Hampton Malstead

[Junctionmad]

Forgive my silly question , but in these track arrangements , how did the GWR release the good engine, presumably all goods  trains entered the platform road and the engine was freed there , fine in a one-engine-in-steam idea, but  how can you access the goods yards if you have a standing passenger train ? , i.e. in a more intensive model form 

[Regularity]

Usually, yes. Plenty of time in the timetables to allow for the goods to arrive in the main platform road. If that road is occupied, then the goods can arrive in the loop, but running round has to wait for platform road to be vacated.

Not that there weren’t exceptions, of course.

 

As you say, intensively operated model layouts are not ideal for this, hence a preponderance of bay platforms, etc.

[Compound2632]

If, as The Stationmaster says, arrivals had to be into the platform road, presumably there would be adequate time for the stock of an arriving passenger train to be shunted into either the carriage sidings or the bay, making way for the goods arrival.

[Regularity]

Or just into the goods yard: any siding would do.

[Compound2632]

Or just into the goods yard: any siding would do.

 

True; I was thinking of the Barnstaple layout which has a dedicated carriage siding. 

 

I'm I right in thinking that a train couldn't be accepted into the section if the road wasn't set for the arrival line (platform road), or would it be possible to accept a train and halt it at the down home?

[Miss Prism]

I'm I right in thinking that a train couldn't be accepted into the section if the road wasn't set for the arrival line (platform road), or would it be possible to accept a train and halt it at the down home?

 

Bodmin had a special 'calling on' arrangement for accepting a passenger train where there was already a train occupying the platform. (Bodmin didn't have a bay.)

[Harlequin]

Forgive my silly question , but in these track arrangements , how did the GWR release the good engine, presumably all goods  trains entered the platform road and the engine was freed there , fine in a one-engine-in-steam idea, but  how can you access the goods yards if you have a standing passenger train ? , i.e. in a more intensive model form 

 

I'm pretty new at this so but surely the answer is: timetables and signalling. You know how many trains your station can handle at once and you design your timetable so that the station is never overloaded and so that the reception line(s) for the next incoming train will be freed up well in advance. Then if things go wrong and none of the acceptable reception lines are free the signalman shouldn't allow the incoming train anywhere near, making sure on single line tracks that it also doesn't prevent him sending a train out, otherwise things would be really jammed up!

 

The experts will be able to illuminate us.

[Harlequin]

Before I get too far redrawing my design can I do a quick straw poll and ask what people think of the proposed bay platform?

 

I know some of you don't like it but can you give your reasons, please?

 

And if you think it's reasonable I'd like to hear from you too.

 

Thanks,

[Lacathedrale]

I like the bay platform from a wholly emotional viewpoint - it looks pretty, it 'fits' mentally with a branch line station and particularly of a bygone era. It contributes to an impressionistic view of a scene.  IMHO not EVERYTHING has to be done in pursuit of pure  functionalism.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Nick Holliday]

I've been intrigued how this design has evolved and developed over the eighty posts. It's now looking very similar to Ruxley, one of the Epsom and Ewell MRC's OO layouts. This is quite an iconic layout, originally dating from the sixties, although kept up to date so that it is still on the exhibition circuit, whilst retaining its sixties style.

With signalling professionals in the club, it is full signalled and operated in a prototypical way, albeit with a rather unprototypical frequency.

The main difference is that Ruxley is much longer than Hampton Malstead, although much of that is the landscaped area giving a bit of distance from the station itself and the hidden fiddle yard. There are few photos of it on the net, but if it is erected at the next club night, a photo session might ensue.

[Craigw]

Before I get too far redrawing my design can I do a quick straw poll and ask what people think of the proposed bay platform?

 

I know some of you don't like it but can you give your reasons, please?

 

And if you think it's reasonable I'd like to hear from you too.

