clachnaharry

One of the attractions of modelling Ferryhill shed in the 70's is that some of the roads were used for wagon repairs, so you can justify shunting a fair few wagon types around the yard. There were three roads (including the old loco coal stage line) which were used exclusively for wagon storage, and the repairs were carried out on a couple of roads within the shed itself - I forget which, but I seem to recall they were some of the centre bays, and this appears to be confirmed by the photograph above. The extreme west end roads were truncated and the doors bricked up - again visible in the picture above. I seems less attractive to model in steam days, not least becuase the engines tended to be turned and stabled with their chimneys facing the shed.

The two-level loading bank appears to be characteristic of Scottish East Coast stations. Presumably to allow tipping straight into open wagons, but what? Potatoes?

You have to wonder what is the purpose of the siding parallel with the headshunt. It appears to have no hard standing next to it and is extremely awkward to shunt. It would be classed as a complete no-no if someone suggested it as a layout plan!

It's not very clear how the yard could be shunted. Was it shunted by up trains reversing over the crossover to the down line to gain access? It seems like the only way without resorting to a pinchbar.

Yes, but I wonder why they didn't just make the up line bi directional and avoid the requirement for the FPL?

This picture raises a couple of questions. The bracket home signal suggests that the box may have had a switch - does anyone know if that was the case? If so - I wonder why the down platform road was used when the box was switched out, this must have require a lock on the siding point. As far as I can recall they were no sidings trailing into the up road, so I would have thought it would have been more suitable for dual direction running.

Interesting plan - it looks like a lot of fun. Are the main goods and loco facilities "off stage"?

This looks like a lovely project but I'm not at all clear why you can't drive the trains and operate the frame at the same time. The operation is very simple even when operating solo. The levers in most case will be operated when the train is stationary. At most stations the more complex manoeuvres of crossing trains will be more the exception than the rule. To my mind, a closing lever is atypical for the WHL. Rhu was an exception but I don't believe any of the more typical island platform stations had one.

Paul Karau's book on the Watlington branch states that rope shunting was used to run round goods trains which were longer than the very short (8 wagon length) run round loop. The loco uncoupled and drew forward into the headshunt, the point was set back to the platform road and the loco reversed along the loop as far as possible. A rope was attached to one of the wagons on the platform road, and the train was pulled clear of the loop entrance point, allowing the loco to reach the other end of train.

The gravity shunt was performed at Killin rather than Loch Tay itself, which had a run round loop. The passenger service was cut back to Killin in 1939, although the line remained open for the mile or so to Loch Tay just for access to the engine shed until final closure in 1965. Peterhead had no loop and was gravity shunted.

The combined Glasgow/Edinburgh Caledonian sleeper still splits at Carstairs - six times per week.

In reality, I suspect vehicles would have been loose shunted through the goods shed into the dock. Extraction would have probably been via a pinchbar. For model operation, the dock siding can be shunted from the engine shed end, using any other wagons in the siding as reach wagons. I disagree with the premise that kickbacks should be avoided on model railways. They were very common in reality and as far as I am concerned, they add to the operating interest.

MO - Mondays Only, MX - Mondays Excepted. I can't help you with regulated but I'm sure the Stationmaster will be along soon. I presume that the list of freights only covers the trains which were booked to shunt at Hungerford? These only amount to two in each direction daily, and I would expect there were more through freights along the line?

Would that reversing manoeuvre always halt the train at the bracket signal protecting the platform roads , or were there instances where a particularly long train would require a platform entry signal to be cleared?

When I first visited the preserved railway, it was adjacent to the then still extant maltings, and the inset private siding tracks were still in situ. Does anyone know when the maltings sidings were actually opened? Were the freights to the maltings post goods yard closure solely made up of grain hoppers or was there other traffic as well?

The extension of the run round loop and the additional siding parallel with the headshunt must have been carried out prior to 1935 as they can be seen in photo fig 6 in Paul Karau's book. The only wartime addition was the additional siding in the goods yard.

