Is of course, not money, not beer, but Google.

 

In my last post, I mentioned the runaround.

Passenger services run into the platform, the loco uncouples, crosses the lane and runs round using the goods shed road, runs into the headshunt then back onto.the train before leaving back the way it came. I've borrowed the 'running round in goods yard' idea from Iain Rice's excellent 'Witheridge' plan in the Finescale in small spaces' book.

 

All was well and good. I then had an idle moment at work (we have had some IT issues over the past couple of days where our system has stopped working at times!) on Thursday and googled 'run round in goods yard' to see if any inspirational, real-life examples came up. The eighth link was to these virtual hallowed halls, where member jamest of this parish asked for a critique of a layout plan.

 

You can see his thread here; http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75783-branch-line-terminusgoods-yard-advice/

 

One of his questions was;

Originally posted by jamesT;

 

The main doubt I have is running around with the loco into the goods line with the crane - Is this a major no-no? - Its my only option as I have arranged it.

 

The following two responses, from members very knowledgable about these prototype matters were fair, reasonable and balanced - but made it quite clear that this would be considered a major "no-no".

 

So, I stomped my feet, wailed a little (in my head at least ) and tried to forget all about my brief googling session. Of course, I couldn't, and tonight decided to have a quick play to see if I could make a slight adjustment to that 'final' (we've been here before, haven't we?) plan.

 

After a short while, Version 5 was finalised;

 

 

It adds another point, adds a new platform road, the old platform road becomes the runaround loop and the goods yard now stops short of the road. This is supposed to be rural Sussex, not the ECML, no three-track level crossings here please!

 

This though all looked a little too 'clinical' to me - too clean, too neat, too... straight.

 

 

So I altered it again. Have a look and see what you think of this. I think of all the plans I've come up with so far, it's my favourite. You'll note two things. Firstly, the separate siding for the coal pens is gone (as it was in v5), but also that I've put the goods shed road at more of a 'natural' angle.

 

Bringing us full circle, and back to the solution - Tonight's amble through Google also took me to Geoff's wonderful Llangullo blog, where one sentence pretty much summed up what I've been aiming for all along. Less (in this case less exotic trackwork and less sidings) can be more.

 

PS; Grammar note - should that be lifes or life's in the title? - That time, Google was inconclusive!