Painted myself into a corner?

[Philou]

Due to the huge expressions of interest regarding the location of this proposed layout, here are a few photos:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure how the titles should fit - the first picture shows the barn that is waiting to have the render hacked off and the walls repointed. I did the frontage of the house last year and it seems to have held good - so I have the rest to do come the Spring. It's a bit like the Tardis, looks nothing on the outside -but  yuuuuge on the inside.

 

Picture 2: This is the ground floor - winter fuel stock plus the new joists to be used for the new floor overhead that are drying out slowly. These joists measure 6m and 8m long. The longer ones (3) will be bolted together to make a new single beam under the free end of the 6m joists. The other ends with be fixed into the wall. I need to turn them over sometime so that they dry out evenly and don't start to flex under their own weight. They will require treating before placing.

 

Picture 3: Floor? What floor! This shows the old joists after I removed the original flooring - it was so wormy that it was like balsa wood. Unfortunately as it was covered with tons of old hay and straw, I couldn't see its condition and I went through it. No harm done as I spread my elbows out as I dropped which stopped me going further - otherwise a 4m drop onto old metalwork (since gone).

 

Picture 4: This photo is the 'free' end of the joists. The beam onto which they are placed is to be replaced by 3 x 8m x 250 x 50 joists bolted together which will be supported on new posts. What can't be seen on the photos is that nothing is level all falls towards the end of the beam (lower left hand side in the picture). Everything has to be relaid afresh. New holes on the level to be formed in the dry stone wall (well not really dry stone - it's stone separated by layers of earth and lime that crumbles when it's touched), concrete pads put in the holes, again levelled, and then the joists laid on top and stone work back filled around. You will see that there is daylight between the rafters and the wall - watertight but not weatherproof. this will be addressed when I do the re-pointing of the walls.

 

Picture 5: On a positive note - the roof is new. I did that two years ago. We are in a very small village and when I said I was doing the roof, the day the hoist turned up to lift the mechanical tiles so did all the villagers - we started at 9:00am and all 1200 tiles were laid by 1:00pm. Great bunch - but 'zey do not underrstand zis silly eengleesh pairson oo play wiz ze trains'. I'm gently mocking as most of them have seen the models I've been doing in card for a module and are reasonably impressed.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Gah! Edited for minor changes and a couple of greengrocers' apostrophes.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Apologies to Harlequin,

 

In reply to my own post #51, the station is Moretonhampstead, pictures of which are in the Hampton Malstead thread.

 

Philip

[Philou]

Hello everyone, 'tis I again,

 

Whilst you're all hanging onto the edges of your seats waiting for a revised plan to appear , I have a question for those that drop by from time to time (and it is not OT as it is for my proposed layout):

 

As you will have seen, I'm intending to go DCC from the outset. I have an ECoSII and Mrs P has 'given' me a tactile tablet with keyboard (I hate tactile screens - too much static in the sausage phingers) - those of you that might have already used mobile phones and the such with DCC, do you reckon that I could use this tablet to control the ECoS? And how hard is it to get these things to interact? The tablet is already running steroids Android but is not a recognised brand but comes equipped with Bluetooth.

 

I ask here (as I see that there are other threads elsewhere on this site regarding DCC, but it means wading through pages of info without necessarily finding what I want) as the layout will be quite big and I see this as an answer for 'remote' control.

 

As an add-on - no views as to whether to Kadee or not to Kadee?

 

Revised plan to follow.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[Chimer]

As one who drops by from time to time, I haven't got a Scooby on this one.  Lost you from ECoSII!

 

Chris

[Philou]

@Chris

 

I'm not sure myself what ECoS stands for - it's the electromagickal thingy manufactured by ESU (German chip company) that operates their DCC system. As I understand it, the original was designated ECoS and had a B/W screen, the ECoSII (or 2) has a colour screen. There is a newer version. I just wondered if anyone had had success in operating an ECoS with a tablet. I don't have any mobile phone (let alone a smartphone), but I understand that the so-called millenial generation are very adept at these sort of things and might have been able to pass on a few tips.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited February 5, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Hi, Philou again,

 

Here we go - I've had a fiddle with the layout generally and amended the storage area in some detail:

 

 

(I have removed the contours for clarity but left in the height markers.)

