Painted myself into a corner?

[Brassey]

Hello chums,

 

 

 

... Bachmann 'Super D' ... I shall attempt to give it an LNWR make-over, but I shall need guidance on that when the time comes.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

If you are going to do that you might need an LNWR break van to go with it.  London Road Models do one.  

 

Also the Ratio LMS opens are LNWR vehicles so some of those would make a nice train.  You could throw in some Slater's MR kits too for a good pre-grouping set up.

[Denbridge]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, honestly guys, but I just want to suggest comparing designs objectively because otherwise you may be plumping for something that's not as good as it could be (the original subject of this thread).

 

[Edit: We cross-posted. When this was written I had not seen Philou's post above.]

 

For example, applying Denbridge's criteria to my last suggestion (updated below):

1. Operationally interesting [TIck - in fact more so because of the double track circuit and passing loops]2. Relative ease of construction. [Tick - all of the main circuit, the two stations, the viaduct and the fiddle yard can be on the same level if required and there's only one viaduct]3. Scenically interesting. [Tick - Mostly Philou's doing - my small additions are the cleaner Ledbury viaduct and the uncluttered branch line station]4. Having part of the mainline hidden loses the roundy roundy feel that would otherwise be present. [Tick - same method as #72: covering the access to the fiddle yard]5. Ease of access to the hidden areas by removable scenic boards. [OK, well, I concede access is possibly a little more difficult than #72 but see * below]6. The ability to get something running relatively quickly. [Tick - I can't see why it would be any more difficult to get one station, the main circuit and a dummy fiddle yard working than in #72]

 

* For the cost of slightly more difficult access to some track (and remember I designed my version to have good side access and to ensure that low level pointwork is also accessible through lift-out sections if required [see below]) you get in return: clearer Ledbury viaduct, clearer branch line station, better balanced model, branch not visibly intertwined with main.

 

If design #72 is superior based on other as yet unconsidered criteria then fair enough.

 

That's it. I'll shut up now and leave Philou to do whatever he wants.

 

Ledbury Pontrilas 4l.png

i'm sorry Phil, but for me this plan would cause so many potential problems that were highlighted in previous posts. The turntable layout is good though and could easily be incorporated into #72. I'll elanorate when im home and on the laptop.

[Philou]

@ Brassey

 

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the goods wagon kits - as it so happens I have two or three LMS Ratio kits bought years ago. I had a look at my passenger coach - it's an LMS brake/4 compartment one. As it has framing I might cheat and paint it in LNWR colours (oh .... the infamy ..... the infamy ...... he's got it in famy!).

 

@ Harlequin

 

Noooo ..... don't shut up. A different idea can make one think of things that perhaps were overlooked - all thoughts are welcome.

 

Insofar as board construction is concerned, it's going to be 10mm ply on 10mm edging and bracing with softwood corner reinforcement. It's going to be modular so that in the unlikely event of being invited to expose elsewhere, but more importantly to be able to carry out maintenance underneath (failed motor, dry solder joint etc) I can get to it without being on my back. The modules will need to be constructed specifically so as to avoid pointwork if at all possible.

 

Gradients will be 'sprung' from the main board - something I was doing 50 years ago with fibre insulation board - then once started I may try the american method shown by The Stationmaster (glued and screwed plywood strip underneath) to prevent sagging. Where there is a lot of landscaping (around Ledbury tunnel), I might try open framework as the rest will be polystyrene blocks glued together but removable 'just in case'. Once section will need to be dropped to create the Leadon valley over which runs the Ledbury viaduct. I saw on Gordon's layout, the use of aluminium mesh as support - could be a good compromise by reducing the weight of plaster overall to create the landscape form.

 

Cobalt motors with built in DPDT switches for the live frogs and maybe - just maybe - a few handbuilt points (00-SF?) in Ledbury goods yard. It may save a costly exercise in cutting and shunting Peco points in that area . I shall not be doing handbuilt track as I don't want to be giving it the time - the Grim Reaper could be just around the corner . Something up and running relatively quickly for me. What are your thoughts on the Peco bullhead track and points? Unfortunately I have about half the trackwork in Code 75 already in stock - but I'm willing to listen on this one.

