Portable 00 Goods Yard - 1926 SR

[sp1]

I agree with David that the width and height may well have been a simple fact of the planks available

I will be scaling mine up to match 4mm

You can see the row of catches that David refers to if you look hard - that style of catch is still easily available

If you look at the right hand end of the folded box I think you can see a keyhole - mine will be having a drawer lock fitted somit will lock it closed when folded

David - wouldnt it be great if it was still around

My version will be called ' Lye Walk Yard ' - its near a small soap factory

Look up 'Lye' , near Stourbridge - don't think there used to be much soap around!!

[south_tyne]

Has anyone who has posted here, apart from South Tyne,had a look at my shunting layout 5'0 long and 1'4' wide- Hintock Town Quay?

 

See the later posts on my Hintock thread..

 

See link below and the December RM.

I can wholeheartedly recommend checking John's thread out. A modern interpretation of this kind of layout and superbly modelled!

[ThePurplePrimer]

Hi John

 

What a coincidence

 

Just today I have been going through my RM mags looking for inspiration on a layout with operational abilities and ended up with your articles spread over the kitchen table.

 

I started reading your thread but had only got to about page 5 - I have to admit I am sorely tempted to - I cant lie - copy it ! - i thought it would be perfect if it had an inglenook

 

I have a 16 foot by 7 foot space to fill

 

I took a look at the last page - tonight i will try and read the rest

 

Especially interested in your card system

[south_tyne]

Hi John

 

What a coincidence

 

Just today I have been going through my RM mags looking for inspiration on a layout with operational abilities and ended up with your articles spread over the kitchen table.

 

I started reading your thread but had only got to about page 5 - I have to admit I am sorely tempted to - I cant lie - copy it ! - i thought it would be perfect if it had an inglenook

 

I have a 16 foot by 7 foot space to fill

 

I took a look at the last page - tonight i will try and read the rest

 

Especially interested in your card system

I am also planning something similar and have 6' to play with but seeing what John has achieved in 5' makes me question the need for the addional length... Still debating whether to go for 5' or 6' but the problem is I am stuck in some kind of inertia, not being able to make my mind up!!!

 

The advantage of John's set up can be seen in the fact it can be plonked down almost anywhere for a quick operating session - most dining tables will take a 5' layout for example.

[BG John]

My Small Broad and Totally Pointless is 5ft x 1ft, and although it started out as two baseboards (I was living in a smallish motorhome at the time!), it will become one board. It's a useful size to sit on a desk or a table. 1ft width is good for going on the top of bookshelves too.

[BG John]

This layout has still got me fascinated. I've drawn it in SCARM using Peco Code 75 track. Here it is with small radius points:

 

It's a very good fit. I scaled the track plan from the previous post, and it actually works out as 6ft x 12.5in, so obviously isn't totally accurate.

 

Here it is with medium radius straight points, and large radius Y:

 

The bottom siding wouldn't fit on the original alignment, but it still fits the features of the original, with a bit of 21st century creativity! Shame there isn't a medium radius Y available. All the sidings are too long for a 5-3-3 Inglenook, so seem a pretty good length to me.

 

Don't forget that the original was 3.5mm scale, and I've assumed that this plan is for 4mm, but in the same length.

 

I'm seriously thinking of building a version of it, but not in 00. These were just drawn out of interest, and to get a feel for how it would work with modern track. My version will have to be done in Templot.

[Pacific231G]

This layout has still got me fascinated. I've drawn it in SCARM using Peco Code 75 track. Here it is with small radius points:

SCARM - Walkley Yard With Peco Small Radius.jpg

 

It's a very good fit. I scaled the track plan from the previous post, and it actually works out as 6ft x 12.5in, so obviously isn't totally accurate.

 

Here it is with medium radius straight points, and large radius Y:

SCARM - Walkley Yard With Peco Medium Radius.jpg

 

The bottom siding wouldn't fit on the original alignment, but it still fits the features of the original, with a bit of 21st century creativity! Shame there isn't a medium radius Y available. All the sidings are too long for a 5-3-3 Inglenook, so seem a pretty good length to me.

