Goods yard operation

[philsandy]

I'm looking at building a layout based on Whitefield goods yards circa 1960. I say based on because I will have to compromise as I don't have the space to build it exactly as it was.

Whitefield was/is on the Manchester/Bury line and used to have a goods yard on Bury bound side and coal merchants yard on the Manchester side. There were loops in both yards for the loco to be able to run round.

The compromises to be able to fit it in the space available are a single track mainline instead of double, and for the loco to go back on to the mainline to be able to run round.

Would this ever be done on any prototype, or is it against all normal practice? 

[RobinofLoxley]

Just a thought, if you publish the track plan etc you might get some other ideas as to how you get closer to the original. Doesn't always happen bu you never know...

[philsandy]

48 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just a thought, if you publish the track plan etc you might get some other ideas as to how you get closer to the original. Doesn't always happen bu you never know...

 

Not very clear but hope this will give some idea, map of the line.

The layout will be compressed and single track instead of double, with A the crossover removed, B not a loop but now 2 sidings, and C this point removed. Hope this of use.

[Paul H Vigor]

1 hour ago, philsandy said:

 

Not very clear but hope this will give some idea, map of the line.

The layout will be compressed and single track instead of double, with A the crossover removed, B not a loop but now 2 sidings, and C this point removed. Hope this of use.

Just a thought: removing the loops may reduce the 'play value'? Might it be possible to compress to keep them in some form?

[philsandy]

1 hour ago, Paul H Vigor said:

Just a thought: removing the loops may reduce the 'play value'? Might it be possible to compress to keep them in some form?

 

 

Yes, I did try that, but with the layout already compressed the loops were too short and just did not look right.

 

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, philsandy said:

 

 

Yes, I did try that, but with the layout already compressed the loops were too short and just did not look right.

 

You could have the loops run off scene, don't need both ends on the scenic section.

[Wheatley]

I'm not that familiar with L&Y practice and I know the GWR and MR provided loops at some locations, but elsewhere it would be unusual to find loops in goods yards, with trains using main to main crossovers to run round. 

 

Alternatively you could have a goods loop off your single line with the yard off that. Run round movements via the main (single) line would be fitted in in-between other traffic. 

[RobinofLoxley]

So what is the available space and what scale are you modelling?

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, philsandy said:

There were loops in both yards for the loco to be able to run round.

 

Do you have a source for that?  The loops don't look very long and it could be that the sidings were just laid out to allow access from both ends.

[philsandy]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Do you have a source for that?  The loops don't look very long and it could be that the sidings were just laid out to allow access from both ends.

 

I was just going off the map, I  just assumed they were loops for running round, so I don't know.

[philsandy]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

So what is the available space and what scale are you modelling?

 

Scale is TT120. The issue is the length, 8 feet, the width is not a problem.

[Nick Holliday]

At the risk of sounding impertinent, what is I about Whitefield that you are trying to encapsulate? The driving factor for the prototype layout is that the Manchester to Bury line carried an intensive passenger service; so much that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway invested millions at the turn of the century to electrify the line, running around sixty trains a day, between 5 in the morning and 11 at night, each way. Hence double track was essential and, there being no gaps in the service during the day, provision of run-rounds in the goods yards was important if any daytime goods trains were to be run. Bury engine shed alone has over sixty goods locos on hand, so there must have been a fair amount of goods traffic throughout the day to keep them employed.  Looking along the course of the line, there are a number of places where parallel goods run rounds were provided, even for private factory sidings.

The number of changes you are proposing to make takes the track layout far from the original. Would it be better to start with another station on the L&YR that looks more like your proposals, perhaps ThongsBridge on the Holmfirth line? Something like that could be a starter into which you might be able to incorporate some of the features of Whitefield that you want to reproduce.

[RobinofLoxley]

8 hours ago, philsandy said:

 

Scale is TT120. The issue is the length, 8 feet, the width is not a problem.

Ok! In planning terms I imagine a few might struggle with this as we're not used to the gauge.  Right now my anyrail only shows Peco track options comprising a flexi length, two types of turnouts and a crossover. No slips to save space. So its going to be hard to help tbh. Someone may have better options in another format.

 

Im no expert in real railway operations but i would have said that removing the crossover at A really impairs the operating possibilities - which is why its there. I cant see on the drawing if there is any crossover on the main lines, of course if you do it single track it changes operations fundamentally. Yet if there is no width restraint why do that?

 

As things stand the only thing I can see is to relocate that crossover nearer to the station, and extend the kick-back as far as possible behind the station to accommodate the length of train needed. This means an extra movement is required for a train to get into the goods yard but once its in, it would then operate as it was in reality. (I think). The facility on the other side is much more modest - looks like 2/3 wagons and a brake van, so a turnout can be removed, but isnt it better to take away the turnout at B?

