive was there at the time they were ready to be made up into the goods train to shunt them out, run around them, and drop them off in their place? Or would it make more sense for the goods locomotive itself to perform the shunting duties?

 

2. as the station is a hair away from the loco and carriage works, I thought some operation involving coaches in need of maintenance might be interesting. If, say, a train found one or more coaches to be unusable for the departing journey, where would they leave them assuming they had no time to take them to the works? Would they use the goods yard, or would they leave them at the station platform, or something like that?

 

3. even though I cannot see well enough on the map, I have assumed that the goods siding crosses the arriving line and nothing more, no slips of any kind, according to the regular practice. However strange outliers are known to exist so I want to be sure this is correct, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

 

 

 

 

4. on my own layout, the coal yard has been reduced to a single line. This would make it impossible to shunt without clearing the main line but I feel it would be a shame to just discard it completely. Is it reasonable to have a coal siding that requires using the main platform to shunt?

 

5. Lastly, I'm wondering just how much of the content of my layout is vestigial and if/how different parts should be edited/removed. I can definitely see how the engine spur is vestigial enough that it should be done away with but it's one of those things that doesn't feel right not to have. I'm concerned about the short points for the platform arrival but it just cannot take medium or longer points without increasing the overall length or decreasing the runaround to unusable length. This is essentially my first real layout aside from some micro dabbling so keep in mind that I might come across as a bit slow.

[Flying Pig]

I couldn't find a signal diagram for Horwich online but these 25" maps of the throat and station may be of use. 

 

I do suspect there is a slip on that goods crossover as there appears to be a siding springing from the loop  opposite the platform that would otherwise not be easily accessible.  The slip would be trailing to arriving trains.

 

At a normal branch terminus, sidings would be shunted by the goods loco, or by non-loco means such as a horse or even manually with a pinch bar.  However I wonder how normal Horwich was, being right next to the works with a direct road into them and how much it was tangled up in their operation.

[Nick Holliday]

7 hours ago, MiltonF said:

I'm just going to keep this to a single thread to avoid spamming, I've got several questions regarding mainly the operation of the ex-L&YR branch line terminus Horwich. I'm thinking of building a layout loosely based on a compressed version of it and I want to get a good idea of how you would operate it in a few fine details just to avoid major model railway-isms like, for example having three or more locomotives in steam on a low traffic volume location.

 

 

1. this may just be up to modellers preference, but if it isn't, how would the private industrial sidings to the south east of the goods yard be shunted to/from? Would it make sense for whatever locomotive was there at the time they were ready to be made up into the goods train to shunt them out, run around them, and drop them off in their place? Or would it make more sense for the goods locomotive itself to perform the shunting duties?

Horwich isn't exactly what one would think of as a typical BLT!  It is the terminus of two short double track lines forming a triangle off the main line, and very close to the loco and carriage works.  Shunting the yard would probably be carried out by the goods loco that brought wagons in and prepared the train to leave. It seems unlikely that there would be random locos standing in the yard, but it should be remembered that the works had several dedicated shunters, and if the sidings were associated with the railway, as the OS map suggests, if necessary the shunter could be despatched to collect the tuyeres produced therein. Looking at various Horwich based websites, the history of the works seems very complex, and other OS maps give it different names, indicative of different industries. 

7 hours ago, MiltonF said:

2. as the station is a hair away from the loco and carriage works, I thought some operation involving coaches in need of maintenance might be interesting. If, say, a train found one or more coaches to be unusable for the departing journey, where would they leave them assuming they had no time to take them to the works? Would they use the goods yard, or would they leave them at the station platform, or something like that?