 

The large yellow rectangle is the traverser. I have left the track at 60mm centres to allow the hand of deity to do some crane lifting if needs be. Those of you with experience in these matters could perhaps tell me if this is enough or even too much space. I have deliberately left track away from the edges but this could be added gaining two extra lengths of storage. I will need to check that the length is sufficient to accommodate the equivalent of an eight car HST or ten coaches plus steam loco.

 

The main access to the traverser is from the roundy-roundy main line - one track clockwise, the other anti-clockwise. This avoids, as others rightly pointed out, any polarity problems as there is no connection between them. In order to maintain the minimum radius of 1.0m throughout, I resorted to a cross-over (shown in green) at the end of the relief sidings. This is shown on OS sheets, though probably it was a plain crossing rather than two turnouts back-to-back. It allows the necessary movements from both the main tracks.

 

The branch station 'Clifford' has now gone. However, the connection has been maintained to Pontrilas that now serves the traverser and the new MPD. This means I can maintain prototypical stock movements to serve the Golden Valley OR as a relief line OR to serve as access for coal-trains to the coaling stage within the MPD. This is to be a concrete ramp and a three door coaling shed (the orange box) as per the former TVR one at the Cardiff Cathays depot. Interestingly, a similar one was built at Cardiff Canton but it had a horizontal conveyor adjoining the one door that over-sailed the nearest loco line to the coaling shed in order that a second line of locos could be loaded.

 

Access to the MPD can be via the now relief line or by the turntable that has access directly from the traverser OR from within the MPD. The MPD is a three road affair (the dark red box) - there is possibility of squeezing in a fourth. There is an additional access to the MPD from the traverser. This I put in, as I tried to anticipate the needs of diesel locos and thought that I could have a refuelling point (the olive green oblong) and stabling road for these too. Furthermore, there is headshunt provided to allow stock movements by the storage area pilot loco in orderto release the incoming locos.

 

All-in-all, I'm quite happy with I have got within the space. Steam tender locos can be turned around without lifts, there is somewhere to put them on display, there are alternative accesses available and prototype movements to/from Pontrilas can be maintained - all without compromising my 1.0m minimum rule. The downside (is there never one?) is that the traverser/MPD is likely to become an extremely busy area to operate.

 

Dahn sarf, I haven't done much with Dymock (I referred to it as Newent earlier ) . I can probably get rid of the reverse curves on approach and have a single line platform with a pair of release points in the style of Moretonhampstead - as per Harlequin's thread. I had to revert to making the branch go below the main line - it was the only way to maintain the topographic relationships between the elements. Even then, Ledbury viaduct is now on a rising grade instead of a falling one - something had to give .

 

The only other thing I have done is to tweak the angle of Ledbury a little so that it wasn't parallel to the edge - a little more aesthetic. However, in that area I should like to extend the Malvern tunnel - the original IS quite long.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of things that could be tweaked to make it look more prototypical or to make things run more smoothly - but I hope it's in the spirit of the suggestions that have already been put forward.

 

I've also attached some 3D views at different angles of the layout. Yep, the Malvern Hills above the tunnel are quite elevated - 500' above sea-level at that point - which would equate to 2.0m in 00!!

 

Well, I would have attached them, but I'm getting a 'This upload failed'. I'll try in an additional post.

 

Before I forget - thank you to all of you that have come by and had a look and many thanks for all your suggestions so far.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

 

 

[Philou]

Here we go - success this time.

 

The three 3D shots.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Edited: Duplicate post -Gah!

 

Now the pictures have disappeared - buttocks!!!

Edited February 7, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

 

 

 

Phew! They're back!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Harlequin]

Hi Philou,

 

Personally, I think it's a bit "over-worked" now. It's an easy trap to fall into and I've done the same thing many times.

 

There's a lot packed into the peninsula and I don't understand how you're going to visually separate Dymock from the other stuff going on there. The connections to the traverser feel over complicated.

