Goods yard layout

[Martin Elsworth]

The yard at Hornby station has a stub-end siding near both entries off the main line. The one at the station end is only accessible from the goods shed line (a single slip gives access from the goods shed to the main line). Photos show that the platform ended well before buffers on the stub - so what was its likely purpose?

At the other end the stub is longer but again I wonder what it was used for.
I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

 

[Stubby47]

Probably run-off tracks for errant wagons,  similar to over-grown catch points.

[RailWest]

Probably not a siding at all, just a very short trap-road rather than just having trap-points on their own. Curious tho' that they bothered with a single-line slip at the station end rather than just having plain traps on both the sidings.

 

[bécasse]

They facilitate shunting, especially the one at the station end. Remember, you don't need a loco to shunt a goods yard, individual wagons can be (and were) moved quite easily without one either using a borrowed trader's horse or pinch-bars.

[RailWest]

15 minutes ago, bécasse said:

They facilitate shunting, especially the one at the station end. Remember, you don't need a loco to shunt a goods yard, individual wagons can be (and were) moved quite easily without one either using a borrowed trader's horse or pinch-bars.

I thought about that, but....if the one at the station end was accessed by a single slip, then surely it would not have been possible to move a wagon from the GS road to the siding behind it or vice-versa, only by going out towards the main line?

Edited February 19, 2023 by RailWest

[bécasse]

22 minutes ago, RailWest said:

I thought about that, but....if the one at the station end was accessed by a single slip, then surely it would not have been possible to move a wagon from the GS road to the siding behind it or vice-versa, only by going out towards the main line?

Both sidings would have had to have access to the extended trap as it also provided their statutory trap.  A single slip with no link from the main line to the goods shed would have been possible but unlikely, a double slip (with the station end point hand-worked) would almost certainly have been provided for operational efficiency.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, bécasse said:

Both sidings would have had to have access to the extended trap as it also provided their statutory trap.  A single slip with no link from the main line to the goods shed would have been possible but unlikely, a double slip (with the station end point hand-worked) would almost certainly have been provided for operational efficiency.

And it would obviously have to be a double slip at one end (if not both) in order to trap both sidings.  And according to John Hinson's sketch of the 'box diagram it was indeed.  a double slip

 

https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 135

Edited February 20, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[DCB]

They were popular to stop wagons escaping onto the main line without necessarily derailing them.  Early wagons were much lighter than BR era ones, and even a BR era 10 ton van would seldom load to anything like 10 tons.  Also staff numbers were higher, certainly pre WW1 so moving  wagons by man power would have been fairly easy.   In the early days of the railways stop blocks were provided so locos could buffer up to something solid and slip the wheels to pump water into the boiler.  After around 1865 Injectors became common and the need to slip the wheels faded.   Possibly the last was the Terrier the GWR  acquired with the WCPR around WW2.

[RailWest]

14 hours ago, bécasse said:

Both sidings would have had to have access to the extended trap as it also provided their statutory trap.  A single slip with no link from the main line to the goods shed would have been possible but unlikely, a double slip (with the station end point hand-worked) would almost certainly have been provided for operational efficiency.

I was assuming that the OP meant a single-slip where the GS road had access to the exit crossover and also the spur, whereas the back siding only had access to the exit road and needed its own trap - which would have seemed rather odd, but I have come across at least one example of such. However a double-slip would seem more sensible and - it would appear - that was indeed the case there. 

[Martin Elsworth]

On 20/02/2023 at 00:18, The Stationmaster said:

And it would obviously have to be a double slip at one end (if not both) in order to trap both sidings.  And according to John Hinson's sketch of the 'box diagram it was indeed.  a double slip

 

https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 135

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

 

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with signalling diagrams:  am I right that the pointwork on the left hand up main is a single slip with lever 4 activating the crossover from down to up and 4+5 giving access from down to the yard?

At the station end is that a double slip shown? What is the sequence of levers needed to access the various routes?

[RailWest]

1. Yes.

 

2. Yes, it is a double slip, but the LH ends only are worked by 13, the RH ends are worked by a local hand-lever. When the signalman pulls 13 then the traps in both sidings are shut, enabling a train to exit from either siding onto the Up Main. With 13 reversed, when a train shunts INTO the sidings  then which siding it goes to will depend upon the use of hand-lever. Equally, when 13 is normal, then an engine can come back out of the spur into either siding, depending upon the use of the hand-lever.

 

3. And, just in case you are wondering :-) , ground signal 12 applies to both sidings.

[Martin Elsworth]

Thanks Chris.

Operationally the lack of a double slip off the up line would seem to present a few interesting shunting problems.

Would a loco have been allowed to pass through the goods shed?

[RailWest]

I'm not sure I understand your first point what do you mean by "the lack of a double slip off the up line"?

 

As regards GSs, usually engines were banned.

[Compound2632]

On 20/02/2023 at 01:49, DCB said:

They were popular to stop wagons escaping onto the main line without necessarily derailing them.  

 

Popular because a requirement of the Board of Trade.  

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Martin Elsworth said:

Thanks Chris.

Operationally the lack of a double slip off the up line would seem to present a few interesting shunting problems.

Would a loco have been allowed to pass through the goods shed?

I would say that operationally providing a double slip in the Up line would have created more problems than could ever it solve in a yard clearly laid out for most of it to be served from the Down line.

Qnd of course providing a double slip,  be it useful  (it wouldn't have been) or not, would have introduced a facing point when such things were severely frowned upon by the BoT and 'the Requirements' wxcept ewhere they were essential for the working of traffic.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I would say that operationally providing a double slip in the Up line would have created more problems than could ever it solve in a yard clearly laid out for most of it to be served from the Down line.

Qnd of course providing a double slip,  be it useful  (it wouldn't have been) or not, would have introduced a facing point when such things were severely frowned upon by the BoT and 'the Requirements' wxcept ewhere they were essential for the working of traffic.

 

It just wasn't done. The diagram of Hornby Mike posted earlier is the classic and well-nigh universal layout for a goods yard at a wayside station on a double-track line, to be deviated from at your peril. With that layout you can make every move you could possibly think of wanting to do, up to and including running round the train and heading off back the way you'd come.

[Martin Elsworth]

Once again thank you everyone for your replies. Most interesting.