Jump to content
 

Goods Shed and Engine Shed locations for Branch Line Terminus


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm making a small steam era branch line terminus and need help working out where to put my goods and engine sheds. The track plan I am going for is based on "Ashleigh" ==>  Link
I have three questions:

Where would be an appropriate location to add an engine and/or goods shed on this track plan?

Would it make sense to add a point coming off the run around loop for an engine shed?

Could the small bay platform be replaced by a goods shed and loading bay?

Edited by Guest
fix broken link
Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing to say is that for such a small terminus station, there might be no goods shed or engine shed present. Secondly, if you really stick to the 4' 6" x 1' dimensions, you will struggle to accommodate the necessary buildings.

 

For a goods shed, one possible spot is on the bay at the top of the diagram - i.e. alongside the platform. There are plenty of instances of such an arrangement, often with the goods shed in the middle (roughly where the leftmost rectangle is positioned in the linked diagram), with the end of the bay in the open, possibly used as a loading area. In GWR practice, the bay side of the platform would be fenced off from the track and the good shed building would protrude onto the platform to some extent. However, you need to make sure that the goods shed building is wide enough not only for the track but also a loading area/platform inside - typically goods sheds were in two halves, one with the track, the other with the loading area.

 

One other possibility is to add a kick-back from the bay and have the goods shed in the space above the signal cabin. The space is tight, however.

 

As for an engine shed - for a typical small branch there might be no engine shed at all, with the engine(s) for the branch being stabled at the junction station at the start of the branch. However, there are cases where the terminus station had an engine shed, where the branch was longer and busier. One example is Moretonhampstead:

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moretonhampstead/

 

In this case, the very simple engine shed was on a kickback from the station loop, which would be somewhere near the signal cabin in the diagram of Ashleigh. However, I very much doubt you can fit this in unless you make the layout longer than the Ashleigh diagram.

 

Yours, Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info :) 

I have plenty more space than what is shown on the Ashleigh plan which is why I'm looking to add the extra buildings. I'm just using the image as a reference for the track plan. I think I'll take your suggestion of putting the engine shed on the kickback from the runaround and the little goods shed should fit nicely on the bay platform.
Thanks again for the concise and informative reply!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, dankunja said:

Hi,

I'm making a small steam era branch line terminus and need help working out where to put my goods and engine sheds. The track plan I am going for is based on "Ashleigh" ==>  Link
I have three questions:

Where would be an appropriate location to add an engine and/or goods shed on this track plan?

Would it make sense to add a point coming off the run around loop for an engine shed?

Could the small bay platform be replaced by a goods shed and loading bay?

Yes, the engine shed could come off the run round loop and be placed where the signal box is currently shown. The engine shed will take up a lot of space and will hide the loco inside it so you could consider showing just the front end of it and using the open line in front for ash, coal and water. The part of the shed that you do model would then act as the view blocker to hide the junction to the fiddle yard.

 

Yes, the bay platform could be the goods shed siding with a fence along the back of the platform.

 

Move the signal box behind the main line.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the original plan, why is there a bridge in the middle when there is sea both sides? That would look most odd when built.

 

The areas dedicated for 'controls and switches' dont have to be there.

 

Where do trains arrive and depart from? (I know but it looks odd as it is). Perhaps if using that plan as it is, then the fiddle yard should be hidden by a cliff or something, exhibition style??

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Looking at the original plan,

The plan in question is "Ashleigh", scroll a bit further down and you'll see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

If you've got more space than shown, consider curving the main line / platform line to make the plan more dynamic.

 

I'd love to but with my level of experience that would be a bad idea haha, might give it a try on my next layout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do have more space, then one goods element that is missing from Ashleigh is a "mileage siding", which is where the coal trucks would have gone in steam days. Most small branch stations tended to have such mileage sidings, since coal was the universal fuel in those days and you needed some space for unloading and storage.

 

Maybe this can be done as a kickback from the bay line, especially if you have a longer area available (> 6' say), so that you can shunt it without going into the goods shed. I think at Moretonhampstead the mileage siding was above the bay for the goods shed, facing the same way as the bay. This requires a lot more width, of course.

 

Yours,  Mike.

Edited by KingEdwardII
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this may work, it might be a bit cramped. Board is 54" x 12 ", some fiddling around may be required to get clearances correct

 

Medium, code 100 Peco streamline points.

Station building, Signal box and Goods Shed are Metcalfe.

Engine Shed is Dapol. 

