Goods Yard Plan based on an adapted prototype location

[cary hill]

I attach a layout plan(part Anyrail - using Peco Large Points) which I am considering as a possible project in a late 1950's through to mid 1970's timeframe. It is an adaptation of a prototype location on a well known line, which was not photographed that much, (although I think it would take someone who knows the area very little time to work the location out).

 

I have not had a serious layout for more than fifteeen years but have plenty of stock to run and thought this plan might be a relative quickie(?), if I am not building any track, as it is basically a fan of storage tracks in the open with a mainline running through the front.

 

I am keen to get something running in a plausible environment reasonably quickly so I have ruled out a station as the main focal point as this would involve a lot of kit or scratchbuilt buildings.

 

I have measured the length of the prototype as approximately 26 feet in 4mm and I have "lost" approximately 25-33% in length by compressing things so that the length is more like 18 feet as it needs to fit down one side of a tandem garage approx 30 feet in length.

 

I am undecided whether it should be a "roundy-roundy" or not, but I think that the plan would then have to have the main lines "at the back", which seems unattractive, as there would potentially not be enough room to "make a circle" of a sensible radius in the garage, which is of standard width.

 

I think two dead end fiddle yards would work - one straight and one curved and removable - approximate length 8-9 feet for each one, although I may need to lose another foot or so in the scenic area.

 

I have noticed that I have not left sufficient space for vehicular access to the "lower pair" of dead end sidings.

 

The prototype location had additional stock storage faciltites stage left and the station was stage right although I don't need to stick to this.

 

I would appreciate comments/criticism constructive or otherwise on the following matters in particular although general comments are also very welcome:

 

(1) Have I comprised the integrity of the prototype by compressing the length as much I have?

 

(2) Is there anything in the plan which ties it to a particular region because, if not, I am toying with the idea of replacing the Signal Box and a few other scenic items to switch regions occasionally. The prototype goods shed was a thirties Government backed austerity affair which did not immediately suggest a particular region.

 

(3) When would be the most likely time for the goods shed to have closed - guessing Beeching Era or early seventies? This is for plausible modelling purposes only - I know when the prototype closed and that it is long gone but I assume my goods shed could at least soldier on undemolished(if closed) for many more years.

 

(4) Is the layout plan too wide as it will be approximately 4' feet above ground attached to brackets and legs? We don't keep cars in the garage so that is not a factor.

 

(5) Is the layout too "flat earth" and straight in appearance?

 

(6) Would I be correct in assuming that, as a minimum, only the running lines and goods loops would be fully signalled.

 

(7) Is the plan generally a bad idea for reasons that haven't occurred to me yet?

 

All comments and observations are most welcome. Thanks.

[Guest stuartp]

(1) Have I comprised the integrity of the prototype by compressing the length as much I have?

 

I wouldn't have thought so, people have made a lot less that 18' look convincing ! (I'm assuming you're working in 4mm here !)

 

(2) Is there anything in the plan which ties it to a particular region because, if not, I am toying with the idea of replacing the Signal Box and a few other scenic items to switch regions occasionally. The prototype goods shed was a thirties Government backed austerity affair which did not immediately suggest a particular region.

 

GWR and MR certainly had double-ended yards, can't comment on other areas.

 

(3) When would be the most likely time for the goods shed to have closed - guessing Beeching Era or early seventies? This is for plausible modelling purposes only - I know when the prototype closed and that it is long gone but I assume my goods shed could at least soldier on undemolished(if closed) for many more years.

 

Typically Beeching era if not before for general merchandise. It might have lasted a bit longer for National Carriers traffic ? (not completely sure on this). There are still plenty of sheds standing, a lot were hired out to feed merchants, builders etc. Coal traffic lasted well into the BR blue era, alternatively the sidings at the left hand side might be used by the engineers to stable the odd tamper, couple of ballast wagons etc.

