In his second article about small layouts, Ken explores updates to Stiffkey for the post-privatisation period, with passenger and freight traffic and some settings to consider. The first article can be found here Updating Stiffkey

Third generation DMUs are starting to take over from the Sprinters. A mix of units could be run. Also, if two Train Operating Companies (TOCs) have running rights then units in at least two different liveries can be run. There is scope to run Pacers 150, 156, 158, 170, plus others as the period modelled comes up to the present. There may be a possibility of a modern brick-built station building, if in a Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) area. In a few places short loco-hauled sets were still used to cover for DMU shortages. If overhead electrification or third rail is being modelled, then 3- or 4-car EMUs could be used in addition to DMUs.

Freight traffic has less potential in this period. Just after privatisation EWS tried to gain small freight flows on a lot of the branch lines, but most of these flows did not last. In the 1990s some fertiliser traffic ran in IWB ferry wagons. Other small flows included timber in OAA and OTA wagons, mud-oil in OAA open wagons, seed potatoes in VDAs. There is still scope to run short blocks of wagons until around 2005. The increase in lorry weight to 44 tonnes in 1994 lead to the gradual decline of shorter, or mixed block trains, in much the same way as the increase to 38 tonnes in 1983 lead to the demise of wagonload freight.

After 2005 even the traffic for short block workings tended to be lost. This leaves very few freight flows that could be justified on a layout like Stiffkey. Nuclear flasks are a favourite for short trains. Loco fuel is another although that has now become very rare. The options for Stiffkey could be to replace the yard area with a loco depot (a bit like Buxton had) and instead of having the Harbour Branch use the branch to access an off scene nuclear flask loading point. Such changes would allow loco fuel and flask traffic with a bit of shunting, with light loco moves in addition to the passenger workings.

In this period the older types of freight traction were gradually withdrawn leaving the vast majority of freight in the hands of various colours, and versions of class 66. Dapol is soon to release the class 66 as a RTR model. One possibility in order to run a variety of tractions such as classes 37 and 57 (not sure if a kit for a 68 is available) would be to model a railhead treatment train or even a depot. The wagons would need to be kit built with scratch-built tanks etc. The railhead treatment train depot at Stowmarket is the remains of the goods yard with just a couple of sidings, and season these trains run regular circuits every day. Trains are just two wagons, topped and tailed with locos. Limited shunting takes place to swop locos around, plus moves in and out of the depot for cleaning circuits.

Unfortunately, no DMUs are available RTR for this period, so the modeller is reliant on building kits of Sprinters and Pacers for passenger trains. There is the option of scratch building other units but that can be rather challenging.

Freight in the present day Rather than give up on freight traffic for the present day as being boring with trains too long to model, I thought it might be interesting to explore what could be achieved on a slightly larger layout. Modern wagons tend to be mostly bogie, and rather large. To help layout planning I have listed some rough lengths for modern wagons and locos in O gauge.

How can a modern freight train be kept short enough to model in a medium sized space? There are still some freight trains in the Working Timetables with timing (maximum) loads of 1000 tons or less. The aggregate train to Chichester normally has only 10 wagons due to layout and signalling constraints. There are other loaded trains in the working timetables with timing loads of 1000 tons or less, so that indicates a train length of 12 bogie wagons, or less. In model form a decent representation of such a train could be four or five wagons. If using the shorter bogie wagons, that gives a train length of 4 or 5 feet (1.2m to 1.5m) plus loco. Such a train length could be accommodated in a garage, loft, large shed or garden- based railway. Looking through sources such as Freightmaster and the Working Timetable the dominant flows appear to be Intermodal (containers), and aggregate trains. Other substantial flows are steel, cement, oil, and biomass. Lesser flows include nuclear waste, cars, bottled water, China clay, timber, MOD stores, scrap metal, and coal.

As you can see from the wagon lengths above, if 4-wheel wagons are used then a train will have more vehicles and appear longer to the eye. The loop at Stiffkey would accommodate four TTAs, or three or four VDA size wagons. If running bogie wagons then using the shorter vehicles would help give a better representation of a modern train. The JGA and JNA stone wagons are quite short by modern wagon standards. If anyone has space for a container terminal then using the FWA rather than FEA wagons could create the impression of a longer train, even if the wagons needed to be kit bashed from the longer ones. A train of six FWAs would fit in under 7ft but only four FEAs would fit in the same space. I don’t think many people have space for prototypical container trains that tend to be between 500m and 775m long (scale 11m to 17m).

