BITTON

[Ray H]

Hi all, well I've spent the morning doing some shunting on Bitton  ATTEMPTING to do some shunting, and it caused major frustration so I gave up and took the Dog for a walk instead.

Andy

 

The last picture that I saw of your Bitton yard suggested it still lacked a couple of the sidings. It also has all the sidings facing in one direction which I suspect your previous layouts didn't.

 

I'm sure that there is fun to be had shunting the yard but you probably need to chuck an element of randomness into the equation. You need to be presented with a train arriving at the station the order and consist of which you hadn't pre-planned. Cue cards or some other kind of system that indicates how many wagons go to what part of each siding off each train and which wagons from each part of which siding are to be picked up.

 

Sometimes it will all flow sweetly, other times you'll have to struggle (between trains running on the through tracks) to shunt all the wagons out of a siding to get the wagon on the stops.

 

Shunting Bitton will be different but just as enjoyable as shunting your other layouts, it just needs a slightly different approach (I think).

Edited March 16, 2015 by Ray H

[Donw]

I understand the problem now Andy. On you small layouts shunting took a bit of working out because things were tight. Now you have more room it seems a lot easier. I do wonder if you need to instigate a card system to mix it up a bit. If you were faced with moving some coal wagons to get to others then having to put them back and other such moves it would add more to it. The cards make it more interesting because you have to work it out. Adding more sidings may not help as it could make shunting even easier. Adding the industrial branch might do the trick . There was less shunting going on in the years you are modelling than in former days. Pick up freights were less common more block trains or so I believe. I wonder if the industrial line could be to an Army camp I used to see more varied freight going there around 1980.

The other idea would be to imagine a branch which leaves the main a short distance along the main so that Bitton acts as the junction station. This could give a reason for trains to reverse at Bitton.

Well thats a few suggestions.

Don

[Andrew P]

Andy, I DID have a look at your videos. Enjoyed them both, but it'd be steam for me.

 

I was also intrigued by the conversation going on between the 2 gents in the background. Couldn't quite follow it all and the video wasn't long enough....

 

Jeff

Two Lorry Drivers talking about VOSA, and foreign drivers, I was their Transport Supervisor at Arla, (think Cravendale Milk and Mc Donalds Mcflurry amongst other Dairy products like Anchor Butter)

[Andrew P]

Andy

 

The last picture that I saw of your Bitton yard suggested it still lacked a couple of the sidings. It also has all the sidings facing in one direction which I suspect your previous layouts didn't.

 

I'm sure that there is fun to be had shunting the yard but you probably need to chuck an element of randomness into the equation. You need to be presented with a train arriving at the station the order and consist of which you hadn't pre-planned. Cue cards or some other kind of system that indicates how many wagons go to what part of each siding off each train and which wagons from each part of which siding are to be picked up.

 

Sometimes it will all flow sweetly, other times you'll have to struggle (between trains running on the through tracks) to shunt all the wagons out of a siding to get the wagon on the stops.

 

Shunting Bitton will be different but just as enjoyable as shunting your other layouts, it just needs a slightly different approach (I think).

I'm going to try the card system later in the week.

 

Thanks Ray

[Andrew P]

I understand the problem now Andy. On you small layouts shunting took a bit of working out because things were tight. Now you have more room it seems a lot easier. I do wonder if you need to instigate a card system to mix it up a bit. If you were faced with moving some coal wagons to get to others then having to put them back and other such moves it would add more to it. The cards make it more interesting because you have to work it out. Adding more sidings may not help as it could make shunting even easier. Adding the industrial branch might do the trick . There was less shunting going on in the years you are modelling than in former days. Pick up freights were less common more block trains or so I believe. I wonder if the industrial line could be to an Army camp I used to see more varied freight going there around 1980.

The other idea would be to imagine a branch which leaves the main a short distance along the main so that Bitton acts as the junction station. This could give a reason for trains to reverse at Bitton.

Well thats a few suggestions.

Don

Thanks Don for your input, as I have replied to Ray, I will try a card system later in the week and I think I need to Lay the head shunt as well instead of crossing the main to shunt each siding.

 

I may still turn the head shunt into a Branch which would then mean I need a run round loop in it somewhere.

 

All food for thought whilst asleep.

 

Cheers Guys.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Andrew P

[Physicsman]

Thanks Don for your input, as I have replied to Ray, I will try a card system later in the week and I think I need to Lay the head shunt as well instead of crossing the main to shunt each siding.

