Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Posted Image What was your favourite model of 2017? Cast your vote


Photo
- - - - -

Hampton Malstead

blt design layout OO 4mm GWR devon terminus hampton malstead




  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 08 January 2018 - 08:32

Here's the first image of a design I've been working on for my first layout on returning to the hobby after many years.

 

It's a fictitious mid-1930s GWR branch line terminus (yes, I know - another one...)

 

Hampton Malstead 26.png

 

Trackwork is all Peco Streamline and all points are large radius so that it can be constructed from Bullhead (correct 4mm scale) track.

 

The station design compresses together elements from various prototypes and I have an imagined history behind it, which I might expand upon.

 

The model will use some of Iain Rice's ideas (as you can no doubt see) and will be mounted at around eye level.

 

I have drawn point rodding runs, following KNP's recent advice to plan it in advance, but I have not yet attempted to work out the signalling.

 

I'd love to hear from you if you can see mistakes or opportunities for improvement but please bear in mind the constraints of space and the deliberate foreshortening of depth.


Edited by Harlequin, 08 January 2018 - 09:26 .

  • Like x 11

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#2 clachnaharry

clachnaharry

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 08 January 2018 - 09:11

The track plan looks very plausible, if a little limited operationally. The only thing that jars slightly is the turntable. Whilst not completely unknown, these were extremely rare on rural, single platform GWR branch termini. The only exceptions that I can think of are Fairford and Princetown (and in the latter case it was removed well before closure).
  • Agree x 2
  • Thanks x 1

#3 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,766 posts
  • LocationSomewhat rotten in the state of Denmark

Posted 08 January 2018 - 09:37

Cardigan, too - see trackplan here: http://www.disused-s....uk/c/cardigan/ - although photos of the turntable are scarce.

#4 anthony07

anthony07

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 590 posts
  • LocationGuyhirne

Posted 08 January 2018 - 19:40

Slightly off-topic, but did you use planning software to produce your proposed layout? If you did, which one was it, it looks very nice!

 

regards,

 

Tony



#5 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 08 January 2018 - 20:50

The track plan looks very plausible, if a little limited operationally. The only thing that jars slightly is the turntable. Whilst not completely unknown, these were extremely rare on rural, single platform GWR branch termini. The only exceptions that I can think of are Fairford and Princetown (and in the latter case it was removed well before closure).

 

 

Cardigan, too - see trackplan here: http://www.disused-s....uk/c/cardigan/ - although photos of the turntable are scarce.

 

Thanks. I think there were enough examples of turntables at terminus stations that survived well into the 20th century to justify the inclusion of one in a fictitious 1930s setting - if I concoct a reasonable back-story. (I'm thinking also of Newquay, Minehead and Kingswear but I realise these were bigger stations.)

 

But you have made me ask myself, "Why did I originally include a turntable and do I really need one?". I'll have to think about that!


Edited by Harlequin, 08 January 2018 - 21:13 .

  • Like x 1

#6 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 08 January 2018 - 20:55

Slightly off-topic, but did you use planning software to produce your proposed layout? If you did, which one was it, it looks very nice!

 

regards,

 

Tony

 

Thanks! I'm using a normal drawing program because I wanted to get cleaner output than the dedicated track planning programs - more like the track plans you see in the magazines.

 

More info and resources here: http://www.rmweb.co....ation-software/



#7 anthony07

anthony07

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 590 posts
  • LocationGuyhirne

Posted 08 January 2018 - 20:56

Thanks Phil



#8 Miss Prism

Miss Prism

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,532 posts

Posted 08 January 2018 - 22:52

It seems too squeezed for me, particularly for somewhere that is intended to have been in broad gauge at some time (and if it had been, why remove the train shed?). The inclusion of the turntable feels false to me. I can't see why you need the signal box, because the station is not big enough to be more than a 'one engine in steam' affair.

  • Agree x 1

#9 DavidCBroad

DavidCBroad

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,068 posts
  • LocationCotswolds England

Posted 09 January 2018 - 00:06

It looks good to me, terrain like Moertonhampstead. Only the kick back siding jars, it will be awkward to shunt and should need quite a few wagons per day to keep the town supplied with gas.

The  "Signal Cabin" could well be just a ground frame as there seems to be little scope for anything but one engine in steam operation.


  • Like x 1

#10 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 09 January 2018 - 07:35

 

It seems too squeezed for me, particularly for somewhere that is intended to have been in broad gauge at some time (and if it had been, why remove the train shed?). The inclusion of the turntable feels false to me. I can't see why you need the signal box, because the station is not big enough to be more than a 'one engine in steam' affair.