 

Don't forget that the original was 3.5mm scale, and I've assumed that this plan is for 4mm, but in the same length.

 

I'm seriously thinking of building a version of it, but not in 00. These were just drawn out of interest, and to get a feel for how it would work with modern track. My version will have to be done in Templot.

How did you overlay the Scarm plan onto the original drawing? That's something I've been wanting to do with other plans for ages. Unfortunately Walkley doesn't say what the dimensions of his points were and it's hard to judge from the photos in MRN but they do seem quite sharp. 

[Poor Old Bruce]

All the sidings are too long for a 5-3-3 Inglenook, so seem a pretty good length to me.

 

How about a 6-4-4 Inglenook?

[south_tyne]

How about a 6-4-4 Inglenook?

I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong, but I think, in order to keep the proportions right it has to be 7-4-4. Always ensuring the headshunt and sidings retain the relative size and relationship. The next size would be 9-5-5. Of course that only is required when 'playing' the inglenook game in the truest form and not to normal operation.

[martin_wynne]

How did you overlay the Scarm plan onto the original drawing? That's something I've been wanting to do with other plans for ages.

 

Hi David,

 

In SCARM click the View > Background Image menu item.

 

Then you can select the required image file, in the usual way.

 

When it appears there will be a grip triangle in the bottom-right corner which you can drag to change the image size to your required scale size.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[BG John]

The images from SCARM can't be produced from the program itself, if you try to do it after following Martin's instructions. They were taken off the screen using Windows 7 Snipping Tool.

 

When I have time, I need to discover how to do the same thing in Templot!

[martin_wynne]

When I have time, I need to discover how to do the same thing in Templot!

 

Hi John,

 

Templot is rather more flexible than SCARM in that you can have several such images, move them around over one another, make them transparent, rotate them, scale them, stretch them, wrap them along a curve. When scaling them you can choose a location anywhere on them to stay at a fixed position. They can be included in the printed output, exported to PDF and image files, and displayed on the sketchboard function.

 

Sketchboard items can also be displayed on the trackpad, so that makes an alternative way of adding background images.

 

You can start at main > background images.

 

Create image files at output > export a file... .

 

Basic instructions at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=15736

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[BG John]

I've just spent a couple of hours being driven nuts by Templot, as I haven't used it for ages! Both plans are rough, but I was just aiming to see how they fit. Anyway, this is it in P4 with B6 turnouts. The Y-point was pushing me close to throwing the computer out of the window, so I positioned a left and right hand straight B6, drew curves over them, then deleted the turnouts!

 

This is what I was aiming for, but it won't fit very well in 6ft, so the baseboard is now 7ft 0¼in x 1ft! I stretched the plan to fit, and it's not a bad match. Even better considering that the original was 6ft long in 3.5mm scale, so should be 6ft 10in in 4mm anyway.

 

This is with P4 B6 turnouts widened to 28.08mm gauge. The plan is to make it mixed gauge. It dawned on me that this is actually what could have been at the other end of the tunnel that went nowhere, on my long scrapped Hinton Burtle. I've got some of the structures that I rescued from it that I can probably reuse. The more complex pointwork on that was built by trial and error, on roughly hand drawn templates made up from a few basic measurements, so if I build this I'll do the same, using Templot as a guide.

 

The great thing about this plan is that I've got enough locos, and just about enough rolling stock, to operate it. So I'm tempted to start building it gradually, but to concentrate on my 00 gauge Ingletyme that I've spent loads of money buying materials and stock for.

[martin_wynne]

Hi John,

 

B-6 is not a sensible size to use for such a cramped plan. Use 9ft straight switches or GWR 10ft curved switches -- you will get shorter turnouts, and at the same time easier radii. You would do even better to change to 1:5 instead of 1:6 on 28mm gauge, or maybe even 1:4.5 (radius would then be 45").

 

For the short Y-turnout I suggest using a GWR 9ft curved switch with 1:3 crossing angle. Give it the required negative curving and make sure to change to a curviform type V-crossing, like this:

 

 

Done quickly for 28mm gauge -- still needs some timber shoving.