 

I mat still turn the head shunt into a Branch which would then mean I need a run round loop in it somewhere.

 

All food for thought whilst asleep.

 

Cheers Guys.

 

You mean you ACTUALLY sleep?

 

With all the modelling you do, and your quoted 8 - 10 hours a day on the Forum, I'm surprised you have time to fit any sleep in!

 

Whatever, don't "lose too much sleep" over the shunting. It's but one part of Bitton.

 

Jeff

[Andrew P]

You mean you ACTUALLY sleep?

 

With all the modelling you do, and your quoted 8 - 10 hours a day on the Forum, I'm surprised you have time to fit any sleep in!

 

Whatever, don't "lose too much sleep" over the shunting. It's but one part of Bitton.

 

Jeff

Ahhh yes Jeff but its the one point that I enjoy most, and there lies the problem.

[Marcus 37]

Hi Andy

Totally know where you're coming from which is the entire reason why I want to start again with the loft. Its very nice watching trains speeding by on the mainline but if you cant do any shunting whilst they're speeding by it all gets a bit boring. 

Cheers

Marcus

[georgeT]

Morning Bodger.

 

As you know l have had various garage and loft layouts all with running round and round and round, my it gets boring, and unrealistic, you would not stand at Eastleigh and see a 66 on a Fawley oil train go past again and again etc etc, l know you have a great love for shunting around the yard, the more wagons to shunt the better for you. you will sort something out l'm sure...

 

georgeT

[Andrew P]

Thinking back to operating Jason's BACKUP it was relaxing, there were enough sidings to keep the brain busy but NOT so many that life was easy, as Jason had strategically placed permanent wagons in some sidings which restricted their use.

 

 

I did the same with Kingsmill, it always looked busy, but with Locos parked in some roads and wagons stored in others it made shunting very interesting.

 

 

With Fiddlers Yard, although it was only 8ft x 18 inches there was more operation in that than anything I have now.

 

 

The only other option is to leave Bitton as a roundy roundy and do the Storage yard side something like Fiddlers Yard.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Andrew P

[P.C.M]

Looks like you would be happy with 5 sidings then Andy,

 

A freight arrival loop and a headshunt  would just about do it. I don't have a card system but run to a timetable/sequence which can help make a point to the shunting that you do rather than just moving wagons around. Just a thought.

 

Cheers Peter.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm following all this with some interest and some worries.  I think the problem you face is a bit like the ones that have faced Ray H with his planning for Virney Junction - where I recommend looking at his ideas for 'generating' wagon movements.

 

Adding a branch to Bitton - off the head shunt - is not a bad idea but again I think it needs to be thought through right from basics starting with traffic flows before you get to the track layout and so on.  Real railways were never planned to produce 'interesting shunting' (whatever that is?) but to do a specific job moving specific types of traffic in the most economical manner.  What could, and often did, than happen was that the nature of the traffic changed while the infrastructure didn't thereby creating problems to solve or changing the infrastructure - but that change too started with the traffic, not the track layout  (one of the most enjoyable tasks I had in my railway career was planning the track layout for a large freight terminal from scratch, a very different task from trying to sort out how to solve problems where traffic had been squeezed into an existing layout).  What happens in reality is that you don't plan shunting problems into something - they occur because you are using a  track layout in a different way from what it was planned to do.

 

Another thing which occurs is that if you transplant modern day freight working onto an old track layout there is only likely to be one major problem (apart from disintegrating perway) and that is the fact that trains are now a lot longer than they were.  Tripping modern stuff into traditionally arranged terminals - if any actually survive is a totally different thing as the suit is cut to match the cloth of limited space and the aim is to make it as simple as possible because that is the cheapest way to do the job.

 

If you want a 'shunting layout' I think your best approach is to use your past layout ideas and make them the 'branch terminus' - you know where you're starting from and you know what you want.  At the Bitton end just extend the headshunt as the branch but, apart from a few signalling changes don't make any other alterations to the layout except possibly providing a crossover at the other end of the station.  Now, with a less than ideal layout (very prototypical) you've got the fun and games of getting a train onto the branch to serve whatever has developed at the far end of it as well as the fun of your 'shunting layout' at the end of the branch - two lots of possible challenges instead of one and Bitton more or less 'preserved' as yu started to build it.