 

Thanks,

 

I think the bay should be slightly shorter and used for milk or livestock traffic. This was quite common on branches and would give you some interesting stock variety. I would also remove the mileage siding, I think it clutters things too much.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Junctionmad]

I've been intrigued how this design has evolved and developed over the eighty posts. It's now looking very similar to Ruxley, one of the Epsom and Ewell MRC's OO layouts. This is quite an iconic layout, originally dating from the sixties, although kept up to date so that it is still on the exhibition circuit, whilst retaining its sixties style.

With signalling professionals in the club, it is full signalled and operated in a prototypical way, albeit with a rather unprototypical frequency.

The main difference is that Ruxley is much longer than Hampton Malstead, although much of that is the landscaped area giving a bit of distance from the station itself and the hidden fiddle yard. There are few photos of it on the net, but if it is erected at the next club night, a photo session might ensue.

You mean the OPs layout is getting horribly close to this, perhaps this is the fate of all GWR BLTs designed by a committee

[Junctionmad]

I'm pretty new at this so but surely the answer is: timetables and signalling. You know how many trains your station can handle at once and you design your timetable so that the station is never overloaded and so that the reception line(s) for the next incoming train will be freed up well in advance. Then if things go wrong and none of the acceptable reception lines are free the signalman shouldn't allow the incoming train anywhere near, making sure on single line tracks that it also doesn't prevent him sending a train out, otherwise things would be really jammed up!

 

The experts will be able to illuminate us.

I know how it was done in real life. The issue is on a model , operating frequency is orders of magnitude greater then in real life , so you don't have a sleepy afternoon to while away shunting the train out of the way !!!

 

The problem is it's a one engine layout in reality

Edited January 18, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Craigw]

I know how it was done in real life. The issue is on a model , operating frequency is orders of magnitude greater then in real life , so you don't have a sleepy afternoon to while away shunting the train out of the way !!!

 

The problem is it's a one engine layout in reality

 

A very important point that often gets overlooked and results in something that loses the very attraction and appeal of a branch line terminus.

 

Most of them only ever had one loco intruding at any one time. There may be a passnger train, a mixed or a goods, but there was only one. A branch line station is something small and achievable but if you want masses of "operation" possibly not for you. The fun is in running an individual train - and building them rather than trying to get yourself into a fictional knot by running more trains than would ever appear in reality.

 

Less is more and the typical convinces etc etc.

 

regards,

 

Craig W

[Rivercider]

Before I get too far redrawing my design can I do a quick straw poll and ask what people think of the proposed bay platform?

 

I know some of you don't like it but can you give your reasons, please?

 

And if you think it's reasonable I'd like to hear from you too.

 

Thanks,

I know stations with a bay platform are less common, but if I were designing a layout I would have one, to keep me more interested.

(I am more of a Southern man so am thinking Bude ,Ilfracombe, Sidmouth, Seaton).

If the bay is long enough to leave the auto-coach, or a couple of short vans on the blocks and still access the shed road it would be ok,

 

just my thoughts...

 

cheers 

[Harlequin]

You mean the OPs layout is getting horribly close to this, perhaps this is the fate of all GWR BLTs designed by a committee IMG_0144.JPG

Ha ha! In this case the committee is advisory only and I have the final say!

[Harlequin]

I know how it was done in real life. The issue is on a model , operating frequency is orders of magnitude greater then in real life , so you don't have a sleepy afternoon to while away shunting the train out of the way !!!

 

The problem is it's a one engine layout in reality

Sorry, I missed the qualifier about "intensive model form" in your question.

 

In the model, isn't the answer a scale version of my previous answer, though? Hold the incoming train off and get the shunting done.

 

A very important point that often gets overlooked and results in something that loses the very attraction and appeal of a branch line terminus.

 

Most of them only ever had one loco intruding at any one time. There may be a passnger train, a mixed or a goods, but there was only one. A branch line station is something small and achievable but if you want masses of "operation" possibly not for you. The fun is in running an individual train - and building them rather than trying to get yourself into a fictional knot by running more trains than would ever appear in reality.

 

Less is more and the typical convinces etc etc.

 

regards,

 

Craig W

 

Can you guys explain what you mean by "a one engine layout in reality"?

 

If the model correctly represents a station that allows more than one engine in steam then why does the model preclude that?