 

Radius is 40". Change to 1:4 if that is too tight.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Poggy1165]

The North Staffordshire Railway had a branch very similar to this, a single line leading to a three track yard. It was worked by the engine propelling wagons in and pulling them out, with nothing in the way of run round. So there is a prototype (more or less) for this layout, albeit in another part of England.

[RobR]

in the south of England there was the example of Farringdon, on the Meon Valley line, two and a half miles south of Alton. After the line was closed south to Droxford freight trains were hauled to Farringdon and propelled back to Alton, because the connection to the yard was trailing from Alton. The yard at Farringdon had two sidings, one running alongside a goods shed, the other one running alongside a loading ramp. Two and possibly three enthusiast specials were run during this time, using M7s and pull push sets. (Source ' The Meon Valley Railway Part 3: Closure and Beyond' - Noodle Books).

Carter's siding, on the S & D between Corfe Mullen Junction and Wimborne was similarly served when the line onto Wimborne was closed.

There was an article on the North Staffordshire Railway branch mentioned by Poggy1165 in Railway Bylines. Iirc the line terminated in a cutting with houses at the top of the cutting.

[south_tyne]

The North Staffordshire Railway had a branch very similar to this, a single line leading to a three track yard. It was worked by the engine propelling wagons in and pulling them out, with nothing in the way of run round. So there is a prototype (more or less) for this layout, albeit in another part of England.

 

Knowing nothing of that part of the world... which branch was it?

[south_tyne]

As far as prototypes are concerned there will be lots of examples where there were a simple arrangement of two sidings off the 'main line', undoubtedly protected by a catch point mind. Kilham Siding, between Wooler and Cornhill, was the supposed inspiration for the inglenook design. Another North Eastern example at the other end of the territory would be East Row, which was the goods depot for Sandsend station just north of Whitby. I have heard this idea described as a 'protonook' in the past, I think having one track continuing on as a through line gives an added flexibility to operation. 

[Poggy1165]

Knowing nothing of that part of the world... which branch was it?

 

I was hoping no one was going to ask that question, as it meant digging out a book. It was the Newfields branch which was a half mile branch off the famous 'Loop' line at Tunstall. There is a photo of the terminus in Portrait of the North Staffordshire Railway by Rex Christiansen, page 48. It shows the yard being shunted by a Webb 0-6-0 'Cauliflower' in early BR days. 

 

It looks an ideal prototype, although the sidings are actually quite long. There isn't a goods shed or store, it is literally three sidings with very little else at track level, though there's a ramp leading up to what well might be a railway office at a higher level, and a factory in the background, not apparently rail connected.

[Pacific231G]

in the south of England there was the example of Farringdon, on the Meon Valley line, two and a half miles south of Alton. After the line was closed south to Droxford freight trains were hauled to Farringdon and propelled back to Alton, because the connection to the yard was trailing from Alton. The yard at Farringdon had two sidings, one running alongside a goods shed, the other one running alongside a loading ramp. Two and possibly three enthusiast specials were run during this time, using M7s and pull push sets. (Source ' The Meon Valley Railway Part 3: Closure and Beyond' - Noodle Books).

Carter's siding, on the S & D between Corfe Mullen Junction and Wimborne was similarly served when the line onto Wimborne was closed.

There was an article on the North Staffordshire Railway branch mentioned by Poggy1165 in Railway Bylines. Iirc the line terminated in a cutting with houses at the top of the cutting.

Hi Rob

Thanks for the reminder about Farringdon. It's interesting because, some time after the yard was opened, a halt "Farringdon Platform" was added.

This is a creative commons photo taken from a train.

("Farringdon platform geograph-2987888-by-Ben-Brooksbank" Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

 

The yard is actually quite spacious but a scheme like this would allow a "fiddle stick" to be added to each end of an Ingenook layout so that a passenger train could run through to give a bit of variety.  A level crossing, as at Kilham, would also give a logical reason for a very restricted limit of shunt though I'm not sure that shunting up to a closed (against the railway) crossing would have been legal in Britain. It was in other countries and I've seen a few examples in France where the LM (Limite des manoeuvres- limit of shunt) sign was right in front of a crossing.