 

Technical point: The traverser will need a total slide range of around a metre to connect all the lines to the central feed lines, and maybe more. That might be difficult to engineer because it will have to be able to overhang on both sides. When it is out in one of those overhang positions it might be an annoying restriction to movement around the operating well.

 

(The amount of space in the operating well has always rather worried me, with the peninsula possibly feeling like an obstruction to easy movement.)

 

The turntable hanging out into the operating well at the south station is asking for trouble - it will get knocked.

 

You're so close to having double track circuit the whole way around, it seems odd not to make the final connection.

 

I would suggest:

• Reduce and maybe reposition the peninsula to make it easier for operators to move around. (Think about the number of operators you might want to accommodate in the operating well.)
• Think about simplifying the peninsula to just handle the fiddle yard traverser, turntable, or whatever.
• Feed the traverser at one end of it's sliding range and allow it to slide in one direction only so that, at full extension, the other end is now connected to the feed lines.
• Maybe hide the triangle that feeds the fiddle yard because I think a compact triangle like that would not be common on the prototype - it's part of the offstage magic.
• Make better use of the large area you've got to create easy inclines (most people don't have that luxury) that bring the tracks up to a level where a scenic area can hide a working/offstage area below.
• Have a double-track circuit so that you can set two trains running at once and watch them pass each other without having to worry about them!

I hope this feedback is useful.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Harlequin

[John ks]

Here's another idea that does away with the visible storage yard.

This may not be what you want but could be worth considering.

 

Its a bit rough but I hope you get the idea.

 

The two branch lines could be spread out on the peninsula, I leave the final connections up to you.

 

 

At "B" you connect a track that goes down grade to "C" where you put your hidden storage yard.

I have only shown 1 passing loop but there can be as many as will fit.

From "D" you go upgrade to "A" where you re-join the main layout 

All the track from "A" to "B" can be hidden

 

Hidden Yards like this can be a b***er to install & monitor, although CCTV helps(ask me how I know)

Using a storage yard like this as a fiddle yard is not very practicable.

 

John

 

[Chimer]

I think I agree with just about everything Harlequin has written, except about a working area under scenery - no need given you've got the traverser.  I would absolutely definitely want to be able to leave two trains circulating while I shunted goods yards or set up the next trains on the traverser - or just watched them go, passing in different places.

 

And I would go further with "less is more" - just one junction station, with one branch line from the junction with one passing station (on the other main board) en-route to the traverser.  I reckon the best place for the MPD would be at the junction.

 

But hey, rule 1 .... and of course I do tend to think in terms of one-man operation.

 

Chris 

[Harlequin]

I think I agree with just about everything Harlequin has written, except about a working area under scenery - no need given you've got the traverser.  I would absolutely definitely want to be able to leave two trains circulating while I shunted goods yards or set up the next trains on the traverser - or just watched them go, passing in different places.

 

And I would go further with "less is more" - just one junction station, with one branch line from the junction with one passing station (on the other main board) en-route to the traverser.  I reckon the best place for the MPD would be at the junction.

 

But hey, rule 1 .... and of course I do tend to think in terms of one-man operation.

 

Chris 

Agreed. I'm not suggesting hiding anything too technical or that requires manual attention under scenery - I was really thinking about the triangle feeding the fiddle yard when I wrote that.

[Philou]

Hello Chris, hello Phil, hello John,

 

Thanks for your feedback. The circuit is double tracked - it's only the link into the storage area that is singled from each of the double tracks. Two trains can run in opposite directions around the main circuit - as it was always intended. It does mean that if a train is coming from the Ledbury direction and wishes to enter the storage area and one is heading out towards Ledbury from storage then one will have to wait. One train in steam along the single sections. I am going to see about some semi-automation so that a red signal cannot be SPAD. The club had some simple relays in their circuit whereby if you wanted to leave the main run you could not throw the diverging route unless the signal was at red. I reckon that would be a boon for One Man Operation - IMHO.

