More yard access questions

[Audley Road]

Following on from the recent thread "Yard access from a main line" by BluenGreyAnorak found here I'd like to see if a proposed arrangement is good practice in the current regime. The attached image should explain the description below.

 

In summary we have up (right to left) and down (l-r) main lines, through a small split platform station, with a trailing crossover at the left end. A facing point on the down, gives access into a loop running behind the platform. This is not for passenger traffic, and there is no platform face. At a point further down the line the loop rejoins the down line, with a trap point for protection beyond the controlling signal.

 

The yard would be accessed via reversal off the loop for down trains and reversal across trailing crossover and pull forward into the yard for up trains, although the former will be the more common movement. The rest of the yard is not shown for clarity.

 

Does the point leading into the yard serve as protection for the main line from unauthorised movement backwards in the loop or is additional trap point necessary. All thoughts welcome.

[beast66606]

Generally facing points were provided for faster access to allow trains to clear the main line quickly, having a yard off a loop is not the most common (but not impossible) arrangement, this is a classic plan where a trailing slip would be used rather than a crossover followed by a facing point.

 

The connection back to the sidings is fine for protecting the main (in either case)

[The Stationmaster]

Perfectly ok as drawn however as Dave has said a facing connection would speed things up (but adding it is an era dependant thing). However if you put a facing crossover at the right hand end you would very nearly have West Drayton in one of its various phases of evolving layout B)

[Audley Road]

Thank you both for your input. Firstly I presume you mean this arrangement for the trailing slip Beast?

 

 

That eliminates the crossover/facing point combo as you say as was demonstrated in the other topic. I was shying away from slips as part of a modern era S&C formation. Am I wrong in my assumption? (all shout YES together??!) This would be East Anglia kind of area, which I gather is a bit away from your interests but I know you'll have some idea.

 

Here we see some facing point, trailing crossovers in present day formation which I was using as inspiration. The loop is actually on the other side, and this is the connection to some little used sidings. There's quite a lot to be seen in this view apart from the trackwork.

 

 

I guess regional variations are always likely....

 

I didnt include a crossover at the right hand end where the loop rejoins as I envisaged most of the yard traffic entering and departing stage left.

 

Cheers.

[The Stationmaster]

Thank you both for your input. Firstly I presume you mean this arrangement for the trailing slip Beast?

 

 

That eliminates the crossover/facing point combo as you say as was demonstrated in the other topic. I was shying away from slips as part of a modern era S&C formation. Am I wrong in my assumption? (all shout YES together??!) This would be East Anglia kind of area, which I gather is a bit away from your interests but I know you'll have some idea.

 

Here we see some facing point, trailing crossovers in present day formation which I was using as inspiration. The loop is actually on the other side, and this is the connection to some little used sidings. There's quite a lot to be seen in this view apart from the trackwork.

 

 

I guess regional variations are always likely....

 

I didnt include a crossover at the right hand end where the loop rejoins as I envisaged most of the yard traffic entering and departing stage left.

 

Cheers.

 

hmm, what you have actually drawn is a facing slip connection, a trailing slip connection would (in that circumstance) be one which provides a trailing connection between the Up & Down lines at that location - if you follow what I mean?

 

Facing slip connections are not only not modern but weren't all that common even in older times unless things were very cramped and they were unavoidable as they were difficult to maintain in even the very best of circumstances if fast running was involved; ok in slow speed approaches to a major station but even then use with circumspection.

 

Fair enough to leave out the facing crossover if the traffic need is not there. Although things are moving on a bit now most of BR (by the 1970s) got into the situation where infrastructure only went in if there was a need for it and the cost could be justified - and with a crossover costing around half a million quid (plus the signalling costs) you will understand that the justification had to be pretty solid. Things began to change by the 1990s and have moved on in some respects more recently with worries about capacity but the cost still has to be justified and the kit is now even more expensive.

 

So back to where you started - you have a suitable 'modern' track layout which would really be ok for most parts of the country from the mid 1970s onwards and for some areas from a few years earlier. If we had been looking at it in the late 1980s/early-mid '90s and the level of passenger traffic was building up, or expected to build-up then I would have recommended including the facing crossover as well and have hoped to get it through the scheme costs. The reason being that what we were often looking at then was trying to get freights out of the way as quickly as possible in order to make sure they had a chance of being there in the first place (which was certainly a battle I had to fight in that period which led to changes at several places when layouts were renewed or altered in major schemes).