 

Alan Wright (1928-2005 and one of the designers of the Deltic)  built the first Inglenook Sidings with no knowledge of Walkley's earlier work either as a winter layout for his own amusement or as a quickie layout for the Manchester show in 1979 depending on which of his own accounts you read. The shunting pattern he used was a development of his Wright Lines which was a very small 4ft 6ins by 3 ft continuous 00 layout with two sidings that was in RM in  March 1956. He built a similar layout to same plan a decade later and that featured in RM in September 1967.

 

The odd thing about A.R. Walkley is that during the mid 1920s he pioneered so much of what we all now take for granted from two rail electrification and what is now H0 scale to automatic couplers and even the first practical model railway in 2mm/ft scale. What is not clear is whether his work was a direct influence on the next generation of modellers or was simply forgotten then reinvented by others who knew nothing of his work. I have found a reference to an A.R.Walkley of about the right age arriving as a migrant to New Zealand in 1936 but have no way of telling whether it's the same man.

[south_tyne]

I was hoping no one was going to ask that question, as it meant digging out a book. It was the Newfields branch which was a half mile branch off the famous 'Loop' line at Tunstall. There is a photo of the terminus in Portrait of the North Staffordshire Railway by Rex Christiansen, page 48. It shows the yard being shunted by a Webb 0-6-0 'Cauliflower' in early BR days. 

 

It looks an ideal prototype, although the sidings are actually quite long. There isn't a goods shed or store, it is literally three sidings with very little else at track level, though there's a ramp leading up to what well might be a railway office at a higher level, and a factory in the background, not apparently rail connected.

 

Apologies but thanks for taking the time to dig out the information! I'll have a look at that, sounds an interesting prototype.

[ThePurplePrimer]

That's interesting about the possible NZ link David

 

When I was trying to find out more about him I found some references about him in regards to his lathe

 

I cant find the clipping now but I found this online ...

 

Britain's A.R. Walkley, who modeled tiny electric locomotives in 1 mm =1 foot (1:305 scale) used an Adept lathe to make his own miniature motors and reported that: parts including a 0.25"-diameter cast iron armature were ….. produced on the lathe. This says much for the Adept when one mentions that everything came out true even to the boring of the miniature armature - the sort of job that many more expensive lathes are not always able to do well.

 

http://www.lathes.co.uk/adept/

[BG John]

Hi John,

 

B-6 is not a sensible size to use for such a cramped plan. Use 9ft straight switches or GWR 10ft curved switches -- you will get shorter turnouts, and at the same time easier radii. You would do even better to change to 1:5 instead of 1:6 on 28mm gauge, or maybe even 1:4.5 (radius would then be 45").

 

For the short Y-turnout I suggest using a GWR 9ft curved switch with 1:3 crossing angle. Give it the required negative curving and make sure to change to a curviform type V-crossing, like this:

 

y_for_john.png

 

Done quickly for 28mm gauge -- still needs some timber shoving.

 

Radius is 40". Change to 1:4 if that is too tight.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin. I'll have another go soon, and see what I can come up with. I'd forgotten most of what I'd learned about using Templot, and was back on the steep learning curve bit!

[BG John]

Thanks to Martin's Templot suggestions, I'm now back to 6ft long. I used 1:4.5 crossings on the straight turnouts, and 1:3 on the Y. With 4-coupled locos and short wheelbase wagons, I think this should be fine. It's too much like hard work to add the third rail to the plan, so this just shows the broad gauge. I think it will all be mixed gauge, apart from the loco shed, that will be broad gauge only.

 

 

I've been comparing the plan to the photos, and there are a lot of differences, so slavishly trying to fit the track plan to the background image is a bit pointless! It will be interesting to print this out full size, and see if the features of the original fit in a convincing way.

 

So is anyone else planning interesting variants of it?

[BG John]

I have finally decided that I am going to build a layout and after much thinking and mind changing I have actually decided on what it is going to be - at last !

 

My intention is to make a copy of someone else's model railway and that is the 00 gauge layout built by A.R. Walkley in 1925/26

Dare I ask if you've made any progress yet?