 

In terms of Dymock, though not shown, it is my intention that there is to be a background at the rear of the station - in effect making it one-sided. The same would therefore apply to the MPD and the running lines into the traverser  - only viewable from the Pontrilas side. You will also note that I had attempted to hide the triangle by burying the three arms in cuttings and adding some tree cover to making a straight through view difficult.

 

In respect of the traverser, I wondered about its size and the sheer mechanical means of operating it. I do have rather a lot of stock and did consider leaving it on show (to be frank I just don't know what I actually have - most of it is in boxes and looks quite voluminous and it might be quite less that I think). I will look to reduce its width and I may need to consider at least one of the tracks on the traverser to be made 'cassette-ready' so stock can be taken off and stored elsewhere - if needs be. In any case it would prove useful if club members want to come and have a spin - bring cassettes - load the train, or trains, and away you go. There is no club circuit set-up at the moment as we had to leave one HQ for another ('elf'n'sarfty' issues) and the new temporary HQ is just too small.

 

I can also see what you say about 'more is less' - all too easy to fill the spaces - but it DID achieve all the suggestions put forward - perhaps I should have been more selective .

 

In turning to the turntable at Ledbury - yup, it does stick out a bit like a sore thumb waiting to be bumped into - just like a real sore thumb or toe. The only reason it's done that way is that Pontrilas and Ledbury are inaccessible from their respective outer edges - wall alongside Pontrilas and a six foot drop (plus height of layout) at Ledbury. I'm only a little guy and it was to remind myself that the maximum comfortable stretch - for me is about 900mm - that's the width of the boards at both stations. The traverser wasn't an issue as it is double-sided. Once I can set up a board prior to starting on the real thing, I can play around with widths and see what I can actually reach - it may work out that 1.0m is doable.

 

The stations are set up as they are (were, in the case of Pontrilas) - Pontrilas was wholly on a curve - not sure exactly but it looks as if it could be the equivalent of about 15m radius at 00 scale whereas Ledbury is partially curved towards the tunnel end at around 20m radius at 00 scale - this curve continues as far as the tunnel mouth. The tunnel itself is very straight, but with a steep and narrow bore. On mine, it has to curve sharply to fit. The steepness is limited to what can be seen at the entry and exits, the tunnel itself is flat. Had do be done this way otherwise the gradients didn't work out without resorting to 1 in 50 max on the mainline. I have managed 1 in 100 max on the mainline - 1 in 50 max where it cannot be avoided on the branches.

 

In attempting to keepto the prototype, the mainline on leaving Pontrilas rises towards 'Hereford'/storage and is a series of reverse curves - done! Likewise towards 'Hereford'/storage from Ledbury, the line curves northwards over the viaduct and the branch falls - done! Where it all goes to pot is that the mainline should fall over the viaduct - but there is insufficient drop to connect with Pontrilas AND to achieve a decent gradient all the way round back to the Ledbury tunnel. The tilts just don't work out - I can live with what I have in terms of mainline running.

 

Here are some special plans for John - ones I did earlier - ooooh much earlier before I asked for help. I think you can see our views were not dissimilar - but it became a nightmare - especially in terms of OMO and there was little or no headroom under the layout boards IF the 1 in 100 grades were to be respected.

 

For Phil - I have attached an enlarged plan showing the triangle and it's connection to the mainline. I hope you'll be more comfortable with it.

 

Here goes - attachments:

 

 

This is an enlargement of the triangle area.

 

 

One of many iterations - but with MPD at Pontrilas and understorage.

 

 

 

 

A figure of 8 for a change with split surface storage

 

 

 

 

This I liked - stations back-to-back, plenty of run and scenery. Downside was little storage, fly-shunting and large areas under which to crawl - and very big!

Scenic-wise the layout was split in two but all the gradients worked the right way.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Philou]

Just as an add-on,

 

Activity my end may drop off a little during next week. Mrs P has been in a funny mood (I think it's this long period of grey weather we've had) - a 'things must be done' mood. So, as I have 14 goings and risings (steps) ready to redo our staircase and what SWMBO says, then I do - brownie points for later when I start the barn at the end of the month . Now, where's that router ................ ?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

I might have mentioned this but could have been overlooked it, but Pontrilas was a mainline station with North to West non-stop expresses.  Going South you have the trains going onto a single line into Ledbury after going through Pontrilas.  