 

 

Thanks. Do you mean too squeezed as a model or too squeezed as a prototype? Obviously it is deliberately "concentrated" as a model to pack interesting features into a small space but I hope I haven't gone too far and that there's still "room to breathe".

 

I'm thinking about the turntable.

 

Back story: The original broad gauge shed burned down, unfortunately. The station building itself was damaged in the fire and although it could have been repaired the board took the opportunity to modernise and commissioned a contemporary Arts and Crafts design.

 

It looks good to me, terrain like Moertonhampstead. Only the kick back siding jars, it will be awkward to shunt and should need quite a few wagons per day to keep the town supplied with gas.

The  "Signal Cabin" could well be just a ground frame as there seems to be little scope for anything but one engine in steam operation.

 

Thanks. Moretonhampstead was/is a big inspiration but was simply too big to compress into the space available while keeping anything like the trackplan.

 

The awkward kickback siding to the gasworks is a very deliberate Ricean device to make operation more challenging and to make the layout visually more active and interesting. Back story: The siding and the bridge were added when the gasworks was improved and moving coal from the goods yard via horse and cart along the local lanes was no longer good enough.

 

As to the signal box, I would justify it on these grounds:

  • There are 10 sets of points (inc traps) to control
  • An as yet undetermined number of signals to control
  • There's ongoing activity shunting coal into the gasworks to be coordinated with goods and passenger traffic
  • The station workers complained bitterly about having to stand around at ground frames in moorland gales
  • Even Moretonhampstead famously had a small "box" attached to the engine shed, with fewer points to control then here

So a small box was erected.

 

Does that sound plausible?


Edited by Harlequin, 09 January 2018 - 11:53 .

  • Like x 1

#11 clachnaharry

clachnaharry

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:18

I like your argument for complicating the shunting. Having to clear a siding for an awkward shunt always looks interesting, especially if it results in the engine sandwiched between rakes of wagons.

One thing that is starting to jar is the culvert. It just looks too wide. Could you take a look at reversing the engine shed and the gasworks? Shunting now becomes even more awkward as you have to shunt across the running line. You can also model more of the gasworks You could then reduce the width of the culvert and use a second bridge to access the gasworks. The bridge to the engine shed occurs in at least one prototype (Aberayon?)
  • Agree x 1

#12 Nick Holliday

Nick Holliday

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • LocationSutton, Surrey

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:40

I would remove the coal bins alongside the siding. GWR branch stations in the West Country just didn't have them, as they would have tied up too much of the siding space, preventing other traders having access. None of the traditional BLT's had them, the coal was generally unloaded directly onto the road vehicle for delivery. This would give a better sense of spaciousness, reducing the rather crowded feel a bit.
  • Agree x 2
  • Thanks x 1

#13 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 09 January 2018 - 17:28

There is one good excuse for a TT at a country terminus with relatively modest goods facilities and that is to make it home to a seaside resort or race track, so that there will be specials and weekend traffic.

 

This is because that, in addition to the modest usual branch service, you will have specials, longer trains requiring tender locomotives.  This creates more problems than it solves, however, because this would entail far longer platforms and at least 2-3 carriage sidings to accommodate this extra traffic.

 

Other railways, e.g Alston (NER) and Rothbury (NBR) had TTs terminating the platform loop, but it is not really a feature of the GWR, as has been said.

 

Otherwise, great idea, and Icertainly look forward to developments.



#14 Lacathedrale

Lacathedrale

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 19:26

What purpose is there for a crossover at the end of the platform? Why not just taper down to a single track and lose a turnout?

 

What about having the bay platform/engine shed/turntable road diverging 'ahead' of the break to the fiddle yard (i.e. access via traverser tracks) in order to stretch the layout longitudinally?

 

Maybe have the gasworks siding going closer up against the mainline and using the gasworks building itself as a view break, in order that you can imply a longer siding and bigger facility to justify that bridge?



#15 roythebus

roythebus

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • LocationNear the 15" gauge and the 5"gauge, far from standard gauge, but 25 miles from Calais.

Posted 09 January 2018 - 20:39

Thanks. Do you mean too squeezed as a model or too squeezed as a prototype? Obviously it is deliberately "concentrated" as a model to pack interesting features into a small space but I hope I haven't gone too far and that there's still "room to breathe".

 

I'm thinking about the turntable.

 

Back story: The original broad gauge shed burned down, unfortunately. The station building itself was damaged in the fire and although it could have been repaired the board took the opportunity to modernise and commissioned a contemporary Arts and Crafts design.

 

 

Thanks. Moretonhampstead was/is a big inspiration but was simply too big to compress into the space available while keeping anything like the trackplan.