[Audley Road]

hmm, what you have actually drawn is a facing slip connection, a trailing slip connection would (in that circumstance) be one which provides a trailing connection between the Up & Down lines at that location - if you follow what I mean?

 

 

You beat me to the correction Mike, unfortunately I was on a Cross Country 170 home so I couldnt say Oops before you got there. Thanks for your insight, I will have a good read of it again and come back with any more questions.

 

Cheers!

[Edwin_m]

Your original layout looks fine for modern era (by which I assume you mean 1980s Cambridge power box!). At that time any concerns with facing points had disappeared, but pointwork was put on the straight where possible and used simple combinations of standard components.

 

If traffic departs the way it came in then a run-round is needed, either within the yard or using the loop and the main line. The latter would obviously block the main line for a certain period so might not be allowed. Barham north of Ipswich shows yet another arrangement of loop and freight terminal, though rather constrained by the site.

[Audley Road]

Just for completeness and for anyone still unsure, here is the arrangement that I should have drawn in response to Dave and Mike's suggestions.

 

 

As it seems that a modern arrangement as originally drawn is sufficient then I am inclined to stick with it. The loop will be long enough to allow reversal into the yard without impinging on passenger traffic and to act as a refuge for slow freight (not so much of a problem today I guess). This only leaves the question of a facing crossover beyond the loop, for which Mike helpfully outlined the 1:1 financial/planning and operational issues involved with putting it in place. I guess I will have to consider what originally this mythical location consisted of, what would have been rationalised and how it was adapted to cope with the build up of traffic. I envisaged a small aggregate terminal at one end which has been in operation from the 70s onwards, plus a distribution/industrial yard at the other end on the site of what would have been the old goods yard of this station. Thus (very) roughly:

 

 

With regards to run-round Edwin, I had thought perhaps an industrial shunter might be in use to push the wagons around. Something along the lines of what happens north of Ely but not under the wires - I can't cope with all those 317s/365s. Thanks for the Barham link, here's an overhead view from google. I presume the run round for the departing empties to Mountsorrel is in the loop to the south or at Ipswich, as I can't see any in-situ loop.

 

Cheers

[The Stationmaster]

One thing to keep in mind then Andrew is that virtually all the stone receiving terminals created in the '70s were done as cheaply as possible! If they used grab discharge the most they would come along with was a bit of ground clearance and levelling to load and turn the lorries or do some stacking, possibly some simple sleeper built walls to create cells for different grades of material although usually stacking in heaps was preferred as it incurred little cost, and adding a Portacabin or whatever as an office.

 

If hopper discharge was involved then clearly something had to be built or adapted for that but again work would usually be minimal unless/until the depot really took off with regular large flows of traffic ('large flow' to me means c.800-1200ton trains at least 3/4 days per week). It's not often realised that many of the stone receiving depots which opened in the '70s were expected to only have short lives as they were usually started against a specific contract for, say, a motorway and they only carried on after that if the operator had been able to break into a wider local market for various grades of material. In some cases there were new flows to long established sites but in most of those that I can immediately think of the traffic was clean stone going to coating (i.e. 'tarmac' making plants) although in a number of cases the operator, and changes in building etc regulations and requirements led to a broader range of material being passed through an expanded version of the original terminal.

 

And with most receiving terminals the aim was to serve them on an out & back basis, in other words the train arrived, was discharged, and then left with the loco that had brought it in. In some cases slip working was used which meant the loco off the incoming train would shunt out a previously unloaded empty train, position its incoming wagons for unloading, and finally depart with the empties. Very few depots - and I think none of the new ones which I can call to mind - used any motive power other than the train engine although I do know that at least one of the old sites receiving clean stone for coating did use its own loco as it had virtually no storage space and this unloaded wagons as they were needed.

 

Sorry to rabbit on - I must have spent far too many years, on & off, dealing with stone traffic Anyway I hope that helps a bit.

[Edwin_m]

Thanks for the Barham link, here's an overhead view from google. I presume the run round for the departing empties to Mountsorrel is in the loop to the south or at Ipswich, as I can't see any in-situ loop.