 

Hope that helps your thought processes a bit even if it does nothing else.

[Marcus 37]

Hi Andy

Well I'm glad you said Kingsmill was interesting to operate as what you've basically got there is Peak Forest sidings which was always filled with a mixture of loco's and wagons. Also since Buxton shed closed there's the added bonus of the fuelling road. Well hopefully what I will have in essence is Kingsmill with the added bonus of a quarry when I've finished.

Don't let me sway you're decision but maybe it's time for a rethink of what kind of operation will give you hours of entertainment as seeing you operating Deesdale at Stafford you seemed to be in you're element.

Hope I haven't depressed you too much I just feel you've had quite a few reservations just recently and you're not overly happy with what you've got.

Yours supportively

Marcus.

[Andrew P]

Looks like you would be happy with 5 sidings then Andy,

 

A freight arrival loop and a headshunt  would just about do it. I don't have a card system but run to a timetable/sequence which can help make a point to the shunting that you do rather than just moving wagons around. Just a thought.

 

Cheers Peter.

Thanks Peter, I think the answer will be on the other side of the room, but still doodling on the back of an envelope, hahhah.

 

Cheers, P.S. Loved the Eastleigh pics you put on Georges Bishop Street.

[Andrew P]

I'm following all this with some interest and some worries.  I think the problem you face is a bit like the ones that have faced Ray H with his planning for Virney Junction - where I recommend looking at his ideas for 'generating' wagon movements.

 

Adding a branch to Bitton - off the head shunt - is not a bad idea but again I think it needs to be thought through right from basics starting with traffic flows before you get to the track layout and so on.  Real railways were never planned to produce 'interesting shunting' (whatever that is?) but to do a specific job moving specific types of traffic in the most economical manner.  What could, and often did, than happen was that the nature of the traffic changed while the infrastructure didn't thereby creating problems to solve or changing the infrastructure - but that change too started with the traffic, not the track layout  (one of the most enjoyable tasks I had in my railway career was planning the track layout for a large freight terminal from scratch, a very different task from trying to sort out how to solve problems where traffic had been squeezed into an existing layout).  What happens in reality is that you don't plan shunting problems into something - they occur because you are using a  track layout in a different way from what it was planned to do.

 

Another thing which occurs is that if you transplant modern day freight working onto an old track layout there is only likely to be one major problem (apart from disintegrating perway) and that is the fact that trains are now a lot longer than they were.  Tripping modern stuff into traditionally arranged terminals - if any actually survive is a totally different thing as the suit is cut to match the cloth of limited space and the aim is to make it as simple as possible because that is the cheapest way to do the job.

 

If you want a 'shunting layout' I think your best approach is to use your past layout ideas and make them the 'branch terminus' - you know where you're starting from and you know what you want.  At the Bitton end just extend the headshunt as the branch but, apart from a few signalling changes don't make any other alterations to the layout except possibly providing a crossover at the other end of the station.  Now, with a less than ideal layout (very prototypical) you've got the fun and games of getting a train onto the branch to serve whatever has developed at the far end of it as well as the fun of your 'shunting layout' at the end of the branch - two lots of possible challenges instead of one and Bitton more or less 'preserved' as yu started to build it.

 

Hope that helps your thought processes a bit even if it does nothing else.

Hi Mike, some really interesting and valid points above, so firstly thanks for your input.

 

I've had a look today and I am thinking of something like a Freight only Branch from the headshunt spur, and passing in front of a smaller Storage Yard, and then having a couple of sidings to a Distribution Warehouse, this would cater for old Brown Vans right up to a couple of Cargowagons,and also a small Fuel Depot to drop off 4 or 5 TTA's.

 

I could then work Bitton yard as a drop off point and Trip work stuff down the branch as a 47 or 56 would be to heavy for it. This would make things a bit more interesting at Bitton and also on the other side of the room. 

 

 

I will look at a Facing Crossover from the Up to the Down line across the door section to give access to the Yard via running wrong direction  through the Station but when did Facing Crossovers start to appear in general on BR and would this be o.k. or totally wrong?

 

Thanks again Mike.

[The Stationmaster]

A facing crossover would have been very unusual before the 1970s (possibly in some cases the very late 1960s) but in a Bittonesque situation i think it would have been unlikely until the 1980s or later in view of its signalling alterations it would involve.  the other point is that I don't think you should have an operational free ride - it needs to require you to still have something to do and give you a bit of thinking so a trailing crossover would be much better    That will then give you two trailing cossovers which means you can do whatever you need to do train wise but things will need to crossover, propel back through crossovers, runround and whatever - hence more interest (I hope).