Water crane is Hornby

 

Mk1 coach in the bay platform

Jinty at the 'depot'

Pannier running round a guards van

 

image.png.19e842e2ac7c848f3ad7ae9770939db5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Comments:

  • You have to keep the bay all or partially clear to get in and out of the engine shed.
  • There's no room to leave vans or wagons standing anywhere - no real goods yard.
  • You need to re-shunt the goods shed every 2 vans because there's only room for one being unloaded and one pushed through.
  • Clearances for running round two coaches look very tight.
  • It all feels unbalanced - too much passenger, too little goods.

Suggestions:

  • You could possibly use a 3-way turnout and you'd get even more length in the sidings and the loop.
  • It might be better to imagine a really small station to fit in your confined space - the facilities would fit more naturally then, more balanced.
  • The fiddle yard needs to be thought about as integral part of the design.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, dankunja said:

Hi,

I'm making a small steam era branch line terminus and need help working out where to put my goods and engine sheds. The track plan I am going for is based on "Ashleigh" ==>  Link
I have three questions:

Where would be an appropriate location to add an engine and/or goods shed on this track plan?

Would it make sense to add a point coming off the run around loop for an engine shed?

Could the small bay platform be replaced by a goods shed and loading bay?

While there wasn't a runround loop in the same manner as 'Ashleigh' at Wallingford the engine shed was right next to the platform line - i.e. in the same position as the end spur off the run round loop but you would have to increase the track spacing to allow clearance for a building.  On the track layout you mention that is probably the best site for the engine shed unless you wish to start altering the layout - it's a simple addition and a minor change that won't interfere with the very limited operational potential = 'fun value' of the very simple track plan.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What era is the OP looking to represent?

 

As illustrated by one of the plans, this sort of space does not work well with 64' stock. Much better to model a light railway. Mixed trains, short carriages, smaller buildings etc. A goods shed that is just a lock-up on the platform.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 64' stock is all I could find on Anyrail User Objects, it would be better to use 57' passenger stock, Railcars and Autocoaches (of course the OP doesn't tell us the period).

 

The amount of stock shown on the plan is simply to help visualise the space.

 

A single siding could be brought off the loop entrance for some additional storage, an engine shed could be a kick back off that siding as seen at Shipston on Stour - https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrss3104.htm

 

Maybe something like this .... (not sure what has happened to the geometry, maybe something is not quite straight)

 

image.png.0dffdf508912e6a475d1b81a55c425ab.png

 

 

( I really ought to get on with some work! )

Edited by Davidl66
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Davidl66 said:

The 64' stock is all I could find on Anyrail User Objects, it would be better to use 57' passenger stock, Railcars and Autocoaches (of course the OP doesn't tell us the period).

 

The amount of stock shown on the plan is simply to help visualise the space.

 

A single siding could be brought off the loop entrance for some additional storage, an engine shed could be a kick back off that siding as seen at Shipston on Stour - https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrss3104.htm

 

Maybe something like this .... (not sure what has happened to the geometry, maybe something is not quite straight)

 

image.png.0dffdf508912e6a475d1b81a55c425ab.png

 

 

( I really ought to get on with some work! )

But Shipston had a lot more siding space so a kick-back off a long siding was feasible.  Putting the goods shed on the runround loop spur end makes it well nigh unworkable at anything like reasonable traffic levels because - as you plan shows - there is only room for three wagons on that spur so how could the shed be worked if there were more than two wagons.  You can't even get the third one into the shed or work it from the lineside because it is fould of the release crossover;)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Davidl66 said:

The 64' stock is all I could find on Anyrail User Objects, it would be better to use 57' passenger stock, Railcars and Autocoaches (of course the OP doesn't tell us the period).

 

The amount of stock shown on the plan is simply to help visualise the space.

 

A single siding could be brought off the loop entrance for some additional storage, an engine shed could be a kick back off that siding as seen at Shipston on Stour - https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrss3104.htm

 

Maybe something like this .... (not sure what has happened to the geometry, maybe something is not quite straight)

 

image.png.0dffdf508912e6a475d1b81a55c425ab.png

 

 

( I really ought to get on with some work! )

Passenger platform unfeasibly thin and failing BoT requirements.