 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

provision of run-rounds in the goods yards was important if any daytime goods trains were to be run

 

I'm still not convinced this happened. From what we can see on the map it looks like a pair of yards with the standard trailing access at both ends (like this), so that the train would need to draw forward and set back into the yard anyway.  There does seem to be a headshunt each side so that the yard can be shunted clear of the main by a goods train running in the normal direction (i.e. on the adjacent running line).  However in the other direction the yard would have to be shunted from the main line over the slip, blocking both running lines, as there isn't a separate headshunt at that end.  The slightly unusual factor is making the sidings accessible from both ends either as loops, or by inserting a crossover as at A, but I don't think this is for running round.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Flying Pig
clarification

[Harlequin]

Here's a link to the site on at the largest scale available on nls maps:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/126521729#zoom=6&lat=8298&lon=7145&layers=BT

 

At 1:120 scale uncompressed it's ~3.7 m long from tunnel mouth to overbridge (which are really nice scenic breaks for a model).

 

The reason for that length: passenger platforms and goods yard in sequence along the line, so some compression could possibly be gained by having some part of the yard behind the platforms.

 

The "loops" in the yard allow trains from either direction to shunt the yard(s) from trailing connections. Most of the time this would not involve running around anything. If traffic on the mainline was not very heavy then the pickup goods would probably leave some wagons and the brake van on the main line while it did the shunting. Whether an entire goods train would ever set back in, I don't know.

 

If you could find the signal box diagram and/or the working timetable for the location at the relevant dates then they would tell you more about how the station was worked.

 

[Cwmtwrch]

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

However in the other direction the yard would have to be shunted from the main line over the slip, blocking both running lines, as there isn't a separate headshunt.

There is a third line disappearing under the bridge to the right... 

[Flying Pig]

47 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

There is a third line disappearing under the bridge to the right... 

 

Yeah, sorry, I should have written there isn't a separate headshunt at that end.  Headshunts are only provided for trains that have entered the yard from the adjacent running line, like the one you pointed out.  At the other end of the yard there's no headshunt, so a train on the opposite running line can only shunt it from the main line over the crossover.

[LNER4479]

In terms of your OP and the question of locos running round using the mainline, I've always found the diagram below incredibly useful:

 

This basic pattern was replicated all over the steam age railway system, for wayside goods depots (as opposed to major marshalling yards, or city centre terminals) albeit with many variations and additions. But the basic gist is that, in either direction, a goods train would run past the respective points then propel all or part of its train into the goods loop, from where any necessary shunting would take place. And - yes - if necessary, the loco would come back out on to the mainline and run round its train. All perfectly legal and under the watchful eye of the signalman, within 'station limits'. There were far less passenger services and far more goods trains in the steam era.

 

I believe, looking at your plan, that you have this basic pattern at play on both sides of the running lines at your location. I've just found the following picture from the ever-excellent britainfromabove website:

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW047499

(you'll need to register on the site to see it in more detail - it's free and well worth it)

 

It's from before your target era but no matter - I suspect not much would have changed. Wonder of wonders, the photograph has actually captured a goods train in the act of being shunted!

 

Comparing the track plan with mine above, shows an interesting variation. At both ends, there is a plain diamond crossing, rather than single slip. HOWEVER, there is a trailing crossover right alongside the signal box which provides the same functionality (ie allowing a loco to run round using the mainlines) which is actually a slight saving in pointwork - clever!

 

My view is that, in terms of a simplified trackplan that you're going for, to incorporate running round via the mainline is perfectly OK and could well have been the way it was done - if required - at the actual location.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by LNER4479

[philsandy]

5 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

At the risk of sounding impertinent, what is I about Whitefield that you are trying to encapsulate? The driving factor for the prototype layout is that the Manchester to Bury line carried an intensive passenger service; so much that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway invested millions at the turn of the century to electrify the line, running around sixty trains a day, between 5 in the morning and 11 at night, each way. Hence double track was essential and, there being no gaps in the service during the day, provision of run-rounds in the goods yards was important if any daytime goods trains were to be run. Bury engine shed alone has over sixty goods locos on hand, so there must have been a fair amount of goods traffic throughout the day to keep them employed.  Looking along the course of the line, there are a number of places where parallel goods run rounds were provided, even for private factory sidings.

The number of changes you are proposing to make takes the track layout far from the original. Would it be better to start with another station on the L&YR that looks more like your proposals, perhaps ThongsBridge on the Holmfirth line? Something like that could be a starter into which you might be able to incorporate some of the features of Whitefield that you want to reproduce.