 

The train arrives from the north into the Down Goods Loop then propels back across both mains into the terminal. I believe the train must then be split due to the length of the sidings within the terminal. When unloading is complete it crosses back to the Down Goods Loop and runs round via the Down Main before departing northwards.

[Audley Road]

If hopper discharge was involved then clearly something had to be built or adapted for that but again work would usually be minimal unless/until the depot really took off with regular large flows of traffic ('large flow' to me means c.800-1200ton trains at least 3/4 days per week). It's not often realised that many of the stone receiving depots which opened in the '70s were expected to only have short lives as they were usually started against a specific contract for, say, a motorway and they only carried on after that if the operator had been able to break into a wider local market for various grades of material. In some cases there were new flows to long established sites but in most of those that I can immediately think of the traffic was clean stone going to coating (i.e. 'tarmac' making plants) although in a number of cases the operator, and changes in building etc regulations and requirements led to a broader range of material being passed through an expanded version of the original terminal.

 

And with most receiving terminals the aim was to serve them on an out & back basis, in other words the train arrived, was discharged, and then left with the loco that had brought it in. In some cases slip working was used which meant the loco off the incoming train would shunt out a previously unloaded empty train, position its incoming wagons for unloading, and finally depart with the empties. Very few depots - and I think none of the new ones which I can call to mind - used any motive power other than the train engine although I do know that at least one of the old sites receiving clean stone for coating did use its own loco as it had virtually no storage space and this unloaded wagons as they were needed.

 

Sorry to rabbit on - I must have spent far too many years, on & off, dealing with stone traffic Anyway I hope that helps a bit.

 

Hi Mike, keep rabbiting away its very useful to know such things. I've been looking into this part of the plan and took a few pictures at two locations earlier in the year (from outside the fence!)

 

 

This is the back of Harlow Mill, this is the inspiration for the siding area with the run round on my sketch. There is also an enclosed drop with a conveyor to a large half open storage building with multiple bins towards the main lines which I couldn't see properly from this location. The second picture shows what must be a tarmac production facility.

 

 

Next a different kind of drops, and conveyor system:

 

 

These last three are close to a busy main road (I'll let people guess) which may explain why its there given your earlier comments. This bridge below carries the line under said road and is a good excuse for a scenic break.

 

 

The aggregate/tarmac facility would be worked by the train engine, I was pondering whether the owners of the private distribution/manufacturing facility would have their own shunter. I was thinking of Ely Potter Group in this respect. Of course with an additional point in the long reception siding it could easily be made workable by the train engine also.

 

Thanks for clearing that Barham query up too Edwin - I imagine you are right about the split as they look quite short sidings. I do believe I saw the Barham train with the ex-RMC JGA(??) wagons on it recently which would be a shorter train with an equal payload to the PGAs. Anyway thats another matter entirely.

 

This thread has drifted slightly from the original post so I may adjust the title to reflect that if I can. Except I can't! Oh well!

 

Cheers!

[The Stationmaster]

All coming together rather nicely perhaps - and seeing the pics suggests also the possibility of adding a batching plant for pre-mix concrete so (stretching things slightly) inward bulk cement traffic by rail as well.

 

Strange to see something of Harlow Mill after many years of being involved in sending trains there - I only really knew some of the unloading terminals on the Western side (plus some on the Southern)although I was at one time a far too frequent visitor to Merehead and Whatley quarries.

 

BTW what period are you modelling?

[Audley Road]

All coming together rather nicely perhaps - and seeing the pics suggests also the possibility of adding a batching plant for pre-mix concrete so (stretching things slightly) inward bulk cement traffic by rail as well.

 

Strange to see something of Harlow Mill after many years of being involved in sending trains there - I only really knew some of the unloading terminals on the Western side (plus some on the Southern)although I was at one time a far too frequent visitor to Merehead and Whatley quarries.

 

BTW what period are you modelling?

 

Hi Mike,

 

Incoming cement isn't something I had considered as a flow that would justify the existence of this yard, I guess because I have just based it on things I can see in the region of interest. Looking at a freightmaster book for this summer shows a number of cement flows to other areas of the UK which I will have to look into. Whether this can be justified in terms of where the mythical yard is located is another matter, as there are no major centres of population, although the access to a major trunk road could be a factor.