 

To be prototypical, all these trains would have had destination roof boards.  Such trains would not have gone through Ledbury and on the plan going North they have to do the same.  (This would also include mineral trains coming out of South Wales).

 

Such express trains could be up to 12 coaches long.  The traverser is not long enough to accommodate trains of that length; but you do have the luxury of the room to include a fiddle yard that would.  So I the suggestion of a double line all the way round makes sense.  I wish I had the room to run 12 coach trains.

[Harlequin]

Hi Philip,

 

I hope I'm not putting you off. If you can get anywhere close to what you're proposing I think you'll be very happy - any reasonable person would be! So I'm hoping that whatever you do you can get something up and running.

 

You've clearly done a lot of research into the prototype stations - whereas I'm just commenting on the model design. So you know more about what would best represent the real world stations than I do and you should interpret my comments in that light.

 

So, having said that:

In my opinion it's best to have a clear distinction between the "stage" and the off-stage areas. It's not good to try to add scenic justification to what are really off-stage technical areas. Off-stage is where the technical magic takes place that makes the on-stage action work realistically and it needs to be plain, efficient and purposeful. In your case, I think the peninsula is the off-stage area and the peripheral boards are the stage. The peninsula is perfect for that off-stage purpose. It's and a great luxury that you are right to try to make best use of it.

 

If the peninsula is entirely "off-stage" then it's easier for the viewer, "the audience" if you like, to know where to look, it's easier for them to "read" the layout.

 

Do you really, really want to model an MPD or is it just a way of dressing up an off-stage area? If you really do want an MPD then do it on the main stage, if not then abandon it (and save yourself some work).

 

The simplest technical way to get two counter-circulating trains, without the need for automation or relays or anything complicated, is to double the track in the bottom right hand corner of the design... This again would save you a lot of work and make running more reliable and arguably more realistic.

 

Maybe the peninsula could contain just the fiddle yard traverser or turntable fed directly from the triangle feed lines plus some spurs for storing locos. Use locos lifts to move and turn locos (again saving yourself a lot of work). That would allow the peninsula to be a bit shorter so that there're more room in the operating well.

 

Don't forget to allocate some bench area for rolling stock maintenance and model-making...

 

Looking forward to hearing more about your plans after SWMBO frees you from you labours!

 

 

@Brassey: I'd say that an 8 coach train is a very good compressed representation of what might be a 12 coach train in the real world. In most models everything else is compressed to some degree and a 12 coach train could actually look out of place.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

@Phil @Brassey

 

Thanks again for your input. You must work late into the night!

 

The reason why the MPD evolved as such was that it was mentioned that a turntable would be a useful which I did as my post #50. I thought it looked contrived AND surrounded by three 'main' lines and when it was suggested that one of the branches disappeared so it was replaced by the MPD. This, for the moment, final plan (post #57), does make it look more like an MPD, but as rightly pointed out it makes for a busy area and certainly an overworked traverser - I shall put my thinking cap on whilst I tackle these stairs.

 

The single line out of Ledbury IS prototypical - it is what it is. It gives HSTs a heck of a problem even today as speed is very limited within it due to the tight squeeze - I'm led to believe that there are only a few inches freeboard either side - thankfully the original is straight so there is no overhang. It adds to the operational interest.

 

I'm not too bothered about having a work bench alongside the layout as there is plenty of space in the barn for that - there is yet another mezzanine alongside PLUS all of the ground floor. I'm occupying about a quarter of the space available ................ hmmmmmm now, there's an idea . In any case, there is a good reason to keep the areas apart - no clutter in the layout area.

 

Brassey, I didn't know that named trains ran through Pontrilas, though I did note (only very recently) that the line was cleared from Cardiff to Shrewsbury (and beyond) for Kings. Just so happens ...... I'll revisit the lengths of the trains intending to run and create the traverser accordingly. I think I decided 10 plus loco would be enough.