The majority of passenger services, at least in L&YR days, consisted of a Horwich based loco (perhaps an 0-6-2T) running effectively a shuttle service to Blackrod, the next station up the main line, going north, throughout the day. It is unlikely that this strenuous schedule would throw up many carriage failures. The service was interspersed with a couple of other duties to Manchester and Bolton, potentially part of a longer daily schedule. If there were a failure, given the proximity to the works, the failed vehicle would be shunted out of the train, and perhaps left in the headshunt, either to be collected by the works shunter, or to receive first-aid treatment from fitters. Given the ungainly access into the goods yard, that doesn't seem to be the best option.

7 hours ago, MiltonF said:

3. even though I cannot see well enough on the map, I have assumed that the goods siding crosses the arriving line and nothing more, no slips of any kind, according to the regular practice. However strange outliers are known to exist so I want to be sure this is correct, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

 

 

 

Not sure what "no slips of any kind, according to the regular practice" actually means, although I am not that familiar with L&YR trackwork practices.  Slips were a very useful tool and generally very common, and, when you look at the earlier maps of the station, absolutely essential, as there doesn't seem to be a platform crossover, so a single slip, forming a trailing crossover, would create the necessary run-round loop, and provide a more flexible route into the goods yard. The "regular practice" usually involved minimising facing points, due to the need to provide facing point locks which increased the complexity and cost of the point levers in the signal box, which is just off-stage to the left, beyond the road bridge, or the increased likelihood of a derailment of a train approaching at speed. 

Given that any trains entering the station throat would be travelling slowly, it is possible that there was a double slip, allowing goods trains to run straight into the yard, although the absence of a run-round loop in the yard makes this less useful.

7 hours ago, MiltonF said:

4. on my own layout, the coal yard has been reduced to a single line. This would make it impossible to shunt without clearing the main line but I feel it would be a shame to just discard it completely. Is it reasonable to have a coal siding that requires using the main platform to shunt?

Due to the lack of a run-round in the yard, it is inevitable that the platform road would be occupied for at least part of the time a goods train is shunting. Perfectly normal, although the frequency of the passenger service might have required some timely shunting, although most goods trains ran at night to minimise this conflict.

7 hours ago, MiltonF said:

5. Lastly, I'm wondering just how much of the content of my layout is vestigial and if/how different parts should be edited/removed. I can definitely see how the engine spur is vestigial enough that it should be done away with but it's one of those things that doesn't feel right not to have. I'm concerned about the short points for the platform arrival but it just cannot take medium or longer points without increasing the overall length or decreasing the runaround to unusable length. This is essentially my first real layout aside from some micro dabbling so keep in mind that I might come across as a bit slow.

It is interesting that although the lines approaching the station are double track, there is only a single platform, which is a slightly unusual scenario.  I wonder if the layout could be altered so that the facing crossover required to get incoming trains into the platform could be moved to the left end, and the entrance to the yard moved to the right of it; as this line would then be goods only, it would be permissible to have a slip of either sort without it needing FPL's. This might allow the use of shallower points without reducing the run-round length.

As for more than one engine present, I don't think that's a problem, although three might be pressing it, but Horwich shed in 1921 had an allocation of 10 locos, mostly 0-6-0 goods locos, so perhaps there might be a couple waiting to be turned.  Photos of the final train services circa 1966 show a couple of locos present.

It might be worth tracking down "Train Control and Passenger Working on the L&YR - 1921" to get more info if that period suits you. It seems that after grouping the station became the haunt of the L&YR steam railmotors, which makes sense given the shuttle service that was run.

[MiltonF]

7 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

-snip-

Thank you for the detailed responses. Having thought about if further it does make a lot more sense for a single slip in place of a crossover. Not sure what I was thinking when I determined it wouldn't work. Looking at the map there doesn't seem to be any conflict here. I tried a couple ways of moving the goods entrance around but there just doesn't seem to be room for it in such a small space -which means either that I have to accept the visual compromise in the hopes there isn't any buffer interlocking, or otherwise I have to make the plan substantially larger.