 

The era being modelled is bang up to date, as I can go and see the things for myself and have documented evidence. This is going to be a club project so the other guys might want to have a say as well, but they seem to have left me to plan away to my hearts content.

 

I have a few more pictures of both the locations featured above - perhaps I ought to visit UK Prototype and add them there in the next few days, as others may find something of use.

 

Cheers!

[Fat Controller]

Hi Mike,

 

Incoming cement isn't something I had considered as a flow that would justify the existence of this yard, I guess because I have just based it on things I can see in the region of interest. Looking at a freightmaster book for this summer shows a number of cement flows to other areas of the UK which I will have to look into. Whether this can be justified in terms of where the mythical yard is located is another matter, as there are no major centres of population, although the access to a major trunk road could be a factor.

 

The era being modelled is bang up to date, as I can go and see the things for myself and have documented evidence. This is going to be a club project so the other guys might want to have a say as well, but they seem to have left me to plan away to my hearts content.

 

I have a few more pictures of both the locations featured above - perhaps I ought to visit UK Prototype and add them there in the next few days, as others may find something of use.

 

Cheers!

I can't think of many permanent stone terminals big enough to justify having a batching plant with cement trains to them- the only one that comes to mind is St Pancras, though I believe there is a cement terminal near to the Theale terminals. I suppose that if you had tanks delivered by Enterprise, you might justify half a dozen at a time. On the same basis, you could pretend that the bitumen traffic had continued, and that half-a-dozen bitumen tanks were delivered in similar fashion to a coating plant.

Brian

[The Stationmaster]

I can't think of many permanent stone terminals big enough to justify having a batching plant with cement trains to them- the only one that comes to mind is St Pancras, though I believe there is a cement terminal near to the Theale terminals. I suppose that if you had tanks delivered by Enterprise, you might justify half a dozen at a time. On the same basis, you could pretend that the bitumen traffic had continued, and that half-a-dozen bitumen tanks were delivered in similar fashion to a coating plant.

Brian

 

 

As I said - cement would be stretching things a bit (although there could be a cement terminal just receiving a few wagons at a time although I think Castle might be in to bigger operations than that now. And without looking at the drawings I'm fairly sure the cement terminal siding at St Pancras was (and presumably still is if it is open) quite short. Having spent quite a lot of time trying to sort out things connected with the stone siding for the recent alterations I can say that it is separate from the cement siding.

 

Bitumen isn't such a bad idea although I don't know anything about current movements - but it used to come into Frome off the Ripple Lane tanks in lots of anything between half a dozen and a dozen or so wagons at a time depending on how busy the coating plants were in the vicinity so it is ideal for a smallish siding.

[Fat Controller]

As I said - cement would be stretching things a bit (although there could be a cement terminal just receiving a few wagons at a time although I think Castle might be in to bigger operations than that now. And without looking at the drawings I'm fairly sure the cement terminal siding at St Pancras was (and presumably still is if it is open) quite short. Having spent quite a lot of time trying to sort out things connected with the stone siding for the recent alterations I can say that it is separate from the cement siding.

 

Bitumen isn't such a bad idea although I don't know anything about current movements - but it used to come into Frome off the Ripple Lane tanks in lots of anything between half a dozen and a dozen or so wagons at a time depending on how busy the coating plants were in the vicinity so it is ideal for a smallish siding.

The only current bitumen traffic is of block trains from Immingham to Preston Docks- all the smaller flows have stopped. I was thinking of some arrangement like that on the former Staines branch from West Drayton, which had a coating plant next to a stone terminal. Of course, during the T5 works, there were cement, stone, fly-ash and re-bar terminals together on the same site.....

Brian

[m davies]

The train arrives from the north into the Down Goods Loop then propels back across both mains into the terminal. I believe the train must then be split due to the length of the sidings within the terminal. When unloading is complete it crosses back to the Down Goods Loop and runs round via the Down Main before departing northwards.

 

With respect, there is no down loop at Barham only a single trailing point off the up main, the head shunt is used to split the train as the unloader siding will not accept a full train, I have seen arrivals where the up train comes to a stand on the up main just past the entry point, then reverse back into the sidings. Departure is south wards on the up main to Claydon where the train crosses into the down loop used for the old scrap metal facilities, the loco exits to the south and runs right way along the down main before reversing back onto the train held in the down loop ready for eventual departure northwards. The distance between Barham sidings and Claydon is about 4000', a long way to shunt backwards from the down loop and effectively block both mains at the same time. Having said that, there is no entry signal to the trailing up access so drivers must use a signal near to Claydon to notifiy signalling its safe to shunt back.