The Stationmaster was interested in my choice of station - it does mean that when I run my pre-1922 stock I can now consider LNWR stock too. I did see a layout in the RM that covered this area - I hadn't connect that particular one and mine. LMS after 1922? I don't have any pure LMS stock - well not new - plenty of Hornby-Dublo though.

In the case of stock movements - clearly the layout as drawn does not allow prototypical movements as trains will need to call at both stations in completing a circuit. IF I create another connection to the east side of the storage area it means I have a 'crawl-under' which is not really satisfactory for me age-wise, OR I lose a station, which would be a pity as I feel I have the space in which to accommodate both. I can live with it as is at the moment. The storage area was 'Hereford' where trains both to Pontrilas and Ledbury could commence their journeys, but they can't come back without visiting both stations. However, if I can create a fly-under out of the storage area and connect the other side of Ledbury tunnel ..... could that work? I wonder? Or return to an earlier version of my plan with a fly under Ledbury. At least main-line movements through Pontrilas could be more authentic. I'll give that some thought.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Gah! Edited for typos - I'll try and find the name of the layout and add it later.

 

Hope under Dinmore - October 2013 edition.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Philou

[Chimer]

 

In the case of stock movements - clearly the layout as drawn does not allow prototypical movements as trains will need to call at both stations in completing a circuit. IF I create another connection to the east side of the storage area it means I have a 'crawl-under' which is not really satisfactory for me age-wise, OR I lose a station, which would be a pity as I feel I have the space in which to accommodate both. I can live with it as is at the moment. The storage area was 'Hereford' where trains both to Pontrilas and Ledbury could commence their journeys, but they can't come back without visiting both stations. However, if I can create a fly-under out of the storage area and connect the other side of Ledbury tunnel ..... could that work? I wonder? Or return to an earlier version of my plan with a fly under Ledbury. At least main-line movements through Pontrilas could be more authentic. I'll give that some thought.

 

 

 

Hi Philou, how about this?  Have two timetables, one representing Hereford - Ledbury - Worcester, the other Hereford - Pontrilas - Abergavenny various.  When you're running the Ledbury timetable, Pontrilas pretends to be Colwall, and when you're running Pontrilas, Ledbury becomes Pandy for a while.  The storage area is either Hereford and Gloucester and Worcester (via Dymock), or Hereford and South Wales, as appropriate.

 

​I think in my parallel universe that tunnel east of Ledbury would have been doubled though .......   

 

​Cheers

 

​Chris

 

For those that haven't seen it before, the New Adlestrop Railway Atlas (http://www.systemed.net/carto/New_Adlestrop_Railway_Atlas.pdf) is a fantastic resource that allowed me, not knowing the area at all, to identify Colwall and Pandy as the relevant station names for my idea.

 

Ooops - edit to add that the author of Adlestrop recommends access via this link http://www.systemed.net/atlas/, as the current address of the map itself may change.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Chimer

[Philou]

Hi Chimer,

 

I don't think running different timetables is a problem. It just seems a shame to me that I have this space and the possibility of two 'real' scale stations, and laid out in a prototypical manner, that suddenly having had a load of ideas thrown around how to improve the operations in respect of the storage area, there is a sudden realisation by me , after mention made by others, that prototypical movements through the two stations, cannot be achieved. They can IF trains originate their journeys 'somewhere' on the easternside of the layout (Worcester/Newport). Going clockwise (from 'Worcester'), trains call at Ledbury and could call at Pontrilas on their way to 'Newport' - but there is no way, as the layout is currently planned, to stop them coming back to Ledbury. Anti-clockwise, it would be the same.

 

I shall be doing some absolutely non-prototypical movements anyway - I mean, when was the Midland Pullman EVER diverted either through Pontrilas OR Ledbury? Or when did the Beyer-Garrat take a trip over those metals?

 

I had a thunk whilst I started these here stairs in the house and I'm going to have a fiddle (again!) and see what I can do - I have a plan - a cunning plan ............

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited February 9, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

'Tis me ...... again!