 

A view of a 1966 map seems to confirm the existence of a single slip, or very poor linework. I should have done a little more research before scratching my head I guess. It also lost the turntable by 1950, which tells me it isn't important enough to retain on such a small plan. Well, considering it isn't really meant to be a replica of Horwich, it's fine to me if it goes anyhow. With the goods entrance pressed up so close to the bridge I think I could fit in the medium points anyway. Initially I didn't think it would look good and I don't like the idea of always having trains going "off-stage" for shunting movements, but if it's prototypical then I can't really worry too hard about it.

 

 

 

 

I've shown the considered changes here, I do wonder if the coal siding might be getting on a bit in length relative to the rest of the layout. It's beginning to look a little bit stretched thin. It's still an awkward looking move to approach the platform but with single (and occasionally double) coach trains it shouldn't be too bad. With the vestigial turntable siding removed, I think there might be some room for a signal cabin although I'm concerned it could act as too much of a visual obstruction to what will be the main location for shunting movements on the layout.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

The double line with single platform pattern wasn't unique to Horwich - Holmfirth and Royton, both also on the L&Y, had something similar, although in those cases the platform was on the down line.

 

Looking at your revised plan, I'm wondering what the siding at the bottom is for?  From an operational point of view, I think you'd be better losing that and having another siding in the yard (you need to handle coal and 'mileage' traffic in the open).  You will also need a free road to shunt the tuyeres siding (which might be better taken off the loop and over a diamond, though the real Horwich doesn't appear to have done that).

[MiltonF]

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Looking at your revised plan, I'm wondering what the siding at the bottom is for? 

It's the vestigial remains of the coal siding. I was wondering if I might remove it.

[Flying Pig]

6 hours ago, MiltonF said:

It's the vestigial remains of the coal siding. I was wondering if I might remove it.

 

You could but as I hinted above it would make the goods yard very cramped, so I'd leave it.  It's a bit different from most models and given you are using the up main as the shunting neck it will not be a problem to shunt.

[Harlequin]

With just one coal siding on the south side, you could use the Up main as the shunting neck, as Simon says, but to avoid using the platform line while sorting wagons, and because of the way the crossovers are set up, you'd have to cross into the goods yard.

 

So maybe this is a compression too far? If you retained two coal sidings then you would be able to shunt them entirely on that side of the station.

 

I notice that the usable platform length is very short - maybe 1.5 coach lengths clearance inside the run round loop? How much size is available for the layout?

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Harlequin

[Nick Holliday]

24 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I notice that the usable platform length is very short - maybe 1.5 coach lengths clearance inside the run round loop? How much size is available for the layout?

For longer trains the loco would have drawn up to the buffers, whilst the passengers disembarked, grateful that their walk to the exit had been thoughtfully reduced by the driver's action.  Once empty, the train would be backed up the main line, until past the crossover. Depending on the length of train, the loco, having drawn forward again, could use the first crossover, or, if longer, use the single slip. As far as I can see, a train could be any length up to the total length of the platform, whatever that is, and, probably, tank locos would have been used for the majority of passenger services.

When originally built, if the OS maps are to be accepted, there was no crossover near the platforms, and all trains had to be backed out, and the run-round effected by using the facing crossover that provided access to the platform from the incoming main line, and the slip and crossover forming the entrance to the goods yard, but there was quite a run between these two on the real thing, difficult to achieve with limited space  on a model.

[Harlequin]

The throat pointwork could be compressed by swapping the order around:

Left to right:

• Facing crossover from Down to Platform line incorporating double slip into south coal yard
• Trailing crossover from Up to Goods yard incorporating single slip (?)

That would give a longer run round, longer platform, shorter goods and coal sidings, arguably balancing up the proportions to be more like the prototype. But would it fundamentally change operations?

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Harlequin

[MiltonF]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

With just one coal siding on the south side, you could use the Up main as the shunting neck, as Simon says, but to avoid using the platform line while sorting wagons, and because of the way the crossovers are set up, you'd have to cross into the goods yard.

 

So maybe this is a compression too far? If you retained two coal sidings then you would be able to shunt them entirely on that side of the station.

