Jump to content
 
  • entries
    261
  • comments
    1,413
  • views
    143,356

Summer module - track alterations


Barry Ten

748 views

Over the last week I've been implementing some long-intended alterations to the track layout of the Summer module.

 

blogentry-6720-0-33799100-1342041072.jpg

 

The existing arrangement was entirely prototypical, in that it allowed "up" trains to set back into the goods yard, but there was no equivalent means for down trains to access the goods yard without a cumbersome run-round move. In reality (as I think Stationmaster confirmed at one point on this blog, or perhaps elsewhere), such a yard - be it on a branch or cross-country route - would in general only have been worked by up trains, with any wagons intended for "down" the line being moved on up to the nearest station that could remarshall them in the appropriate manner for a down service.

 

Here are a couple of shots of the existing arrangement:

 

blogentry-6720-0-28664700-1472549010.jpg

 


blogentry-6720-0-36831300-1407703248.jpg

 

I'd long felt that I was missing out on a bit of operational fun by not being able to shunt down trains, so I started thinking about adding a trailing link from the down line, via a single-slip and a 3-way turnout. Another factor in this desire was time spent playing with PMP's layouts, especially Albion Yard, with its interesting arrangement of points. As it stood, the Summer module only really had one truly visible point, with the others being mostly or entirely off-stage. Now, I didn't realise it at the time, but one of the enjoyable aspects of our hobby is watching engines and trains snake across pointwork, and I started to realise I was missing out on that aspect. Adding some more "on-stage" pointwork would definitely enhance the fun factor.

 

Two other factors coming into play were that the track was not level in some places, due to my inexperience laying C+L, resulting in some dips between rail sections, as well as some stretches where there was an awkward lean to one side, scarcely noticeable in side-on photos but annoyingly apparent in end-on shots. I was also unhappy with the ballasting, which had been done using Copydex. For me, that's an experiment I'm glad I did, but one I won't be repeating! I found it too easily damaged after it had been laid, as well as hard to get as neat as I'd have wished. So, it's back to PVA for the second time round.

 

One minor positive of the weakly-bonded Copydex ballast was that it was quite easy to lift. Once I'd cleared the relevant area, I began by installing the single-slip across the up line, as I felt that this would be the critical part around which everything else revolved. I then added the trailing point on the down line, trimming both the point and the slip to get a closer alignment between the up and down lines. Once that was thoroughly tested, I added the 3-way:

 

blogentry-6720-0-34660500-1501011731_thumb.jpg

 

The aim was to get a flowing movement across the slip and into the yard:

 

blogentry-6720-0-04897800-1501011796_thumb.jpg

 

Again, I tested this thoroughly, adjusting and filing rail joints until a Prairie tank was able to move smoothly through all the routes with no visible "twitch" of the pony wheels as they cross the sections. I was also satisfied that my Comet-chassis Pannier was able to traverse the routes at a crawl, despite the diverging route on the slip being (I think) a bit tighter than my ruling minimum of 30 inches elsewhere.

 

Inevitably all this work has meant that the sidings need realignment as well, but again I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the tracklaying in several areas so it's worth the pain of lifting and re-laying. In the photos above you can see how the track has been loosely aligned before continuing with the work. The new bullhead is all Peco, by the way, simply because it's easily available, but I wouldn't say there's any great advantage or disadvantage over the C+L: both are pretty flimsy compared to "standard" Peco flexible track and demand careful handling. These rails pop out of the chairs if you so much as glance at them!

 

I will admit that one final motivation for all this work has been admiring the absolutely gorgeous track and ballasting on Stoke Courtenay, which in my view is one of the finest layouts on the forum. While I don't have the skills to lay my points by hand (yes, I've tried!) I still felt I could up my game a bit, if only in terms of neatness. The finished result won't approach Stoke Courtenay but it'll be better than it was.

 

Here's a link to the Stoke Courtenay topic thread, for those who may not have seen it. This is a link to the most recent page, but I recommend reading right from the start:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112547-stoke-courtenay/page-14

 

Finally, all this change has prompted thoughts that the station needs a new name. King's Hintock is fine but it's too similar to John Flann's fine and long-standing Hintock, probably why the name jumped out as me as suitably GWR-like! I got it from a list of Thomas Hardy place names so I think a fresh perusal may be in order - although I'll be sure not to use Sherton Abbas as well!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-19033-sherton-abbas-goes-digital/

 

Thanks for reading.

  • Like 8

3 Comments


Recommended Comments

This looks to be a very useful modification.  It also brings out the importance of painting the sides of the rails - a key step that some modellers tend to miss.  I look forward to seeing the finished version.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

I should add that I removed the existing trailing connection from the up line (the pair of points under the road bridge) and am reinstating the trailing connection further back, so that a complete train can be set back into the yard from the down line. It can there either be shunted by the down goods engine (after a run-round move) or left to be attended by the next up goods.

 

The up starter signal (near the barrow crossing) was removed as part of the works. I was initially under the assumption it ought to be relocated to the end of the up platform, protecting the crossing from the down line - indeed, that seems to be a common arrangement. But looking at some track and signalling diagrams in the four volumes of RH Clarke, I see that Aldermaston (for instance) still has its starter signal in the same location as mine would have been. Presumably if the crossing had to be protected, it would be done so with the home signal in advance of the platform, so that no train could enter the block if a shunting move was necessary.

 

It would be academic, but the up platform is quite short, so if a train engine is required to stop in advance of the single-slip, with anything more than four coaches, the rear part of the train will still be straddling the level crossing. Perhaps that sort of thing wasn't uncommon, especially if the station stop would be timetabled to be relatively brief and the road traffic not particularly heavy.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...