 

(4) Is the layout plan too wide as it will be approximately 4' feet above ground attached to brackets and legs? We don't keep cars in the garage so that is not a factor.

 

If you can get down both sides I don't see it being a problem. If it's single sided it might be a bit of a stretch especially if you're using 3-links etc.

 

(5) Is the layout too "flat earth" and straight in appearance?

 

Purely personal preference, I'd put it on a slight curve.

 

(6) Would I be correct in assuming that, as a minimum, only the running lines and goods loops would be fully signalled.

 

Typically, yes. All movements in the yard would be under the guard's or shunter's control (whistle/handsignals).

 

(7) Is the plan generally a bad idea for reasons that haven't occurred to me yet?

 

Can't think of any, it sounds like a good idea to me.

[Kris]

Plan looks good to me, but I think that you may find it takes you longer to build than you are anticipating. If you are operating end to end are you intending to do this on your own, if so this is a real pain especially if you are talking about a long layout. I would also say that if you have to cut extra length of the scenic section to fit in the fiddle yards then it might start to affect the integrity of the plan and look forced.

[Etched Pixels]

Agree about the trees - although if you have a strategically located wall the front section can be removable for awkward stuff. It is a long reach though and that may be awkward especially 4' up unless you are very tall and thin. You might want to experiment at rerailing stock and track cleaning 3-4ft away on a table with delicate objects all over it *before* committing to the design. If your goods shed is out of use that makes it a bit easier as more of the back is in reality just scenic.

 

Some goods depots lasted a long time - usually when they had a specific purpose or got redesigned somewhat for a specific traffic (eg Wadebridge for powdered slate loaiding)

 

Couple of other thoughts - if you are curving the yard is there space to bow it forward in the middle pushing the ends a bit backwards so you can get acceptable curves for a roundy roundy arrangement as well as a more natural look ? The layout is in some ways ideal for that because it's also an excellent fiddle yard for whatever you eventually build the other side.

 

Otherwise you could also consider a small fiddle one end and large one the other to keep the length - that way when running single handed you can run mostly from one end but you've got scope for bouncing small trains back and forth (eg DMU workings passing by) without doing marathon impressions. Otherwise it's going to make you quite fit if you have a lot of end to end traffic !

[The Stationmaster]

Pretty good plan I reckon but two queries -

 

1. The dead end sidings with the end loading facility seem a bit excessive unless you have some specialised traffic in mind. And they're no use for anything else except standing wagons as theY can't be accessed by road vehicles.

 

2. The two-way (as I read it) loop is an unusual arrangement particularly with what appears to be your crossover arrangment - the ladder of diamonds at the left end might be better as single slips in some cases?

[kevinlms]

I attach a layout plan(part Anyrail - using Peco Large Points) which I am considering as a possible project in a late 1950's through to mid 1970's timeframe. It is an adaptation of a prototype location on a well known line, which was not photographed that much, (although I think it would take someone who knows the area very little time to work the location out).

 

 

(7) Is the plan generally a bad idea for reasons that haven't occurred to me yet?

 

All comments and observations are most welcome. Thanks.

 

 

I think that the yard is a little too crowded. Certainly there ought to be a space between the running lines & the goods loop. This is a safety requirement so that railway staff could walk down (to inspect or whatever) the side of their train without risking life & limb next to the main line.

 

So perhaps a wider space would make a difference? Also between goods loop & first loop. Having the first loop where currently loop 2 is, would make it look far more spacious & believible.

 

Such a yard is one for storing extra trains & stock, but not one where staff would access the vehicles for unloading etc. Such yards did exist, but not as common as the "traditional" goods yard.

 

To me it looks like a fiddle yard with some scenic work, but a little less track would make a difference, IMO.

 

 

You stated it is based on a prototype, which one & what was the function of the yard.

 

Regards

Kevin Martin

[cary hill]

Many thanks for the observations and contributions which have all been most welcome in providing further food for thought and pointing out potential pitfalls/errors which need to be addressed.