 

Club this afternoon - try out the newly arrived Class 66 (sound already fitted) and see the Class 800 in its glory and give 10102 a run too. Curiously, one of the yoof at the club wanted to see my Colas Class 37 (sound fitted) too. I don't why as not many went to France when the TGV - Est line was being built - wrong colour anyway.

 

Catch up with you all this evening,

 

Regards,

 

Philip

 

Ballasting? Don't know. I was quite happy with the traditional lay'n'spray'n'glue and I've not tried glue'n'lay'n'vac method - jury's out at the moment on that.

 

Edit: Forgot to add that I shall be canting my curves - I think it's missing from a lot of layouts and I've seen it done well - it's only a 1mm strip on the outer sleeper end. I shall be canting each track and not the formation (the old fashioned way). I shall allow for that when flaring on curves with my 45mm centres.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Philou

[Junctionmad]

I use 6mm ply tops , braced with 100mm 6mm ply sides making approx 1-1.5 foot square boxes some with strengthening diagonals , with 15mm ply end cheeks ( using steel dowel locators ) , the resulting 5’ by 2.5’ boards can be lifted easily by one person and strong enough to sit on by a 10 stone man ( our test dummy ) with no discernible deflection. sides are cut in a computerized saw to ensure consistency and accuracy , hot glued together and then all joints 2” fiberglass taped and the tape liberally soaked in PVA. As you rightly point out , baseboards must be built to suit pointwork and not the other way around , which is all, too common. I print out the SCARM templates and use those to determine the location of structural baseboard cross members

 

My current layout is now using PECO bullhead and very nice it is too, I’m building al, the points , in OO-SF , to match ( using 1.5mm ply sleepers ) the improvement in visuals is worth it over HO track

 

In relation to a 2.4 meter turntable , I suspect the machanics involved to ensure it remains ridig and that the track aligns would be considerable and I suspect you will need positive horizontal and vertical mechanical position locks on all track positions , possibly using baseboard alignment dowels . Over time the potential for “ slop” and wear to screw up the alignment will be significant

Edited March 10, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Philou]

@ Junctionmad

 

Good thought about slop and just plain ol' wear and tear - I'll need to think it through for if I go the traverser route the same would apply.

 

I saw that there was an option in Scarm for printing out in full - glad you were able to put it to use. I now know I can do the same.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Edit: PS - someone at the club had a module on which he was working. It had a double track 3/4 circle based on a 1.250mm diameter circle for the outer track - approximately 2' radius. The Class 800 coaches would not pass each other without colliding (about 1mm in it) despite having a centre-to-centre spacing of 67mm!! Be aware. I wonder where else I should post this?

Edited March 10, 2018 by Philou

[Brassey]

I too printed the Templot plan out full size and then mounted this on 6mm ply templates:

 

 

These were used to mark out and build the baseboards, planning to avoid point work over joints:

 

 

The original LNWR spec for maximum cant was 6"; =2mm in 4mm!  I achieved this by raising the roadbed rather than the track:

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Brassey

[Philou]

Wowser Brassey, that looks good. What track are you using? (or are they Gordon's? ha ha). I saw that Templot was able to be made full size too. Did you also make the rail-buffer stop? I like that!

 

I can see that I cocked up my maths - 7° cant is approximately 7% for small angles and (depending whether you're modelling in 'simple' or 'fine' scale 00) a Peco sleeper being 7'6" does indeed give you approximately 2mm packing at one end. (It's 1mm between rails - oops).

 

Now, as I was saying, as I am going to cant my track as it is rarely done or done well, I shall be placing, err,  2mm packing under the outer end of my sleepers ............... ahem.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

Wowser Brassey, that looks good. What track are you using? (or are they Gordon's? ha ha). I saw that Templot was able to be made full size too. Did you also make the rail-buffer stop? I like that!

 

I can see that I cocked up my maths - 7° cant is approximately 7% for small angles and (depending whether you're modelling in 'simple' or 'fine' scale 00) a Peco sleeper being 7'6" does indeed give you approximately 2mm packing at one end. (It's 1mm between rails - oops).

