Portable HO Goods Yard - 1950s+ VR

[Rod.H]

Okay, to stop a potential derail of Portable 00 Goods Yard - 1926 SR with my with my thought experiment. it'll be here instead. Now, I started off with two T-trak-HO double length modules (~982mm x 490mm), a stack of Kato HO Unitrack, SCARM and a copy of  A.R. Walkley's "00" Portable Goods Yard plan. As Kato #4 points aren't designed to have straight sections run directly after the curve, I ended up with something close to the following:

Some more thought and a read of a discussion on why points shouldn't have their toes directly connected and a section of straight level crossing track was added, shifting the engine track left. It's also to replace the bridge scenic element as I felt a ground level road crossing was appropriate.

And then I did some operational testing
 

 

In doing so, it reminded me that I've (yet again) forgotten to check the coupler trip pins heights, the inbuilt uncouplers are in the wrong places, and I've yet to have picked up the knack of operating a shunting puzzle.

[BG John]

Some more thought and a read of a discussion on why points shouldn't have their toes directly connected and a section of straight level crossing track was added, shifting the engine track left.

I'm not sure it's necessary with this layout. I can see the sense if trains are running from one curved track to the other, but shunting would take place between the sidings and the straight "main line", and only locos (and maybe the occasional single wagon) would run into the loco shed road, most probably from the straight siding. That's the view I've taken on mine, where by using a single slip it's not possible to run from one curved track to the other. In your case it makes sense though, as you're having a level crossing.

[Rod.H]

I may have to remove that central level crossing and go back to toe-toe points as I blocked the engine shed track with some movements -or implement train length restrictions - & I also used it as a wagon holding track too. I've picked up some Kadee #308 under track uncouplers, they'll need some modification in order to fit under the unitrack.

May have to get another Roco NS600/F Class as my main & branch line diesels seem too big to use on this. 

[BG John]

If you're going back to a bridge, the one I'm building for mine doesn't seem to be too obtrusive, and doesn't block the view of the whole layout.

 

It's good to see you're testing yours first. I've got too carried away with buildings to sort out the problem with my slip, so I'm hoping it will be interesting to operate, but may not find out until it's far too late to make big changes!

[Rod.H]

The track system I'm using does make it easier to run test trains, though after checking here it appears that I've got the siding lengths right for "classic" Inglenook Sidings operation "5-3-3", I just overloaded it with the six grain hoppers and one 'Z' guards van. Those are some of the shorter freight stock I've got, the longer stock would certainly overload it. Therefore I don't need to remove the central level crossing after all and some of the in-track uncouplers are in the correct place.

[BG John]

I'm not sure if there's a 7-6-6 Inglenook, but that's what mine came out as!

[Rod.H]

Ah, that means that mine too is a 7-6-6 Inglenook, it just operates better for me with a lower amount of rollingstock, as I have a complication of a guards van must be at the end of the train when it enters and leaves the yard. Not to mention a prohibition of blocking level crossings for a long period of time. However, I'm not certain if the last applies to VicRail.

[Platypus]

Dear RodH,

 

1 / I like your shunting concept of ARWalkley's shunting layout, though as a former VR employee I can assure you that tunnels are extremely rare on the VR therefore I suggest a road overbridge in lieu of the tunnel.

 

2 / re your pictures VR industrial sidings as you are modelling were worked on a " one engine in steam" usually the local Pilot utilising a Y class diesel. The F class ( BR cl 11, as they preceded the 08 design ) were used at Melbourne Goods, SpencerSt Pass, Ballarat, Bendigo, the infamous W class as for the F plus Geelong, though in later years all the Fs and Ws were Melbourne based. Otherwise the Y class ruled supreme with the T class being used on the heavier local and branch line goods if the load exceeded that for a Y. The Y class displaced the remaining J and K class steam and were the diesel that completed the VR's dieselization programme. ( Y175 was the Commissioners Loco for a while until replaced by T400. )

 

3 / the GH 4 wheel wheat hoppers generally worked in blocks from GEB ( Grain Elevators Board of Victoria ) silos to GEB silos as they were bottom discharge only. Private grain receivers generally received grain in GY 4wheel wagons as they tended to utilise portable grain augers to unload and a side door opening GY was more suitable for this. The GH was displaced by new bogie GJX / GJY hoppers due to the GH suffering from bent and fractured frames. ( GH was a rebuilt GY )

 

4 / the TNT bogie box van was restricted to Melbourne to Adelaide Jets ( Jet = Interstate Fast Goods ) and TNT generally ran a block of wagons on one jet a night to Adelaide. TNT / Thomas Nationwide Transport was a freight forwarder who ran a nightly company jet via the Standard Gauge to Sydney departing around 1600 x Melbourne from the Agents area behind South Kensington station and via the Bunbury St tunnel at Footscray. TNT also included Alltrans.