 

The awkward kickback siding to the gasworks is a very deliberate Ricean device to make operation more challenging and to make the layout visually more active and interesting. Back story: The siding and the bridge were added when the gasworks was improved and moving coal from the goods yard via horse and cart along the local lanes was no longer good enough.

 

As to the signal box, I would justify it on these grounds:

  • There are 10 sets of points (inc traps) to control
  • An as yet undetermined number of signals to control
  • There's ongoing activity shunting coal into the gasworks to be coordinated with goods and passenger traffic
  • The station workers complained bitterly about having to stand around at ground frames in moorland gales
  • Even Moretonhampstead famously had a small "box" attached to the engine shed, with fewer points to control then here

So a small box was erected.

 

Does that sound plausible?

 

There would be only two crossovers to control from a signal box, that on the platform entry and that into the bay platform at the top of the plan. The run round crossover would be worked from a ground frame usually unlocked by the single line staff or token, all others would be hand-worked. The controlled points would be fitted with facing point locks as they are on passenger carrying lines. There would be a starter signal in the main platform, shunt signals to exit the loop and bay platform (assuming it isn't used for passenger trains); if it's used for passengers, it would need a starter signal. Depending on how good you are at signal building, the signal controlling entry to the platform could be off scene, otherwise a simple semaphore arm for entry to the platform and a shunt dolly to control all other shunt movements.


  • Thanks x 1

#16 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 09 January 2018 - 20:57

Thanks all, Lots to think about here!

 

I would remove the coal bins alongside the siding. GWR branch stations in the West Country just didn't have them, as they would have tied up too much of the siding space, preventing other traders having access. None of the traditional BLT's had them, the coal was generally unloaded directly onto the road vehicle for delivery. This would give a better sense of spaciousness, reducing the rather crowded feel a bit.

That's very interesting. It would definitely help to open the goods yard up a bit and I could also move the weighbridge off-scene. Another option is to consume more of the meadow, thus giving access to the southern siding from both sides. But I need to be wary of railway vs. non-railway balance.

 

There is one good excuse for a TT at a country terminus with relatively modest goods facilities and that is to make it home to a seaside resort or race track, so that there will be specials and weekend traffic.

 

This is because that, in addition to the modest usual branch service, you will have specials, longer trains requiring tender locomotives.  This creates more problems than it solves, however, because this would entail far longer platforms and at least 2-3 carriage sidings to accommodate this extra traffic.

 

Other railways, e.g Alston (NER) and Rothbury (NBR) had TTs terminating the platform loop, but it is not really a feature of the GWR, as has been said.

 

Otherwise, great idea, and Icertainly look forward to developments.

A nearby racecourse is a great idea - a great reason for increased traffic in this imagined world. Unfortunately a 45ft table isn't big enough to accommodate most tender locos, although I gather that it was possible to temporarily extend them when required (probably impossible to model). To be honest, I think the writing's on the wall for the turntable.

 

What purpose is there for a crossover at the end of the platform? Why not just taper down to a single track and lose a turnout?

 

What about having the bay platform/engine shed/turntable road diverging 'ahead' of the break to the fiddle yard (i.e. access via traverser tracks) in order to stretch the layout longitudinally?

 

Maybe have the gasworks siding going closer up against the mainline and using the gasworks building itself as a view break, in order that you can imply a longer siding and bigger facility to justify that bridge?

Two reasons for the crossover at the end of the platform: 1. The southern extension serves the cattle pens, like Moretonhampstead. 2. I think I read somewhere that Board of Trade rules said that where double lines terminated they must be aligned, not staggered. (I must admit that doesn't seem quite right or necessarily applicable in this case, now that I write it down, but I'll say it anyway and see if any experts have an opinion on that.)

[Edit: The crossover at the end of the platform was common to many broad gauge termini, I think.]

 

For some reason, having part of the station trackwork being implied, off-scene, feels wrong to me. Not sure why. But I take your point about using the traverser more creatively. (I had a secret connection through the engine shed in the back of my mind.)

 

The closer the gasworks line is to the running lines, the less reason for a separate bridge. But then maybe, with the turntable gone, the whole station throat could cross an enlarged brook or small river on a timber platform. That would be quite a feature!

 

Decisions, decisions...


Edited by Harlequin, 09 January 2018 - 21:26 .


#17 Lacathedrale

Lacathedrale

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 21:41

Interesting - your prototype knowledge is quite spot on, so as you say maybe just some basic tweaking of your own volition?

 

Would the running lines have been set on a 7' gauge or when they were re-laid would they have been brought together? What about other railway infrastructure?