 

In other words BR did the cheapest and simplest alterations to get trains to/from new traffic facilities on the branch.  The fuel tanks would arrive on one train - a block oil train - and be detached ay the junction, some other traffic might arrive on a through train to the branch which needs to be re-engined or split to keep the load down, loadsa fun & games

 

How does that grab you?

[Andrew P]

Hi Andy

Well I'm glad you said Kingsmill was interesting to operate as what you've basically got there is Peak Forest sidings which was always filled with a mixture of loco's and wagons. Also since Buxton shed closed there's the added bonus of the fuelling road. Well hopefully what I will have in essence is Kingsmill with the added bonus of a quarry when I've finished.

Don't let me sway you're decision but maybe it's time for a rethink of what kind of operation will give you hours of entertainment as seeing you operating Deesdale at Stafford you seemed to be in you're element.

Hope I haven't depressed you too much I just feel you've had quite a few reservations just recently and you're not overly happy with what you've got.

Yours supportively

Marcus.

Hi Marcus, I've ticked agree to the highlighted bit above, don't get me wrong, the overall running is now fairly good, its just that I want more shunting. Have a look at my reply to Mike above and you will see what I have in mind.

 

Something like these for example.

 

 

Or this on my Loch Leven.

 

 

And a small Fuel Depot on the other side of the Line.

[Andrew P]

A facing crossover would have been very unusual before the 1970s (possibly in some cases the very late 1960s) but in a Bittonesque situation i think it would have been unlikely until the 1980s or later in view of its signalling alterations it would involve.  the other point is that I don't think you should have an operational free ride - it needs to require you to still have something to do and give you a bit of thinking so a trailing crossover would be much better    That will then give you two trailing cossovers which means you can do whatever you need to do train wise but things will need to crossover, propel back through crossovers, runround and whatever - hence more interest (I hope).

 

In other words BR did the cheapest and simplest alterations to get trains to/from new traffic facilities on the branch.  The fuel tanks would arrive on one train - a block oil train - and be detached ay the junction, some other traffic might arrive on a through train to the branch which needs to be re-engined or split to keep the load down, loadsa fun & games

 

How does that grab you?

Point A; it simplifies the pointwork, GREAT,

Point B; it complicates the operation, GREAT.

Point C; it keeps the signalling as per Bitton, GREAT.

Point D; it keeps Bitton looking like Bitton, GREAT.

 

Thanks Mike. (your GREAT, hahhah)

[Andrew P]

Just had a play with some bits of track.

 

Firstly this is something like I would like to emulate.

 

 

 

Now you need to use your imagination.

 

The Blue Box is a Warehouse.

The Bachy boxes and the China Clays are the line of the back Scene.

 

 

 

And a small Fuel Yard.

 

 

And I may put a disused Platform just before the Road over bridge at the workbench end.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Andrew P

[lmsforever]

That looks a   very workable plan the track to it could be suitably grassed over with various footpath crossings I seem to remember seeing a line like this with brick walls and a great deal of general clutter etc .The dock branch at Aberdeen could fit the bill scenically fair length and general run down nature even though its used regularily,look forward to see the results.

[Jeff Smith]

Leaning as I do more towards construction than operation I find I am fairly ignorant of how shunting was (is) managed - who was actually directing the shunting operations? Was the Shunter the manager and directed the movements? or was the Shunter just the uncoupler/coupler turnout operator with the Driver managing?

Edited March 17, 2015 by Jeff Smith

[Andrew P]

Leaning as I do more towards construction than operation I find I am fairly ignorant of how shunting was (is) managed - who was actually directing the shunting operations? Was the Shunter the manager and directed the movements? or was the Shunter just the uncoupler/coupler turnout operator with the Driver managing?

Hi Jeff, I really haven't got a clue, I just usually build what I like and then work it out later, hahhaha.

[Ray H]

Andy

 

I hope I'm not dwelling on this for too long but (and I can't quickly find the track plan of Bitton so am working from memory) . . .

 

The first image in post 5168 shows a track layout with 5 sidings. Isn't that what you have at Bitton? You've also got a run round facility that you would have usually had on your shunting layouts. So what's so different about Bitton?