 

Right - now this cunning plan I had - here it is:

 

 

 

 

 

What I have done is to reverse the storage/traverser in order to maintain nearer-prototypical movements. Trains now originate their journeys in either 'Newport' or 'Worcester'. There is no longer 'Hereford' - just a general direction. Whilst trains in a prototypical manner MAY not have gone through Pontrilas AND then Ledbury, or vice versa, they COULD have (and do so today via the odd freight movement) as the lines are physically joined (and in the correct direction on the plan). The triangle has now disappeared under the Malvern Hills. Those observing train movements arriving at one or other of the tunnel portals may, or may not, see the train re-appear. It will depend if the train is on a roundy-roundy journey or attempting something a little prototypical - now you see it, now you don't.

 

I have deliberately kept Ledbury tunnel as single line - it is as it is. It will add to operational interest and complexity, as I'm sure it does still today in the real world.

 

Insofar as the branches are concerned, they have been kept in order that some branch movements can also take place. I haven't shown a branch station other than by the brown rectangle. It may become eventually a through station or just a couple of loops and a siding or two so that branch line trains can be varied. I suspect that in the real world they were probably shuttle trains anyway.

 

I have done away with the MPD as such but I have retained the turntable and couple of roads so that steam locos can be turned (and stocked) without need for much 'gerfingerpoken'. I haven't included a headshunt for stock release (because I forgot ) but that can easily be added.

 

So ........ what say you? Your thoughts, gentlemen (and ladies naturally).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Edit: I forgot to say that the tunnel could be kept under observation via CCTV - after all why not use the technology if it is there to be used? Thanks to John ks for the idea!

Edited February 9, 2018 by Philou

[mightbe]

I think this plan is more balanced than previous efforts, and I like the diving branch.

 

I disagree, however, with the placement of the storage yard relative to the single-track situation. It seems like a needless complication, whose "operational interest" will prove to be an operational hinderance.

 

A more sensible solution could be to move the storage to the other side of the layout, creating a total scenic void such that you have unobstructed access to the potentially complicated pointwork. (Disguising the scenic breaks however you like, perhaps tunnel portals for the branch line"s" and rising embankments for the double track.) This would also help the branch feel like two separate ones, and you even have the option for storage underneath the loco storage area. 

 

Quentin

Edited February 10, 2018 by mightbe

[Chimer]

Hi again Philou

 

As I'm sure you've worked out, the change of orientation of the FY would mean you could run Worcester - Newport trains sensibly through Ledbury and Pontrilas or vice versa, but you couldn't now run services which originate or terminate at Hereford, or have trains coming down / going to Craven Arms etc, without coming up against the same problem of the service having to go (incorrectly) through both stations.  I think you might actually find this more restrictive .....

 

To do what you want, what you really really want, without compromise, needs access from the circuit to both ends of the traverser - which would effectively give you two half-size roundy-roundy layouts each with one station sharing FY facilities (and two operating wells requiring a duck-under from one to the other).

 

It's a fascinating problem, and if I do hit upon a radical solution I'll be back ....

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited February 10, 2018 by Chimer

[Harlequin]

I like the more rational design.

 

I don't really understand the Hereford/Worcester/Newport through Ledbury/Pontrilas problem. I guess it's to do with the topology of the prototype lines? If someone could explain I'd like to get my head around it.

[John ks]

Heres another thought

 

Make the whole layout narrower & fit a hidden yard for train storage behind a scenic divider. (CCTV to monitor the yard) 

 

 

Where & how you connect the storage yard, fiddle yard & terminus I have left a little vague, more work for you.

This idea might not fit with the room, if the storage yard is against a wall then the access will be a nightmare.

The size, shape & access to the room will determine if this idea is viable

Eg is the room on a mezzanine floor, is access through the floor to the centre of the room

 

Just have a small fiddle yard on the peninsular behind a scenic divider, the other side of the divider could be used for a branch terminal

 

If the fiddle yard is a lot lower then the rest of the peninsular then the divider may not be necessary, something like this

 

 

 

A slight variation would have the storage yard on the RHS of the layout which would give you a second main line parallel to the single track tunnel.

 

If you like any of these ideas I would be pleased to see them used otherwise C'est la vie

 

John