Jump to content
 

Dursley Mills - 1:76th OOFS BR(WR) ex MR Terminus track plan


Dale
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would any of the resident track plan prototype guru's care to cast a glance over this plan?  The track basis is Dursley but with added MPD - a bit of prototype mixed with a bit of fiction.

 

 

Any obvious mistakes or issues?

 

D.

post-11004-0-97903000-1494442950_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks OK.  It was a weird station.  Should work well  .It would need need lots of farm implements on flat wagons..

The Midland seemed to like to have weird stations in this part of Gloucestershire, Nailsworth is pretty odd as was Stroud Midland, its as if they didn't have Anyrail to work their track plans out before they built them.

 

  I think Neyland is the weirdest station I know of, but that's a different story.

 

Not sure why there would be an MPD,   The locosheds at most branches are for the loco for the first passenger of the day which goes TO the junction.  The Goods will work from the Junction end,probably start at Glos Barnwood loco and the adjacent sidings and probably run once daily, quite a heavy train from the photos I have seen  in pre class 14 diesel days.   

 

As with most branches there would be more passenger workings than goods, I guess 4 passenger 1 goods?  Something overlooked in most models is South East excepted, Main lines generally have many more Goods workings than branches, 4 goods to 1 passenger is not atypical for steam era while branches it might well be 8 passenger trains and one goods (each way) per day.    A lot of branch goods trains were quite lengthy, a 14XX pushing a wagon and a van may have sufficed at the end of steam but just look at all the wagons being loaded and unloaded in 1950s pics.  

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nailsworth is pretty odd as was Stroud Midland

 

My plan for the front is to model the Thames & Severn/Stroudwater Navigation with the lock gates at Wallbridge.  Obviously not Dursley but its the flavour of the area I am after.  Like Stroud Wallbridge, you can see from the plan that passenger services play second fiddle to freight workings.

 

D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of development - an alternative scenic break with the track being view blocked by the mill building and trees.  have simplified the engine sheds area a bit too.

 

D.

post-11004-0-11528800-1494524441_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looks nice. I like quirky layouts.

 

Definitely better with the loco shed simplified, perhaps even a bit more. And I think I would have the depot only accessed from the main line, not the goods yard headshunt. It might be even better to have the shed on the other side of the line, allowing a longer headshunt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice. I like quirky layouts.

 

Definitely better with the loco shed simplified, perhaps even a bit more. And I think I would have the depot only accessed from the main line, not the goods yard headshunt. It might be even better to have the shed on the other side of the line, allowing a longer headshunt.

 

OK, I have played around a bit and made the changes suggested, but it has come at the price of the canal and cottages which were set along the front of the scene.  There inst room for them anymore sadly but see what you think?

 

D.

post-11004-0-43447900-1494530499_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to make a bit of space at the front of the layout but I am not sure how my canal and mill scene would fit in any more.

post-11004-0-84336500-1494530933_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to make a bit of space at the front of the layout but I am not sure how my canal and mill scene would fit in any more.

Its getting worse.  Bit like fitting go faster stripes,  a tow bar and roof rack to a Ferrari......

 

13.37 was better. But the top right siding will be awkward to shunt as the headshunt is rather short.  Think I would change the trailing crossover on the left of the plan for a facing one further to the left to make shunting the top right siding less tedious.  I would pull the empties out with the fulls and set the empties back towards the platform, but with a short headshunt you will tie yourself in knots running out of places to put wagons.

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I agree with David. Ditch the trailing crossover and move the facing crossover as far left as you can, probably almost up to the board joint. Your leftmost board with the canal bridge looks like a very attractive scene and I wouldn't want to disturb it.

 

Would the Midland have connected the sawmill siding to the goods loop via a diamond rather than incurring another facing point lock on the main? It would need a trap in any case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its getting worse.  Bit like fitting go faster stripes,  a tow bar and roof rack to a Ferrari......

 

13.37 was better. But the top right siding will be awkward to shunt as the headshunt is rather short.  Think I would change the trailing crossover on the left of the plan for a facing one further to the left to make shunting the top right siding less tedious.  I would pull the empties out with the fulls and set the empties back towards the platform, but with a short headshunt you will tie yourself in knots running out of places to put wagons.

 

 

I take your point about headshunt size.  try this on for size...

post-11004-0-17726600-1494578383_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with David. Ditch the trailing crossover and move the facing crossover as far left as you can, probably almost up to the board joint. Your leftmost board with the canal bridge looks like a very attractive scene and I wouldn't want to disturb it.