 

Now, as I was saying, as I am going to cant my track as it is rarely done or done well, I shall be placing, err,  2mm packing under the outer end of my sleepers ............... ahem.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Hi Phillip

 

Thanks for asking.  My track is all hand built; 1mm ply sleepers with bullhead rail soldered to brass rivets every 5 or 6 sleepers with the rest held in place glued to C&L Finescale chairs with Butatone.  Sleepers are all individually stuck to the plan directly onto the baseboard.  I chose to solder because I did not think that the glue would hold the curve whilst it dried.

 

The rail stop is an LNWR model from I think Lanarkshire Model Railways that I bought two off at a show.  The other will go in the yard at the other end of the layout.

[Philou]

Wow Brassey, that takes me back years to my one and only pair of points (curved) that I hand made. It was (IIRC) stripwood, rather than ply, with cobbler's snobs (no, not snot, snobs) tacked into the strip and then bullhead rail soldered onto them using one Peco Rollagauge (which I still have!). All hand drawn on paper. I was quite happy with them - and they worked - insofar as my stock went through - but live frogs just beat me. I think I'd made them as Peco had only made (at that time) left handed curved points and I needed right handed ones. Needless to say when finished, Peco brought out the right handed ones - just like kits of 'rare' locos - make one, and shortly after there comes an RTR one !!!!

 

I'm going to have to have a go at Templot - keep firing it up - take a look - fiddle around and I close it down again .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[The Stationmaster]

i'm sorry Phil, but for me this plan would cause so many potential problems that were highlighted in previous posts. The turntable layout is good though and could easily be incorporated into #72. I'll elanorate when im home and on the laptop.

 

The other thing that it does - which admittedly isn't the end of the world - is that it doesn't correctly orientate Ledbury and Pontrilas in relation to each other.  In the plan at post No.72 a train arriving at Pontrilas is doing exactly what a train would do in the real world and remaining in a consistent heading in relation to both stations.  In the plan at Post No.201 a train which is heading southwest through Ledbury would be heading north when it passes Pontrllas, and vice versa of course.  Of greater concern to me would be the curvature onto the branch at Ledbury, inevitably on a gradient and sufficient loss of sidings and lineside features at both stations as to make them rather poor pastiches of their real world equivalents in railway terms. 

 

I must admit to being rather taken with the Bachmann Super D (occasionally 'Duck Eight' to me - a term used by a fellow enthusiast who was with me when I saw my first one, on Oxford shed) and the LMS version will be quite ok but beware as they underwent lots of alterations through various iterations in LNWR/early LMS days.  Here's my then newly purchased factory weathered (and not to bad an example of that) version alongside Silurian Spring Water's building on the shunting 'layout' which is built on top of my Taunton SWAG meet module.  Incidentally all of this scene, which will take my weight leaning on it, is supported only by foamboard - a foamboard base sitting on uprights of foamboard, very handy stuff for rapidly knocking out the scenic contours.

 

[Harlequin]

The other thing that it does - which admittedly isn't the end of the world - is that it doesn't correctly orientate Ledbury and Pontrilas in relation to each other.  In the plan at post No.72 a train arriving at Pontrilas is doing exactly what a train would do in the real world and remaining in a consistent heading in relation to both stations.  In the plan at Post No.201 a train which is heading southwest through Ledbury would be heading north when it passes Pontrllas, and vice versa of course.  Of greater concern to me would be the curvature onto the branch at Ledbury, inevitably on a gradient and sufficient loss of sidings and lineside features at both stations as to make them rather poor pastiches of their real world equivalents in railway terms. 

 

In #201 I don't think any features need to be lost. I placed Philou's original stations at the correct scale underneath the two station locations to ensure that the necessary length and width was available. You can see that I roughly aligned the platforms and that other details would fit by altering their alignment. They may need some tweaking but nothing that would prevent the design from working.

 

As we have covered earlier in the thread, a train leaving Ledbury would pass through Pontrilas in it's guise as some other station on the network and vice versa. And the turntable fiddle yard would allow a westbound train from Ledbury to enter Pontrilas from the north east (i.e. also heading south-westbound) if required like this:

• Leave Ledbury heading west
• Pass through <not Pontrilas>
• Enter the turntable
• Turn the table so that the train is facing Pontrilas
• Exit the turntable
• Enter Pontrilas proper from the north east end.