Wow - thanks for that Harlequin! I agree with DavidCBroad that that loop level with the platform loses much of the Fairford flavour. A better compromise may be to move the right hand loop points just to the left of the goods shed cross over (as happened prior to 1930 - see photo Fig F6 in GWBLT), and move the left hand loop points to the left of the engine shed cross over. You then end up with a 5 foot round round loop. You lose the use of the shortened headshunt as an overnight coach stabling siding, so for operational reasons it would be useful to add the siding parallel with headshunt to bring in a bit of flexibility and allow overnight stabling of 2 x 2 coach sets - the first is shunted into that siding and the second is left in the loop at the end of the operating sequence. It looks if the goods siding could squeeze in a couple of extra wagon lengths if the turntable siding is angled a bit more, and the dock spur shortened a bit, and/or shorten the passenger platform by four to six inches. This option should mean that you have one of the scenic boards with no points on it all - always a bonus. Stick a buffer stop on it, and this single 5 foot board could be paired with an 18 inch fiddle yard and exhibited with a diesel railcar shuttle as Fairford 1967 - an alternative reality where the passenger service was retained for Brize Norton airfield and the goods yard closed.

A quick look at an old 25inch/mile map shows Lambourn fitting into a site about 800 x 180 ft, so about 10.5 x 2.5 feet in 4mm scale, but the fiddle yard exit problems are even worse than Wallingford as the single line leaves on an embankment. Watlington is even smaller at about 750 x 150 ft. Unfortunately, my favourite prototype, Fairford, would require more than 20 feet in length...

What a splendid piece of work. With reference to your visual block, I would be tempted to use hole in the backscene hidden by a clump of trees. The fact that the line is slightly angled away from the viewing side would help this illusion. The biggest problem with Wallingford is the lack of operational interest. My books are in storage at the moment, but from recollection, the train service from the 30s through to closure consisted of a 14/48/58xx and autotrailer shuffling back and forwards to the junction. The only break in that monotony was a couple of mixed trains and the occasional milk tanker as tail traffic. I'm sure I have read that the yard was often shunted with the autotrailer still attached, due to the time constrains of the frequent passenger service, and the complexity of detaching the coach. Of the ten terminii featured in Paul Karau's books on the subject, only four, Ashburton, Fairford, Lambourn, and Moretonhampstead retained their signalling beyond the 1920s and thus allowed more than one train to be present at one time. Of these Fairford has the most operational interest, with two engines and two sets of coaches stabled at the terminus overnight, and visited by two goods trains during the day. The shuffling around when a goods was present, whilst the passenger need to run-round must have been very interesting, given the need to use the platform line whilst shunting the yard. The motive power had more variety and included small tender locos as well as the ubiquitous pannier tanks. There is even a perfect scenic break with the overbridge by the station. The downside is the extreme length of the site, and I would love to see your treatment of that! Lambourn, looks like a more easily modelled station, and although the traffic pattern was not as complex or interesting as Fairford, it did at least have periods where the branch goods and passenger trains were both in the station, it featured tender loco's, tail traffic (horseboxes) and best of all, legitimate GWR railcar use!

That's ugly. The Americans don't seem to be following the new RN fashion for large bridge windows.

I agree that a connection to the goods yard from both ends is not unusual, but I think it's the limitations of this one, only accessing the goods yard road, that looks odd to me. If the single slip crossing the relief was changed to a double this would open things up. As it stands, I can't see how the single slip would be used. The dock road can provide a trap more economically.

The East end connections, which then require the East box look a bit unlikely to me. It's a lot of infrastructure and cost to allow the occasional drop off of a van to the goods shed outside of the normal goods working.

Are there any prototypical examples of a refuge siding being bisected by a goods shed access line?

Are there any operational single ended refuge sidings left on the railway network, and if so are any still used for their original purpose? I know there are a few turnback sidings, but I am thinking more of where freight trains are recessed to allow traffic to overtake.

The 1957 signalling diagram shows a significantly different layout. https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S197.htm