 

Would the Midland have connected the sawmill siding to the goods loop via a diamond rather than incurring another facing point lock on the main? It would need a trap in any case.

At Dursley it was a facing point but there was no head shunt.  The main line was used as it was 1 engine in steam but here, to add more entertainment, I have embellished an added more features.  I want to keep some of the flavor of the prototype but i need to entertain joe and his public :D

 

I will look at the diamond/single slip though, makes sense on this plan.  See attached for a quickie.

 

D.

post-11004-0-92431300-1494578935_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Track plan aside, I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of the Mill and canal basin. I assume the end wall abutting the canal is to allow direct unloading/loading from/to boats. If so, this would obstruct 70 foot narrow boats attempting to make the already very tight turn into the basin. To ease the latter, the bend on the canal could be eased and come under the railway on the skew. This would also make it easier to hide the exit of the canal into the backscene. An interesting project in a part of the country I know well, having been involved in the refurbishment of old Listers mill building several years ago.

Edited by Killybegs
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Track plan aside, I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of the Mill and canal basin. I assume the end wall abutting the canal is to allow direct unloading/loading from/to boats. If so, this would obstruct 70 foot narrow boats attempting to make the already very tight turn into the basin. To ease the latter, the bend on the canal could be eased and come under the railway on the skew. This would also make it easier to hide the exit of the canal into the backscene. An interesting project in a part of the country I know well, having been involved in the refurbishment of old Listers mill building several years ago.

 

I will get on to that asap.  I wanted the mill to lay along the canal against the long wall but need to orientate it to give concealment to the scenic break.  Certainly something to play around with.  there are plenty of cloth mills with direct boat access but it's an area I need to read more about.  You learn all sorts of things when building model railways.  My idea was the Mill would be suggestive of the area - there were a lot of wool mills, it was the main reason for the laying of the line, before the arrival of Listers etc.  There were also mills at Cam and Uley.  The canal is placed where the river was in Dursley, but a canal is again suggestive of the area.  The merchants of Dursley looked at Stroud with envy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Track plan aside, I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of the Mill and canal basin. I assume the end wall abutting the canal is to allow direct unloading/loading from/to boats. If so, this would obstruct 70 foot narrow boats attempting to make the already very tight turn into the basin. To ease the latter, the bend on the canal could be eased and come under the railway on the skew. This would also make it easier to hide the exit of the canal into the backscene. An interesting project in a part of the country I know well, having been involved in the refurbishment of old Listers mill building several years ago.

I think Walbridge was on the Stroudwater canal. The Stroudwater was built for 18th Century Severn Trows with typically 68 ft X 16 ft locks and ran from the Seven at Framilode to Brimscombe in the Stroud Valley, where it had an end on junction with the Thames and Severn which had 12 foot by 90ft + locks intended for Thames Barges which were 90 foot long.  Traffic on both canals was predominantly house coal from the Forest of Dean for Stroud Cirencester Cricklade, Lechlade.   

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Walbridge was on the Stroudwater canal. The Stroudwater was built for 18th Century Severn Trows with typically 68 ft X 16 ft locks and ran from the Seven at Framilode to Brimscombe in the Stroud Valley, where it had an end on junction with the Thames and Severn which had 12 foot by 90ft + locks intended for Thames Barges which were 90 foot long.  Traffic on both canals was predominantly house coal from the Forest of Dean for Stroud Cirencester Cricklade, Lechlade.   

were these the same Trow's (barges?) that are driven up on the mud near purton?

 

D.

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

were these the same Trow's (barges?) that are driven up on the mud near purton?

 

D.

I think they are similar but larger, twice the tonnage 20 ft longer 4 feet wider, too big for the Stroudwater's 68ft X 16ft locks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are similar but larger, twice the tonnage 20 ft longer 4 feet wider, too big for the Stroudwater's 68ft X 16ft locks

I used to play on those old barges when I was a kid.  No doubt health and safety would go crackers these days.

 

I have had another play and even stretched the front out a bit to make some more space for the canal scene.  The canal running alongside the railway is really important to the layout - the old and the new as it were, but I am struggling to make things seem natural.  Canals didnt like to meander much but I need to exit off the front of the board.  The route also copy's the route of the river cam in Dursley (almost?)

 

The locks are Ryeford Double Lock's.

 

A few changes to loop and platform lengths too, as well as removing a crossover.

post-11004-0-36224100-1494664930_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dale
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think the only problem with the original was the facing crossover which should be much further to the left to provide the ability to run-round a longer train.  Overall I much prefer the original - a bit of quirkiness gives it soem character and it is a perfectly workable layout apart from the constricted runround capacity.