 

Mayne Nicklaus and Brambles also ran company jets to Sydney on the Standard Gauge.

 

5 / the VR did not use American style bumper posts, instead we used wooden buffer stops consisting of a large round wood post at the end on each rail which was connected by a thick heavy wood cross beam mounted behind the wood posts. These dated from the 19th century and in later years if they needed replacing two wooded balks were placed across the end of the track reminiscent of an equals sign at right angle to the rails. Buffer stops were painted all over white and in later years some had a strip of metal painted alternating reflective red and black stripes.

 

6 / private sidings were usually protected by a wooden scotch block consisting of two parallel timbers, one on each side of the rail, and long enough to cover two sleepers. On top of this was a wood cross piece hinged on the inside timber and padlocked on the outer timber which crossed the top of the rail, and when unlocked would be lifted to sit between the two supporting sleepers . These were painted white. ( I am aware of one instance when a scotch block had been run over and was "repaired" with plaster of Paris and left open and which promptly disintegrated when it was lifted ! )

 

7 / your shunting layout is looking good, best wishes with your project ,

 

Regards, Platypus.

[Rod.H]

Thanks Platypus. I'm aware of the low number of tunnels in Victoria (Wikipedia lists 11 VR + 3 indy). It's just that the original has a hill form there and I'm still deciding what to do if I use it, cutting or tunnel. The GHs are there, mainly because they're new to me & I wanted to see them on some track, I do have the same number of GYs which need application of tarps.

The TNT van, that was sold as an SAR advertising M van & I was of the impression that it could be used as a standard wagon (that's not the only piece of SAR BG rollingstock in my collection) like the rest of my advertising vans.

 

The Hays-style bumpers are the only type offered by Kato -in HO- and while they work a treat, I was aware that I'll need VR type buffers or balks at some point.

 

I might actually get something beyond bare wood this time.

[DavidB-AU]

There were some prototype Inglenooks (of sorts) on the VR network which might give some inspiration. The Bridge Street sidings at Graham, Hume's Sidings at Westall and the Victorian Inland Meat Authority sidings at Rangelea spring to mind.

Cheers
David

[Rod.H]

Well, David, they'll give me ideas for scenery & what rolling stock to run.  Hume's Sidings at Westall threw me, as I initially thought you meant the Apex/Hansons/Hocum cement plant + neighbouring factories, till I found the signal diagram.
South side of the station, where the houses are now, not visible on 1945.melbourne, so developed later then that. But going by those diagrams of Westall, it was very much like an Inglenook. For some reason, I'm picturing hard standing, a large gantry-style overhead crane and a lot of large concrete pipes. And the VIMA siding, that looks more like a Timesaver to me and a great place to use my cattle wagons on, plus a reason to pick up some T vans.

[Rod.H]

I've done a little thinkering, behold Mount Cardboard!

It's one way to recycle. Mainly getting a rough sense of things before breaking out the foam/shaping sheet & plaster.

 

And going by the rake of cattle wagons, I'm starting to get an idea for my industry. Though that spots' probably not intended for semi access. I've also noted that certain off the shelf kits will require packing in order to bring the platforms into gauge. So far I'm thinking an infill layer of 3-5mm cork or foam is needed.

[BG John]

If you study the photos of the original, where some of the buildings change from one picture to another, you may see a cattle dock on the platform on the back siding. I'm pretty sure it's one, so that's what I'm probably putting there.

[Platypus]

There were some prototype Inglenooks (of sorts) on the VR network which might give some inspiration. The Bridge Street sidings at Graham, Hume's Sidings at Westall and the Victorian Inland Meat Authority sidings at Rangelea spring to mind.

Cheers

David[/quote ]

 

Dear DavidB,

 

1 / Re Westall which was worked from a VR Spotswood Signal Workshops built Uniswitch ( IFS Individual Function Switch in BR terms ) Signal Control Panel located on top of the Block Shelf at Springvale station Signal Bay, Humes Ltd made concrete pipes at this location and received either one or two bogie cement wagons ( JX , 50 ton, 1620 cubic ft , later VPCX ) every Monday via the Cement Pilot

( Monday's Only) that ran from Arden St North Melbourne to Dandenong. Humes Ltd also made reinforced concrete sleepers primarily for the VR at Westall which were despatched weekly by bogie flat, wagon type unknown to me.