 

Attached image was taken during a sunday possesion, Barham is just up the road from me and was a modeling set up I am hoping to recreate in some form on my layout at some point.

 

Best

 

Michael

[Edwin_m]

With respect, there is no down loop at Barham only a single trailing point off the up main, the head shunt is used to split the train as the unloader siding will not accept a full train, I have seen arrivals where the up train comes to a stand on the up main just past the entry point, then reverse back into the sidings. Departure is south wards on the up main to Claydon where the train crosses into the down loop used for the old scrap metal facilities, the loco exits to the south and runs right way along the down main before reversing back onto the train held in the down loop ready for eventual departure northwards. The distance between Barham sidings and Claydon is about 4000', a long way to shunt backwards from the down loop and effectively block both mains at the same time. Having said that, there is no entry signal to the trailing up access so drivers must use a signal near to Claydon to notifiy signalling its safe to shunt back.

 

My information comes from someone in the local Network Rail freight team. I think he did say that the freight could shunt back on the up main as you have seen. But if an up train was due it would have to go across to wait in Claydon loop - but it would then propel back from there to Barham. I agree that it would run round at Claydon to return north after leaving Barham. This was part of an investigation into remodelling the yard to include a run-round precisely to reduce the length of time the freight train blocks the main lines. I'm not involved in this any more but I doubt it will happen because it would need at least one new river bridge and taking a lot of land, and as the freight train is once a day maximum you would only gain a handful of main line paths.

 

According to the Quail it is 45 chains from Claydon crossing (south of south end of loop) to Barham crossover/ground frame, I make this to be 2970'. I don't have access to the plans but it's clear from the aerial photography that the distance between the north end of Claydon loop and the turnout access to Barham is about the same as the length of the loop itself. So the propelling distance is less than twice that if the train had stopped on the up main.

[m davies]

My information comes from someone in the local Network Rail freight team. I think he did say that the freight could shunt back on the up main as you have seen. But if an up train was due it would have to go across to wait in Claydon loop - but it would then propel back from there to Barham. I agree that it would run round at Claydon to return north after leaving Barham. This was part of an investigation into remodelling the yard to include a run-round precisely to reduce the length of time the freight train blocks the main lines. I'm not involved in this any more but I doubt it will happen because it would need at least one new river bridge and taking a lot of land, and as the freight train is once a day maximum you would only gain a handful of main line paths.

 

According to the Quail it is 45 chains from Claydon crossing (south of south end of loop) to Barham crossover/ground frame, I make this to be 2970'. I don't have access to the plans but it's clear from the aerial photography that the distance between the north end of Claydon loop and the turnout access to Barham is about the same as the length of the loop itself. So the propelling distance is less than twice that if the train had stopped on the up main.

 

Edwin, your quite correct, I thought about pathing after I wrote, a class 6 train can soon hold up some of the quicker expresses, even the local class 170 are rated at 100mph, so yes you'd want to clear them of a class 6 pretty quick, in which case the Claydon down loop would have to be used for holding arriving trains. I didn't think to check Quail, just used google point to point so your measurement is probably more correct. I know the bridge you mean its at the UP end of the sidings, theres already two single track spans side by side rather than one double track span, with the necessary spreading of the tracks to accommodate this. Trains are few and far between these days, I think there's only two a week booked and both are only as required, a Weds/Thurs aggregates which is usually a DBS 66 but occasionally a 60 with 4 wheel PGAs and a Fri FHH 66 with HIA bogie hoppers, bring back the 58s I say ! .

 

Kindest

 

Michael

[Edwin_m]

Good stuff Michael, I seem to recall the trains were pretty rare when we reviewed it, which is why we had to ask NR for details rather than organising ourselves a field trip.

 

There are river bridges at both ends of the terminal so extending it in either direction would be difficult. Otherwise they would probably have built it longer in the first place! But, as you have noticed, this space constraint makes it smaller and more operaitionally interesting for the modeller.