 

I can see that a single operator imposes some limitations - i.e. one movement at a time.

[clachnaharry]

Re the bay question - I can only think of a single rural GWR terminus which had one.

 

Cornwall & Devon

 

St Ives - yes, but this was a holiday destination with long platforms and full length through trains. not really analogous to this

Helston - no

Bodmin - no

Fowey - no

Looe - no

Princeton - no

Yealmpton - no

Kingswear - yes (the exception - but again a holiday destination)

Ashburton - no

Moretonhampstead - no

Barnstaple - yes , but not a branch line

Hemyock - no

Minehead - yes but again a seaside destination and not a rural branch line.

 

However, many (most) allowed 2 train working when the goods and passenger train were in the station at the same time. remember when 2 engines were present, one could be used to shunt release the other if the run round was blocked.

[Lacathedrale]

A very important point that often gets overlooked and results in something that loses the very attraction and appeal of a branch line terminus.

 

Most of them only ever had one loco intruding at any one time. There may be a passnger train, a mixed or a goods, but there was only one. A branch line station is something small and achievable but if you want masses of "operation" possibly not for you. The fun is in running an individual train - and building them rather than trying to get yourself into a fictional knot by running more trains than would ever appear in reality.

 

Less is more and the typical convinces etc etc.

 

regards,

 

Craig W

 

It's interesting you bring this up, because Iain Rice has a very similar view: a compact urban terminus (say, Fenchurch Street, or Cannon Street if one excluded the bridge over the Thames) don't fill wildly dissimilar footprints to non-trivial BLTs. This appears to be a combination of expensive land in cities and the requirement to squeeze in between existing concerns, and the ability to sprawl over cheap space in the countryside. 

 

His argument for either an urban or suburban terminus is precisely along these lines: they give you much higher levels of operational complexity, there is more track per square foot, there are often local loco servicing points adjoining, there is often multi-level concerns for even more trackage, etc. etc.

 

Imagine modelling the end of Farringdon Station: depending on the era you've got the LNER, GNR, GCR and SE&CR all traversing the lines. You've got multiple cramped goods platforms, fourth rail electrification ,etc. etc. all in a space that roughly equivalent to a decent sized BLT that as you have rightly said, would probably only support one or two locos in steam across its entire length.

 

I think the only big drawback about modelling such a scene is that one loses the 'railway in an environment' feel unless one is prepared, Copenhagen Fields-style, to dedicate lots of time to building structures. If you don't fancy this you're more or less reduced to using the old 'retaining wall with a road and some half-relief houses along the backscene' treatment.

 

EDIT: just look at the trackwork here and tell me this isn't perfect for a small space:

 

 

Alternatively, here's an 1898 view of Devon which has some unusual track arrangements (at least, not that I would expect from a suburban town):

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Chimer]

As you're asking for opinions ........ keep the bay.  For me, I build the railway to give me something to operate, so there'd be no point building a perfectly realistic model if operating it bored the pants off me.  The bay offers another option.

 

On another (opposite?) tack, I don't understand why the stub headshunt parallel to and below the main line is so short in all the plans, unless it's just a trap or you're deliberately making things difficult.  If the branch wasn't one engine in steam, I'd have thought laying a few more yards of track to allow shunting to continue during arrival/departure would be a no-brainer if it was easy to do.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Harlequin]

As you're asking for opinions ........ keep the bay.  For me, I build the railway to give me something to operate, so there'd be no point building a perfectly realistic model if operating it bored the pants off me.  The bay offers another option.

 

On another (opposite?) tack, I don't understand why the stub headshunt parallel to and below the main line is so short in all the plans, unless it's just a trap or you're deliberately making things difficult.  If the branch wasn't one engine in steam, I'd have thought laying a few more yards of track to allow shunting to continue during arrival/departure would be a no-brainer if it was easy to do.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Yes, the stub at the eastern end of the run round loop is currently just a "blind siding" trap with an interesting sleeper and earth buffer box. But your idea is very interesting, thanks.

[Junctionmad]

Sorry, I missed the qualifier about "intensive model form" in your question.