 

Thanks for reply Nick. The layout will be a shunting layout, and not to replicate Whitefield, but to use the goods yards set up as the basis, in the space I have available.

[philsandy]

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Ok! In planning terms I imagine a few might struggle with this as we're not used to the gauge.  Right now my anyrail only shows Peco track options comprising a flexi length, two types of turnouts and a crossover. No slips to save space. So its going to be hard to help tbh. Someone may have better options in another format.

 

Im no expert in real railway operations but i would have said that removing the crossover at A really impairs the operating possibilities - which is why its there. I cant see on the drawing if there is any crossover on the main lines, of course if you do it single track it changes operations fundamentally. Yet if there is no width restraint why do that?

 

As things stand the only thing I can see is to relocate that crossover nearer to the station, and extend the kick-back as far as possible behind the station to accommodate the length of train needed. This means an extra movement is required for a train to get into the goods yard but once its in, it would then operate as it was in reality. (I think). The facility on the other side is much more modest - looks like 2/3 wagons and a brake van, so a turnout can be removed, but isnt it better to take away the turnout at B?

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply Robin. The trackwork will be hand built.

[philsandy]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

In terms of your OP and the question of locos running round using the mainline, I've always found the diagram below incredibly useful:

 

This basic pattern was replicated all over the steam age railway system, for wayside goods depots (as opposed to major marshalling yards, or city centre terminals) albeit with many variations and additions. But the basic gist is that, in either direction, a goods train would run past the respective points then propel all or part of its train into the goods loop, from where any necessary shunting would take place. And - yes - if necessary, the loco would come back out on to the mainline and run round its train. All perfectly legal and under the watchful eye of the signalman, within 'station limits'. There were far less passenger services and far more goods trains in the steam era.

 

I believe, looking at your plan, that you have this basic pattern at play on both sides of the running lines at your location. I've just found the following picture from the ever-excellent britainfromabove website:

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW047499

(you'll need to register on the site to see it in more detail - it's free and well worth it)

 

It's from before your target era but no matter - I suspect not much would have changed. Wonder of wonders, the photograph has actually captured a goods train in the act of being shunted!

 

Comparing the track plan with mine above, shows an interesting variation. At both ends, there is a plain diamond crossing, rather than single slip. HOWEVER, there is a trailing crossover right alongside the signal box which provides the same functionality (ie allowing a loco to run round using the mainlines) which is actually a slight saving in pointwork - clever!

 

My view is that, in terms of a simplified trackplan that you're going for, to incorporate running round via the mainline is perfectly OK and could well have been the way it was done - if required - at the actual location.

 

 

Thanks for your reply LNER, most helpful, and answers my question in the OP.

Also thanks for the link to the photo, what a great picture that is, and surprisingly detailed when you zoom in.

[Cwmtwrch]

 

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Yeah, sorry, I should have written there isn't a separate headshunt at that end.  Headshunts are only provided for trains that have entered the yard from the adjacent running line, like the one you pointed out.  At the other end of the yard there's no headshunt, so a train on the opposite running line can only shunt it from the main line over the crossover.

I am now very confused. We have a line going off under the bridge north of the main lines, and one behind the southern platform which appears identical in function for the other side. I have checked the full map, and the third line under the bridge terminates some distance further on, without any further connection to the main. Why are these not both headshunts, please?

[Flying Pig]

34 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

 

I am now very confused. We have a line going off under the bridge north of the main lines, and one behind the southern platform which appears identical in function for the other side. I have checked the full map, and the third line under the bridge terminates some distance further on, without any further connection to the main. Why are these not both headshunts, please?

 

They are both headshunts.

[RobinofLoxley]

3 hours ago, philsandy said:

 

Thanks for your reply Robin. The trackwork will be hand built.

So you could insert a single slip in place of the 2 turnouts that make the crossover at A

[RJS1977]

Did Whitefield have its own shunting loco?

 

It looks to me as if goods trains from the Manchester direction (where the majority of  the goods traffic would be coming from/going to) would pull into the headshunt and drop wagons off in the yard, where they would be unloaded/reloaded in the goods shed. The wagons would then be shunted across the main lines into the sidings on the other side, ready to be collected by a Manchester-bound train. 

 

Any wagions from the Bury direction would be dropped off in the sidings on the Bury side and shunted across to the Manchester side for unloading before being picked up by the next Bury-bound train.

 

Having yards on both sides of the line like this only happened on lines with multiple tracks, to avoid conflicting paths being created by goods trains crossing to a yard on the "wrong" side of the main lines (with separate yards, a resident shunting loco could transfer wagons across whenever there was a suitable gap in traffic to do so).

 

Not really sure about the purpose of crossover A though....