 

If you're going to get rid of the turntable, how about bending the lines concave to the viewer? That way you can push the running lines for the station back and have the gasworks bridge a little further forward and less.. adjacent. :)



#18 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:49

Moretonhampstead broad gauge:

moretonhampstead(before1892)old8.jpg

 

Moretonhampstead standard gauge:

5613236_orig.jpg


  • Like x 5

#19 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:56

Do you necessarily need a trap point where indicated, as there is an opposing turnout to protect the running line from the shed sidings?


Edited by Edwardian, 10 January 2018 - 07:52 .

  • Thanks x 1

#20 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 10 January 2018 - 08:12

Small update, minimal changes:

Hampton Malstead 29b.png

 

Trees and other plant growth turned off for clarity.

Point rodding turned off pending revision.

Turntable removed and engine house repositioned.

Brook flows under tracks through shortened culvert.

Coal staithes removed.

Trap point removed.

 


  • Like x 6

#21 Lacathedrale

Lacathedrale

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 09:22

I like it alot Phil! In my most humble opinion I think that Broad Gauge shed really does have quite alot of charm.


  • Like x 1

#22 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 11 January 2018 - 23:53

I like it alot Phil! In my most humble opinion I think that Broad Gauge shed really does have quite alot of charm.

The old broad gauge train sheds are very distinctive but personally I find them difficult to include in a model because they look a bit plain and have the same bulk and roof pitch as modern portal-frame farm buildings! So to the untutored eye they could look jarring in a mid-century setting. They also hide small trains and hide the associated station building, which in the case of Moretonhampstead at least, seems to have been quite a dour Victorian affair.

 

Functional GWR design, not at all like the playful architecture of the Caterham line!



#23 Harlequin

Harlequin

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationThe Mid-West - of Devon

Posted 12 January 2018 - 00:09

Please don't shoot me down too brutally here because I'm a novice trying to collate conflicting information from different sources! I know some of this is wrong but anyway, here goes...

 

Here is my first attempt at a signalling diagram for Hampton Malstead:

Hampton Malstead 29d signalling.png

 

It's overlaid on top of my actual layout design so distances have not been compressed as they would be on a real signal box diagram and I have not changed my point symbols to show their "normal"/"off" states. The thin red lines are also not part of a real signal box diagram - just for me to work out where point rodding would go.

 

In the mid thirties would the platform crossover ground frame (GF2) have been unlocked from the signal box, possibly electrically? Or would they be using a staff or token?

 

Since the running line out of the station needs to also serve as a headshunt would there have been any special signalling associated with that?


Edited by Harlequin, 12 January 2018 - 00:15 .

  • Like x 2
  • Craftsmanship/Clever x 1

#24 Lacathedrale

Lacathedrale

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:01

The Caterham plan may yet live in some form or another, most likely 2mm/N at this rate

 

This is a slight digression from the discussion but if you could advise on where you picked up the signalling you've shown that would be great - I think I have a basic knowledge of the broad types, but as it comes to multi-arm signals/etc. it's all a bit of a mystery.



#25 clachnaharry

clachnaharry

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 12 January 2018 - 10:38

If you compare your trackplan with prototype locations of similar size and complexity, your signal provision is way over the top. Bracketed signals were only usually found where there were more than one passenger routes, such as entry/exit from a second platform. the only armed signals are likely to be a home signal protecting entry to the station, and a starter allowing exit.

Signal 1 is superfluous. Exit from the engine shed kickback is authorised by ground disk signal 5.
Signal 2 is correctly positioned, but should be a single post starter signal.
Signal 3 has no function.
Disk 4 is correctly positioned and controls exit from the loop and sidings to the running line
Disk 5 is correctly positioned and controls exit from the engine shed kickback to the running line
Signal 6 should be a ground disk
Signal 7 is correctly positioned but should be a single post home signal
Signal 8 should be a ground disk. (disks 6 and 8 could be mounted low on the home signal post. I think it may even be correct for these to be a single disk which allows the home signal to be passed at danger but allows entry into either the engine shed or RR loop)
Points 10 and 14 should be a crossover controlled by a single lever
FPL 11 - OK
Points 12 and 16 should be a crossover controlled by a single lever
FPL 13 - OK
Point 15 should be a hand operated point
GF1 is not required these points would be hand operated
GF2 is ok

As shunting takes place on the running line, there should be an "off stage" advanced starter

Edited by clachnaharry, 12 January 2018 - 10:49 .

  • Thanks x 1
  • Agree x 1
  • Like x 1








Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: blt, design, layout, OO, 4mm, GWR, devon, terminus, hampton malstead

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.