 

Probably best to let the OP work out what he wants and what fits in his space, which he has told us is bigger than the Ashleigh plan but by how much we don't yet know.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

These small stations are really difficult to make convincing, I think the "Leighton Buzzard" terminus on the "Buckingham" layout was a particularly good example, however with only 54" you can't really waste any length on platforms beyond the end of the tracks.  There were a few examples on the full size railways but a lot had tracks beyond the station platform as they were intended to be only a temporary terminus pending the extension of the line.  Tetbury and Oakworth (?) terminus of the KWVR spring to mind.    As a basic principle the first point the FY end should be the loop point, that's pretty much universal on the full size, also in model form the tracks should come as close as you dare to the terminus end or the board.  We have a 7ft  OO terminus in the garden which can just cope with a Mogul and 2 X B sets, I think they are 60 footers,  reduced to 4 ft 6" that would be a Mogul, a 60 footer and a Van, or a Pannier and a B set and even more precise positioning of the stock would be needed for running round.  My point being that any increase in length would be of great benefit, and probably that 5ft is the minimum for a 4mm terminus.   The FY also influences the design.  If it's longer than the terminus then you can indulge in some fancy shunting loner the better, we have 20 ft of so of main line to use as a shunting neck and 12 goods wagons can be run round so I often send 15 down for a bit of a challenge.    Obviously if you have a short traverser or FY it's a different ball game.

I don't see any scope for an Engine shed but I would try for an additional siding, and being me, I would get out the dremel or hacksaw and trim down the points for a closer track spacing Most OO stock is less than 40mm wide so you can get away with 42 mm track centres and 44 is probably more practical.  That's a small width saving over streamline and a big one over set track and a huge improvement on appearance, 

To go back to the top, I'd move the loop point, put the signal box behind the tracks not in front and add a siding along the front

I would add a 1" or so wooden wall with brick paper facing along the front of the layout so your cardigan / tie / chid/ cat/ dog doesn't drag your stock off the track.  Not too high to hide it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

While there wasn't a runround loop in the same manner as 'Ashleigh' at Wallingford the engine shed was right next to the platform line - i.e. in the same position as the end spur off the run round loop but you would have to increase the track spacing to allow clearance for a building.

 

Gullane, the terminus of the Aberlady, Gullane and North Berwick Railway, did have a run-round loop, and the loco shed was on the spur next to the platform line (it actually had a short siding next to it as well, I assume for loco coal/ash disposal).  The equivalent of the 'bay' on the Ashleigh plan was the coal siding, and there were two more sidings beyond it making up the goods yard.  There was no goods shed (the line apparently didn't attract much goods traffic) but the plan I'm looking at does show a crane (and I assume there would have been a weighbridge).  The station did have a signal box.

 

My recollection is that a number of CJF's smaller layout plans had the loco shed in a similar location.

Edited by ejstubbs
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth thinking about a possible history of this imaginary branch line, to guide towards a realistic layout.

 

If the line was originally intended to go further but the money ran out, then the station would almost certainly be laid out as a through station, ending in buffers at one end. That would probably take up more space than is available. However, it would justify a terminus with very limited facilities as the village it served wasn't expected to justify the existence of the line.

 

On the other hand, if the line was always intended to terminate here, then a true terminus layout is easier to justify and you can imagine it's cramped by surrounding physical/human geography.

If it was built to terminate here, then WHY was it built? A tiny station with a couple of sidings just big enough to serve a village probably wouldn't justify the building of the line. There must have been some particular industry/agriculture/wharf/mine etc to be served. I think my gut feel would be to forget the engine shed idea, and use what extra space is available to serve a particular traffic of your choice. Nothing too big as there isn't space, though a lot could be represented in low relief. How about a mill, factory, brewery, river wharf, dairy etc? Something to justify why the railway is there, and provide some extra freight traffic to shunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mike morley said:

Would a station that small and simple have a signal box?  I think a ground frame is more likely.

 

Given that  the Ashleigh plan shown appears to be pretty much Ashburton, but without the kick back siding to the Maltings, I am inclined to agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

If you've got more space than shown, consider curving the main line / platform line to make the plan more dynamic.

 

 

Fisherrow, further on in the OP's linked document could make a basis for that. It's shown as 8' x 16" for 0 gauge so would just about fit in Op's space, with a little more width available proportionately I think.

 

A loco release crossover would need to be added, with the bottom road as drawn becoming the runround (and loading bank beyond the crossover).  I would reverse the kickback bottom right to make a shuntable front siding and shorten the back siding to allow a station building top left.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mike morley said:

Would a station that small and simple have a signal box?  I think a ground frame is more likely.

Well, Moretonhampstead had a signal box, a goods shed, an engine shed, cattle dock. It was only a little bigger than the Ashleigh plan, with what looks like a mileage siding beyond the bay. One twist is that the loop was longer and the entrance to the bay & mileage siding was from the opposite side of the loop via a diamond crossing, to avoid a facing point on the passenger track leading to the platform.

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moretonhampstead/

 

Yours,  Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...