 

I notice that the usable platform length is very short - maybe 1.5 coach lengths clearance inside the run round loop? How much size is available for the layout?

 

The platform is slightly larger than it looks, point to point the runaround is the length of two points and two coaches not including the closing points. I'm fairly certain you could just squeeze 3 57 foot coaches in if you had perfect uncoupling precision, something I have no plans of doing. The entire layout is 7 by 18 inches, because there is very little space. The main restricting factor is the space in which it can be set up, normally it would be stored somewhere in its full length with the fiddle yard removed. There is no open space more than 10 feet in length available for setting up a layout, due in part to a strange room design and in part to the cluttered state this house is in. This diagram of my room might explain what words cannot for me.

 

As you can see the actual space for a layout is limited. The room in total is about 11 by 11 feet but the available space is much less. My beds position is dictated by the fact that the 6 foot wall is too small a space for even my minimum width bed to fit.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

With just one coal siding on the south side, you could use the Up main as the shunting neck, as Simon says, but to avoid using the platform line while sorting wagons, and because of the way the crossovers are set up, you'd have to cross into the goods yard.

 

So maybe this is a compression too far? If you retained two coal sidings then you would be able to shunt them entirely on that side of the station.

 

It makes little difference if coal is conveyed in the branch goods, as all the sidings will potentially be shunted and somewhere will be needed to make up the return working - either the platform road or the goods loop now there is the slip to give access to it.

 

If the coal was worked separately, then with a pair of coal sidings you could make up the outbound coal train and still permit a passenger to arrive and run round.  I'm not convinced this is an issue for a home layout with a single operator who will be busy enough with the goods not to worry about other workings.

 

 

[MiltonF]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

 

If the coal was worked separately, then with a pair of coal sidings you could make up the outbound coal train and still permit a passenger to arrive and run round.  I'm not convinced this is an issue for a home layout with a single operator who will be busy enough with the goods not to worry about other workings.

 

 

I don't intend to operate more than one engine at a time on the layout regardless.

[MiltonF]

Without changing the overall size of the layout, I've found a way to fit in a second coal siding and something of a short headshunt for it. Sadly, it's lost any sense of curvature by now. As it's so compressed already for operational purposes that may not have changed much about it's visual decline, but it's just so nice to see trains take a shallow curve.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, MiltonF said:

Without changing the overall size of the layout, I've found a way to fit in a second coal siding and something of a short headshunt for it. Sadly, it's lost any sense of curvature by now. As it's so compressed already for operational purposes that may not have changed much about it's visual decline, but it's just so nice to see trains take a shallow curve.

 

I preferred the version with one coal siding and the curve, which I've only really noticed now it isn't there!

[MiltonF]

For something completely different, I fiddled around to come up with a minimum size BLT along the same design philosophy. Only the goods yard, headshunt, and station remain in this setup. In order to add a little bit of visual interest, and provide more room for a traverser, the entire thing takes a gentle curve across the board. I can't find anything operationally out of place, but maybe I could be shown where it is. As an added bonus this would be small enough to fit in the space between my bathroom and my door, and a fiddle stick or lightly built traverser could be popped onto the end for operating sessions without having to setup anything else. It's almost boring, but I'd rather make something operationally sound and decently roomy than something compressed to all hell and awkward to operate.

 

It's such a simple plan that there should be no need to even try to explain the diagram.

 

 

[Harlequin]

I like it. It's simpler and rather more rational than the prototype that inspired it (with inbound direct into the platform and goods connected to the run round / outbound line).

 

Could you use the 8ft free space in your room (under the window I assume) with the fiddle stick over the bed? That might allow your simplified plan a bit more room to breathe.

 

And/or could the bed be turned 90° (head near the shower room) to make the full ~11ft wall fully accessible?

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Harlequin

[MiltonF]

2 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I like it. It's simpler and rather more rational than the prototype that inspired it (with inbound direct into the platform and goods connected to the run round / outbound line).