 

Is it the infrequent number of trains that are calling at Bitton to shunt the yard that is the problem?

 

I believe that you told me that you've provided crossovers at each end of your fiddle yard so you can get to and from each siding with arrivals and departures. Leave the roundy-roundy operations for the days when you're modelling and want a bit of something moving in the background. Instead do as George T is proposing and treat the layout as an end to end, reversing most trains in the fiddle yard. Don't swap locos and brake vans by hand, shunt. Use the terminal sidings in the fiddle yard to store the spare wagons and shunt that to make up trains.

 

You could throw in something like John Flann does and use cards that determine the consist of the train (and where traffic is going to).

 

The idea that I'm toying with is to pretend that I'm the Goods Agent and responsible for despatching the traffic that customers bring to my station(s) as well as receiving wagons containing goods customers have bought. There'll be unwanted empty wagons to be sent away - e.g. there's little outward traffic to go away in wagons that brought coal. There'll be different empty wagons to be requisitioned from other yards to take away the traffic my customers have brought to the station(s) to be despatched.

 

Is there any chance that you've the same concern that I have with my traverser on Wynsloe Road? Manual operation of the traverser drags me away from the interesting (and scenic) part of the layout? That's why I plan to "motorise" the fiddle yard points on the new layout. You're fiddle yard was next to the shunting area on your other layouts.

 

Try something like a timetable (or sequence) as has been suggested above but throw in a random element. Make up X number of trains to leave (either end of) the fiddle yard and have a card for each. Shuffle the cards and turn them over one at a time and then run that train. Think of the fun to be had when the up and the down freights arrive at the same time!

[Andrew P]

Andy

 

I hope I'm not dwelling on this for too long but (and I can't quickly find the track plan of Bitton so am working from memory) . . .

 

The first image in post 5168 shows a track layout with 5 sidings. Isn't that what you have at Bitton? You've also got a run round facility that you would have usually had on your shunting layouts. So what's so different about Bitton?

 

Is it the infrequent number of trains that are calling at Bitton to shunt the yard that is the problem?

 

I believe that you told me that you've provided crossovers at each end of your fiddle yard so you can get to and from each siding with arrivals and departures. Leave the roundy-roundy operations for the days when you're modelling and want a bit of something moving in the background. Instead do as George T is proposing and treat the layout as an end to end, reversing most trains in the fiddle yard. Don't swap locos and brake vans by hand, shunt. Use the terminal sidings in the fiddle yard to store the spare wagons and shunt that to make up trains.

 

You could throw in something like John Flann does and use cards that determine the consist of the train (and where traffic is going to).

 

The idea that I'm toying with is to pretend that I'm the Goods Agent and responsible for despatching the traffic that customers bring to my station(s) as well as receiving wagons containing goods customers have bought. There'll be unwanted empty wagons to be sent away - e.g. there's little outward traffic to go away in wagons that brought coal. There'll be different empty wagons to be requisitioned from other yards to take away the traffic my customers have brought to the station(s) to be despatched.

 

Is there any chance that you've the same concern that I have with my traverser on Wynsloe Road? Manual operation of the traverser drags me away from the interesting (and scenic) part of the layout? That's why I plan to "motorise" the fiddle yard points on the new layout. You're fiddle yard was next to the shunting area on your other layouts.

 

Try something like a timetable (or sequence) as has been suggested above but throw in a random element. Make up X number of trains to leave (either end of) the fiddle yard and have a card for each. Shuffle the cards and turn them over one at a time and then run that train. Think of the fun to be had when the up and the down freights arrive at the same time!

Hi Ray, Here's the track plan and its 4 siding but its not what I need for a small yard for shunting. Bitton has no real run round loop other than going out onto the main line so I want a yard where I can use  a designated shunter, (08).

 

 

That's why a second yard will add to operations and the Card system will help so I will be looking into that as well.

 

Thanks again for your input.

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Andy,

That is a lovely layout at Hazel Grove 2012!? I presume that is the case anyway!

I think with your adaptation of that plan, you will have the best of both worlds - Bitton for watching trains roll by (& some shunting) and "New Yard" for all out shunting, with some storage tracks behind to boot.

I'm pretty sure you could send trains from Bitton yard to New Yard as an actual service too. Needless to say, I like it a lot for go for it, young man!

But, as they say in Greece "Slowly, slowly"!

Cheers,

John.