 

The prototype that I had in mind was the new (in 1931) Goodrington Goods Station with the additional(1957) Clennon Valley carriage sidings and basic loco servicing/turning facilities(not modelled) off to the left and Paignton Station off to the right.

 

I thought this arrrangement would give plenty of scope for both fairly intensive freight and passenger stock movements with some light engine movements thrown in as well as being capable of operating in "watching the trains go by" mode in lazier moments.

 

From "research" it ought to be operable in weekday mode with what seems to have been a reasonably interesting goods traffic timetable, particularly if a ship with coal for Torquay Gasworks is assumed to have arrived at Kingswear, and a midweek passenger service or in manic summer Saturday mode when goods traffic seems to have been largely suspended.

 

I am particularly pleased with Kevin's observation "it looks like a fiddle yard with some scenic work" because that is exactly what it is. I guess when the Yard was full of "Summer Saturday" coaching stock in the late 1950's-early 1960's it must have resembled a "full size" fiddle yard, as it appears to have been capable of holding up to 80 coaches with a further 65 coaches stored at Clennon Valley.One of my objectives was to have more stock on display - I have not done a scientific analysis of the normal percentage split on layouts between stock "on display" and stock hidden in fiddle yard/storage areas but I hope with this arrangement to significantly increase the percentage "on display."

 

It would appear that the main points (some of these arise from my rather poor rendition of the prototype plan )that need addressing are as follows:

 

• The dead-end sidings need more space for safety and access purposes as suggested by The Stationmaster and Kevinlms - oops more width - unless I lose a siding perhaps.
• Problems with "Hand of God" interventions demolishing scenic items, as referred to by Mickey and Etched Pixels, due to potential problems with excessive width. I quite like the idea of replacing the real trees which screen the Park at Goodrington ,which seem a bit lame anyway ,with a stream or similar since the trees would also screen the layout from view. I have carried out a few "reach trials" as recommended by Etched Pixels, as I am rather more at the Ronnie Corbett end of the height/reach spectrum, and 3 feet is getting close to my reach limit with comfort.
• Introduce a slight curve for aesthetic reasons(?) or perhaps for more practical considerations to achieve a "roundy-roundy" option (presumably it would resemble a flattened half dog-bone or dumbell?).
• Following on from The Stationmasters" comments I have referred back to 1933 25' OS Map extract on which I was basing the plan and it is clear that most of the apparent "diamonds" are in fact slips which makes sense. I assume that the two-way goods loop might be more for empty coaching stock movements when the Clennon Valley Sidings were laid down. I also need to move the signal box so that it is between the running lines and the access line to the additional carriage sidings off stage left.

One other general point on which I would appreciate some views on is the length of train which looks sensible on an 18 foot scenic section, for example, a tender loco and eight coaches which I assume is 8/9 feet in length - will this look a bit daft?

 

I think I might to getting close to the "point templates and lining paper" planning stage to establish exactly what will fit in a sensible width as I am not good with small scale plans. I think the never actually built 1930's proposed 5 platform Paignton Station would look nice on the other side of the garage(only joking!).

 

Once again thanks for your contributions but if you can think of anything else that I have neglected to consider please don't hesitate to mention it.

[Kris]

Your proposed train lengths sound good to me, much longer would get silly but you are talking about trains just over 1/2 the length of the current scenic section.

 

If you want to keep the width of the plan as it is and fear loosing stock at the rear if it falls off, get you paws on some kitchen tongs (this is an expensive pair). Make sure that you have the silicon tipped ones. You can then extend your reach with ease. you might not be able to re-rail stock but you could rescue it if needed.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Cary, I'd echo StuartP's thoughts on the plan although I'd take aboard Mike and Kevin's observations about the track.

Thanks though. I was considering something not dissimilar for my own layout to serve in the joint offices of model storage and actual working yard!

I think I will be using most elements of your plan!

 

Dave.