 

Could you use the 8ft free space in your room (under the window I assume) with the fiddle stick over the bed? That might allow your simplified plan a bit more room to breathe.

 

And/or could the bed be turned 90° (head near the shower room, foot near the closet) to make the full ~11ft wall fully accessible?

 

It could just about be done. I'm not sure I really want my head that close to the bathroom when sleeping but, if it means more layout space, it's a sacrifice I could make. A 4 ft fiddle yard and 7 foot layout sounds just about right. I always wished that a fiddle yard could have a proportion to a layout of no more than 1:2 in order that the layout itself dominate the space, but it doesn't seem to be possible for small layouts with any train that doesn't used 3 inch 4 wheelers. But, maybe, 8 ft and 3ft fiddle yard... too greedy?

[Harlequin]

Sounds like a small sacrifice to get a much improved layout! (You've got to get your priorities right...) Maybe you'd have room for a bit more depth as well?

 

Split the difference?: 7ft6in scenic plus 3ft6in FY?

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Harlequin

[MiltonF]

Just now, Harlequin said:

Sounds like a small sacrifice to get a much improved layout! (You've got to get your priorities right...) Maybe you'd have room for a bit more width as well?

 

Split the difference?: 7ft6in scenic plus 3ft6in FY?

 

That sounds just about right to me! And width could definitely be added, I just used the skinny plank to restrict myself when figuring out the design. I figure it's best to start with what you know can fit and then take that design and add a few pounds in length and width to avoid cramming too much track in too little space. When you find yourself compressing, say a C.J. freezer design, you know you've done something wrong.

[Flying Pig]

Very similar to Holmfirth (L&YR) (map). 

 

Do you plan to shunt using the outbound main (i.e. using the fiddle stick)? 

 

[Zomboid]

It's not unlike Sidmouth either, if you have a single line approach (the top one).

[MiltonF]

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Very similar to Holmfirth (L&YR) (map). 

 

Do you plan to shunt using the outbound main (i.e. using the fiddle stick)? 

 

That's kind of inevitable on a layout like this. I want to maximise as much visible shunting space as possible, hence the headshunt, but it will require using the fiddle stick even if extended to 7.5 feet.

[DCB]

You need to think outside the tin.  My spare bedroom was around 11ft  X 11ft and had a layout 60" above floor level.

Now if you keep the framing thin, mine was only 2" in places, the layout can go above the bed.

Having said that you are more squeezing until the pips explode rather than compressing and 8 or ten coach trains become 3 coaches.   It doesn't work.   The classic BLT is probably the optimum.  Buffers against the wall, first point, the loop point, at the FY end.   Its been thrashed to death and every convolution has been tried but its still pretty good.   For urban try Minories.

For works shunters wandering in and out, maybe freshly overhauled express locos on local trains maybe consider Horwich, but look at it in context, there were carriage sidings and a huge loco works just beyond the overbridge.    see NLS Map

[MiltonF]

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

You need to think outside the tin.  My spare bedroom was around 11ft  X 11ft and had a layout 60" above floor level.

Now if you keep the framing thin, mine was only 2" in places, the layout can go above the bed.

Having said that you are more squeezing until the pips explode rather than compressing and 8 or ten coach trains become 3 coaches.   It doesn't work.   The classic BLT is probably the optimum.  Buffers against the wall, first point, the loop point, at the FY end.   Its been thrashed to death and every convolution has been tried but its still pretty good.   For urban try Minories.

For works shunters wandering in and out, maybe freshly overhauled express locos on local trains maybe consider Horwich, but look at it in context, there were carriage sidings and a huge loco works just beyond the overbridge.    see NLS Map

 

There's a reason I referred to it as compression gone too far. As for minories I fiddled about with it but I just don't like it too much. Not a huge fan of dedicated urban passenger traffic and the goods yard versions feel like an afterthought.