 

2 / On the down direction the 4wheel cement wagons ( J , 20 ton, 640 or 810 cubic ft ) for Rocla Concrete Pipes at Springvale were dropped off at Westall Yard and the Cement Pilot proceeded from Westall to Springvale by the Through Goods Siding ( which ran parallel to the down Dandenong line ) and then to Dandenong. Dandenong would receive one or two bogie cement wagons for the cement silo near Dandenong Signal Box each Monday. On the up journey back to Melbourne Yard the Cement Pilot would then drop off the JX in the Humes Siding, which was located on the up side of the up Dandenong line at Westall station.

 

3 / The Cement Pilot was T class hauled as it also dropped off BLX ( 40 ft long 40 ton bogie vans, later VBBX ) vans with bagged cement at both Oakleigh and Dandenong. In the event that the Cement Pilot did not run the loading would be attached to the Y class hauled Dandenong Pilot x Melbourne Yard which ran Monday to Friday, and Saturday if required.

 

4 / Rocla Concrete Pipes at Springvale usually received 3 x J wagons on Monday via the Dandenong Pilot x Westall Yard and 2 x J wagons on both Wednesdays and Fridays. The empty J wagons were cleared on the next drop off day. Rocla used an Australian made Chamberlain tractor to move the J wagons around its small siding so that the next time the Pilot did a drop off the Y class would arrive, cut off and leave the loaded J wagons and then attach and push the empty J wagons back to Westall via the Through Siding. As this occurred during the morning off peak, there was a 20 minute window to do the shunt at Rocla Sidings. Occasionally the Dandenong Pilot was hauled by an E class BoBo electric which impressed me but the Driver was usually less enamoured.

 

5 / Rocla Concrete Pipes also made concrete slabs, drainage boxes and curbing which occasionally went by an open wagon , either a GY or RY depending on availability. Spun tapered concrete poles were despatched by either ELX 50 ton 45'11" bogie open wagon ( later VOCX ) or QCX 46 ton 45 ft long LCL container flat which had a full steel floor ( later VQCX ) with usually four or occasionally six poles per load.

 

6 / The empty J and JX wagons were returned to Melbourne Yard via the up Dandenong Pilot. The empty J and JX were then despatched to Arden St for Geelong and Waurn Ponds via the evening Empty Block Cement train, which returned loaded the next day.

 

Regards, Platypus

[Rod.H]

I think that I'm starting to see the point of the suggestion of replacing the tunnel with a bridge due to logic. If there was enough earth dug out to provide a flat surface for the track & engine shed. Why would there still be enough of a hill left to require a tunnel? And speaking of the engine shed, the frame work for one has appeared:

It's probably both overkill and not operator appropriate, but it's a starting point.

[BG John]

I'm having a rock face round my tunnel, which provides an excuse for the vertical sides. Anyway, I'm building a model of a model, not of a real railway!

[Rod.H]

A quiet afternoon and playing Overwatch & WoT became a chore. So instead I broke out the jigsaw and attacked some 25mm foamboard:

All of that's not glued or pinned and is probably an inch too high.

 

Also drilled some holes to get the wires off the top and fastened down a length with what I suspect are the wrong type of screws. There's only a few places where screws must be used to hold the track down, every else can be caulked. 

 

[Rod.H]

Build a bridge suggested someone, after some thought and tracking down of the needed pieces. I did.

Scratchbuilding is not one of my current talents, so those are some Walthers bridge system kits, a 50 & 70 foot through girder span, a pier, and abutments. The first time I assembled the pier I failed to cut it at the correct height - something to do with 4" from the railhead. Not quite sure why I need a four inch of overhead structures as: 
I appear to have enough clearance to run a non-standard double-stack load, possibly even one of US loading gauge locos that BHP uses.
 

[Rod.H]

Well, I've been doing some tinkering and thinking. With a slight adjustment  I can fit a Walthers backscene building in the back right corner, unfortunatly that means that the uncoupler magnet under the second van needs to go.


Here's a picture of the screw I'm using to fasten the track down at the module ends. The bolt in the t-nut is of cause the adjustable foot for the modules.

Then over to the bridge element. I'm obviously contemplating what to do with the retaining wall, use a Noch brick sheet, something from Wills and what height? Yet, I think it's the bridge span combo that's got me wondering, ie 70' & 50'

or 70' & 30'

 

Then again, it might be the abutments that's causing my mental blank.