 

In the model, isn't the answer a scale version of my previous answer, though? Hold the incoming train off and get the shunting done.

 

 

 

Can you guys explain what you mean by "a one engine layout in reality"?

 

If the model correctly represents a station that allows more than one engine in steam then why does the model preclude that?

 

I can see that a single operator imposes some limitations - i.e. one movement at a time.

My point was that the track layout of your typical BLT , was developed simply, because the station was essentially designed to handle a single engine pottering around , running around a goods train , shunting a carriage or two out of the way. The timetable would have allowed plenty of time for this.

 

Yet in model form , these layouts often have many locos in action , in real life a station of this activity would have more complex track work to support such activity. So for example there would be goods relief roads , headshunt said etc.

 

Hence my comment , in real life , the trackwork was in proportion to the expected activity , in model form we often have that wrong

[Regularity]

Two prototype GWR examples come to mind.

 

Ashburton. During the day, the goods train would be at the terminus, and the autotrain would pay a visit. Despite lacking a signal box, and with it the full panoply of interlocking not just between points and signals, but also with the block instruments (housed in the station building), procedures were correctly followed: once a train had been offered by Buckfastleigh, the goods train engine paused its shunting and stayed in the run round loop: any shunting moves would have involved passing the home signal, and entering the section between the two stations. The auto arrived, disgorged its passengers, acquired some more and returned to Totnes via Buckfastleigh.

 

Cardigan. Single platform face, hone signal but no calling-on arm, yet during the day, a passenger train arrived whilst the daily goods was being made up in the platform road. Once the passenger train had been offered, it was accepted as soon as the goods train engine (typically a 4500 prairie in BR days) was out of the way - loop, yard, shed road or carriage siding - and the passenger train drew up to the home signal, which was at danger, and once the signalman could see that the passenger train was under the full control of the driver, the home was dropped and the passenger train proceeded into the platform, trapping the passenger train engine. Don’t know if the signalman held out a flag: there may have been a note in the appendix to the working timetable explaining what was required, as this was a daily feature. The goods engine dropped onto the coach(es), and pulled them into the carriage siding road (facing access to departing, up, trains) to release the pannier for servicing and turning (turntable was small, but could be used by pannier tanks but not prairies) and the prairie put the coach(es) back in the platform, and made itself scarce again. The passenger train engine returned to the platform, coupled up, and departed, at which point the shunting was resumed.

 

There: two examples of fairly simple stations where two trains could be present at the same time.

[Regularity]

It's interesting you bring this up, because Iain Rice has a very similar view: a compact urban terminus (say, Fenchurch Street, or Cannon Street if one excluded the bridge over the Thames) don't fill wildly dissimilar footprints to non-trivial BLTs.

 

Cyril Freezer was making that point whilst Iain was still painting “GWR in yard-high letters” on his Triang “jinty”.

[clachnaharry]

Two prototype GWR examples come to mind.

 

Cardigan. Single platform face, hone signal but no calling-on arm, yet during the day, a passenger train arrived whilst the daily goods was being made up in the platform road. Once the passenger train had been offered, it was accepted as soon as the goods train engine (typically a 4500 prairie in BR days) was out of the way - loop, yard, shed road or carriage siding - and the passenger train drew up to the home signal, which was at danger, and once the signalman could see that the passenger train was under the full control of the driver, the home was dropped and the passenger train proceeded into the platform, trapping the passenger train engine. Don’t know if the signalman held out a flag: there may have been a note in the appendix to the working timetable explaining what was required, as this was a daily feature. The goods engine dropped onto the coach(es), and pulled them into the carriage siding road (facing access to departing, up, trains) to release the pannier for servicing and turning (turntable was small, but could be used by pannier tanks but not prairies) and the prairie put the coach(es) back in the platform, and made itself scarce again. The passenger train engine returned to the platform, coupled up, and departed, at which point the shunting was resumed.

Were the wagons of the partially made up goods train left in the platform, or cleared into a siding or loop before the passenger train arrived?

Edited January 19, 2018 by clachnaharry