Stone trains often run into locations with historical restrictions on their lengths. At Chelmsford Barham, Eccles Road, Norwich and Trowse the sidings are too short to accommodate the complete train, so it is split in two. Barham is an interesting location as the site is constrained by a bridge over the river Gipping and a lake. The result is three fairly short sidings and a head shunt. After unloading, the train goes forward to Claydon to run around before returning to the Midlands quarries.

Some stone or aggregate terminals have more than one flow. Chelmsford received materials via both DB Shenker and GB Railfreight trains. The Marks Tey sand loading terminal also receives some stone in addition to regularly dispatching sand in both hoppers and box wagons. So there is scope to have a variety of wagons and locos using the same terminal.

Church Farm cement and aggregate terminal on the approach to St Pancras is an example of a minimum space terminal with two traffics. Although it is long, the width is very constrained. Possibly a model of the unloading areas squeezed between two fictional bridges in a very urban setting could have some potential. Only part of the trains would be visible at any one time so they could be fairly short without it being noticed.

There may be scope to split a steel train in a similar way to what I described for the stone trains. Both Wolverhampton and Round Oak steel stock holding sites appear to have a similar format. They both effectively have a reception area with a loop and separate sidings that disappear into large warehouses. This is a marked change from the situation 20-30 years ago, when the old site at Wolverhampton was mostly in the open with a gantry crane and a medium size warehouse. In those days a lot of the steel was stored outside. Both of the above sites can be viewed on Google Maps.

For oil trains it is difficult to suggest a method of allowing a short train other than for loco fuel. The flow I am most familiar with is the North Walsham to Parkeston gas condensate. The train loads to 18 wagons using 100 ton tankers. The loading point at North Walsham consists of two loading tracks with a separate run-around. The train is divided in two and propelled into the loading sidings. On a layout it may be possible to have an off-stage runaround, and a couple of loading/unloading sidings each capable of holding three tankers, giving a representative train of six tankers.

Scrap is another traffic with some potential as there are still some scrap yards using rail. The sites at Kingsbury and Beeston do not appear to have massively long sidings. There may be scope to model such traffic, using possibly three or four bogie scrap wagons.

The Gauge O Guild website Wiki has a guide to what TOPS wagons are available ready to run and as kits TOPS Coded Wagons Available in O Gauge A browse of the available wagons could provide some inspiration for a layout based on the kits that suit your abilities.

The station at Cromer has a similar layout of platforms to the plan, although it is approached by two single lines. However in the summer it is the destination for dining car trains from the North Norfolk Railway. They usually consist of three or four coaches, with a steam loco on one end and a diesel on the other. If you have more space to allow a longer platform then a two or three coach representation of a dining car train may be a possibility. A model based on a combination of Cromer and the oil terminal at North Walsham may be possible. Add in a few through trains worked with units of other companies and there would be a good variety.

An oil terminal is shown on the plan. Operation would be limited to propelling short rakes of tankers into each siding from an assumed off-stage reception siding area. The cripple siding could be added if a 3-way turnout was used. Such a siding would add to the shunting potential by shunting a cripple out of a rake of tankers to be placed in the siding, then recovering it with a light engine. If an 08 was used to do the shunting then three TEA (bogie tankers) or four short bogie stone wagons can be accommodated in each siding. If a class 66 is used the capacity goes down to two and three wagons respectively, due to the length of the 66 and the space on the traversers.

The freight sidings might work better if used as an aggregate terminal. A hopper discharge pit could be provided. Either the backs of the aggregate bins, and a conveyor system or a grab crane, and low relief representation of the bins for box wagons. It might be possible to provide both grab, and hopper discharge facilities.

I have seen box wagons being emptied one at a time by a grab crane reaching over the back of an empty bin at Hamworthy. The engine moved the wagons up one at a time so the crane could reach them. An aggregate siding could allow two or three rakes of different wagons to be used. The passenger traffic potential for this plan is like the previous example with three-car platforms. The platforms are arranged on either side of the tracks rather than being an island. They are on an angle to provide space for a station building, and a forecourt to add scenic interest. Similar comments apply as to the previous plan, in that electric units could be used.

The freight facilities are based on those at Church Farm on the approach to St Pancras although on a smaller scale. There appears to be a few other sites in the UK where both cement and aggregates are handled. This proposed plan assumes that the site is very cramped so, rather than having aggregate bins, big vertical hoppers are provided to increase storage. Alternatively, the backs of bins could be modelled in low relief.

Operation of the freight trains would consist of the train arriving. The loco detaches and runs around via the traverser. A split traverser would be needed to include a sensible number of wagons. If they are aggregate wagons, the loco then pushes the wagons over the discharge. Alternatively, the train could be pushed down to the buffers to access the cement discharge hoses.