 

Frankly long headshunts on branch line stations are something of a red herring as the goods usually shunted when passenger trains weren't running and thus used the branch itself as their headshunta (exactly the same as at most wayside stations but they usually had somewhere to put the freight trip aside to allow other trains to run through).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

OK, I have played around a bit and made the changes suggested, but it has come at the price of the canal and cottages which were set along the front of the scene.  There inst room for them anymore sadly but see what you think?

 

D.

Shame to lose the canal. Can it not go to the rear?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input folks, its massively prreciated.

 

The canal at the front stays but the row of cottages simply dont fit in the room available.  It add's a nice scene and also 'looks right' to me.  I have always wanted to model one too, which is why I dont have the River (ditch?) Cam as it was in the prototype.

 

I have often wrangled with simply sticking with the real thing, but IMHO one of the weaknesses of F/Y to terminus layouts at exhibition is that the action is one ended.  By adding the modest yard and TT, viewers at that end have something to watch beyond the brief arrival and departure of trains.  Whilst being 100% faithful to reality, I dont think a model of Dursley as it was would be enertaining enough for the 'Average Show Joe'.

 

I will have a look again at the first incarnation Mike and see if that track plan can be incorperated with the off track detail from the last version.

 

D.

 

EDIT: A few learned and wise folk have mentioned trailing and facing cross overs, and whilst I know what they are, as the line is single track bi-directional, I have no idea which one is which on the plan.  At worst there are three cross overs, the far right at the station end, the middle and the far left nearest the scenic break.  Which ones which lads?

 

D. (again)

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for the input folks, its massively prreciated.

 

The canal at the front stays but the row of cottages simply dont fit in the room available.  It add's a nice scene and also 'looks right' to me.  I have always wanted to model one too, which is why I dont have the River (ditch?) Cam as it was in the prototype.

 

I have often wrangled with simply sticking with the real thing, but IMHO one of the weaknesses of F/Y to terminus layouts at exhibition is that the action is one ended.  By adding the modest yard and TT, viewers at that end have something to watch beyond the brief arrival and departure of trains.  Whilst being 100% faithful to reality, I dont think a model of Dursley as it was would be enertaining enough for the 'Average Show Joe'.

 

I will have a look again at the first incarnation Mike and see if that track plan can be incorperated with the off track detail from the last version.

 

D.

 

EDIT: A few learned and wise folk have mentioned trailing and facing cross overs, and whilst I know what they are, as the line is single track bi-directional, I have no idea which one is which on the plan.  At worst there are three cross overs, the far right at the station end, the middle and the far left nearest the scenic break.  Which ones which lads?

 

D. (again)

 

Facing or trailing for an arriving passenger train is my interpretation (and of course they're the other way round for a departing passenger train but you obviously can't move the one at the platform end ;) ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi

 

I have just stumbled across this thread. It is very interesting as Dursley station site is litterally a stones throw from my house!

 

I don't feel qualified to have much input re track layout, but my 1st impression is that its too straight, which would not help with your canal at the front.

 

There are a few bits of info I can share with you, which may, or may not be usefull.

 

The river in this location is not (yet) the cam, but the Ewelme. It actually enters a culvert under the end house of our row, re-emerging within the old Lister site. I think it may merge into the cam in Cam a mile or so further down the valley.

 

Below is a view of the Listers site today, this would be from the right hand end of your boards.

 

post-25234-0-69769700-1496141908_thumb.jpg

 

Adjacent is what is known as The Priory, now largely vacant, formerly Listers offices.

 

post-25234-0-38414700-1496142060_thumb.jpg

 

And next round the row of cottages where I live. I do intend modelling them at some point, but haven't found the space on my layout to give me the excuse.

 

post-25234-0-66100200-1496142684_thumb.jpg

 

There still exisits a mill in Cam, where I believe they produce baise for snooker tables.

 

Little remains of the railway, but if you would like any more photos etc, please let me know.

 

I will of course follow developments with interest, please keep us updated

 

TONY

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for both the interest and the pic's Tony.  How things have changed.  I lived at Kingshill (Olive Grove, behind the old cinema/Kwicksave) when I was a kid but I was young and don't remember a great deal.  It was a decent walk to primary school and Highfields was worse :P

 

I had moved to Berkeley before secondary school though so missed out on the Rednock experience.

 

I hope to get back down to Gloucestershire this year so will have to have a wander around Dursley again.

 

Dale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...