Alternative freight traffic could be steel, which allows the use of a variety of wagons, timber, industrial coal, oil, scrap, etc. If an additional siding was required, an extra point could allow one alongside the engine spur opposite the cement silos on the plan.

Some plans from this point onwards use PECO Setrack points and curves. In many instances one or other leg of the points have been reduced in length at the crossing (frog) end, to make the track plans more compact. Such alteration, although extremely valuable in terms of space saving, does invalidate the warranty. To cope with the sharp curves and avoid buffer locking, the use of Kadee or some other form of coupling is recommended.

I have based this plan on a potential ‘might have been’ Stiffkey Harbour. The real harbour at Stiffkey is a muddy tidal creek with a wooden landing stage. In my scenario the adjacent harbour at Wells did not develop due to silting, so Stiffkey was developed as it had the benefit of the Stiffkey river flow to wash the silt away and keep the harbour clear. It also had an outcrop of chalk to provide a firm foundation for harbour buildings. The fish quay is on an adjacent shallower part of the creek network.

In the 1960s early diesel period the traffic would have comprised of grain fertiliser, perhaps timber, fish and fuel oil for the ships and fishing boats. A shunting engine would have been used to move the wagons around so there is plenty of scope and interest for the modeller.

As the period progressed, some of the traffic would have transferred to road or ceased. In the 1970s grain was still being moved but in hopper wagons, with van traffic having ceased. Fertilisers would probably be moving by road. The fuel oil, timber and a reduced amount of fish would still be running but some of the wagons would be air braked.

By the 1980s the traffic might be modern grain hoppers, fuel oil, and seasonal fish in Interfrigo ferry wagons. As siding space in the harbour area is limited, there is still plenty of scope for shunting.

Moving into the modern era from 1994 to the present, major changes to the traffic are needed for the railway connection to survive. The Granary has been demolished and replaced with a warehouse for steel traffic, as at Boston. The tracks in the warehouses at Boston appear to hold about five or six wagons, brought by a shunter along the dock branch from a reception loop near the main running lines from Sleaford. The result once again is plenty of shunting to position short rakes of perhaps two or three wagons on the harbour tracks.

Two other reasonably prototypical traffics could be seadredged aggregate and export scrap. Two locations that I am aware of that load sea-dredged aggregate onto rail are Newhaven and Ipswich Griffin Wharf. The latter operation involves a short freight branch to part of the harbour at Ipswich. The train is split in two to be loaded, due to siding length. This is done by the train engine, but a shunter could be used to shuffle short rakes of wagons about. At Liverpool Alexandra Dock scrap is unloaded for export. There are three short loops, with four or five wagons being pushed beyond the loops to be unloaded. The model’s operation could consist of a shunter moving two or three wagons at a time for unloading.

In other parts of the country, other traffics could be represented. As an example, China clay and fuel oil for ships would be plausible for many time periods in the West Country. At Aberdeen, China clay slurry is loaded onto rail tank wagons. It appears that only four or five tankers can be loaded at a time. Wagons are moved to and from reception sidings to allow a longer train to be made up. On the layout, a couple of wagons could be loaded at a time.

This selection of layout ideas would not be complete without a Loco Depot. Many people have produced loco depots before, so I do not claim that this plan is original. The ideas are based on the depots at Peterborough that just had a single track double-ended maintenance shed for light services, with the depot at Ipswich. The fuelling point is based on the one at Ipswich which receives fuel by rail in TEAs, shunted into position one at a time. Electric locos and EMUs are also stabled at Ipswich. Crown Point depot at Norwich handled electric locos and diesel units until very recently. Electrified lines next to a fuelling point are not normally allowed so, if the fuelling point was moved to the top track,s the line along the bottom of the plan could be wired to stable a couple of electric locos.

The operation would consist of locos moving around to the various sidings, going into the shed for servicing and for taking fuel. The hidden area is long enough to take a class 08 and a TEA, so the fuel tanker shunt can appear and disappear. The fuel tanker shunt could be made more complex if 4-wheel TTBs were used, with scope to perhaps move two or three around. The single-track shed would have an open back if a traverser was used.

Alternatively, the hidden area could just be two tracks or, if extra length was available, a fiddle yard board could be added. Remember, the shed is double ended so what goes in the front does not need to come out that way. The sidings are long enough to take two locos and there are two head shunts, with reversing moves to give potential to shunt locos around to access the shed and fuel.

In another article I hope to explore potential for some larger modern layouts, based on a spare room a garage and a garage or shed with garden running.