 

The branchline from Ledbury to Gloucester does indeed have a tight (2ft) radius but that is conservative by many standards, shouldn't be difficult for branch line traffic and is designed to start ascending only when it hits the straight behind the false backscene.

 

(The design in #201 really needs to be drawn fully including complete stations and levels to be absolutely certain this all works as intended.)

 

 

P.S. If Denbridge or anyone else could elaborate on the other potential problems in #201 that have not be addressed in the last few posts, I'd be grateful of the opportunity to answer them and/or to understand where my design fails (and hopefully fix it).

Edited March 11, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

@ Mike,

 

I would have thumbed up your picture - only one rating per post unfortunately. Nice looking loco close-up and I have yet to see it in the flesh - it's been held for me until the end of the month. Thank you for the information regarding foamboard - I shall look into that once I get to the actual construction.

 

@ Phil

 

Mike is right that at present on #72, Ledbury and Pontrilas are orientated the right way geographically even though topographically things have had to be adjusted in order to get the gradients to flow.  What is going for your plan is the turntable - it takes up much less room than a traverser and I'm going to try and work it into the plan. The downside to the plan unfortunately, is the Gloucester branch needs a tight radius to get back around and I'm restricting myself to a 1.0m minimum (better than Gordon's 3') that I have been able to maintain on #72. Additionally, where the branch passes behind Ledbury station, I don't think I shall be able to have easy access due to the reach and there being a 6' drop behind. Don't get me wrong, as a variation there are definite pluses - especially as topographically everything is in order - and worthy of consideration.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Bit of a bad day today. After doing the latest software update in January on my ECoS2, I hooked it up for the first time since to address a new loco - burger me the tactile screen would just not respond either to the stylus or phat phingers. After switching it off and on a few times, it struggled a bit with the screen responses being displaced in respect to the touch and once that calmed down it simply ignored the loco I wanted to address and wouldn't even talk to a loco that worked on another system at the club yesterday. Hey ho .

Edited March 11, 2018 by Philou

[Harlequin]

Hi Philou,

 

Re. plan #201:

The tight radius of the Gloucester branch on leaving Ledbury is a compromise to make the design work and is comparable to the relatively tight curvature of the prototype (in compressed model form). It could be wider but that has knock-on effects. In mitigation; it's a branch line, the curve occurs where the line disappears out of view so will be somewhat disguised and in compensation note that the radii on the visible main line are much larger than 1.0m.

 

Where the branch passes behind Ledbury station it is simple straight line, so should be reasonably trouble-free. Note that the access hatch allows you to reach a good distance along the line to poke recalcitrant trains into life and the 6ft drop behind is actually a good thing because a ladder would allow further access from the ground floor if required.

 

(BTW: The false backscene is just the most obvious way to hide the branch line behind Ledbury but there are other options.)

 

Since Ledbury and Pontrilas in the real world are not directly connected and on completely different lines with Hereford in between, the fact that they are connected in the "wrong" orientation in the model shouldn't really be a problem. Modeller's license is already being applied to allow them to be directly connected at all so a little bit more, and judicious use of the turntable, should be enough to handle the orientation issue.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Harlequin

[Denbridge]

#102 has a number of issues that would be potentially disruptive. The tight curvature of the branch is one. Another is the long hidden area along the back. These and others have been covered in earlier posts. Both of these break cardinal rules. Especially as we get older, we need to keep everything easily accessible. Even my small layout which has boards just 32 inches wide is a pain to work on at the back without damaging stuff at the front. Yhat long hidden branch behind a backscene would be a nightmare to clean and maintain. Imagine getting to a broken dropper wire or a bad joint. Derailments happen no matter how good the initial tracklaying. Just a couple of brief impressions.

[Harlequin]

#102 has a number of issues that would be potentially disruptive. The tight curvature of the branch is one. Another is the long hidden area along the back. These and others have been covered in earlier posts. Both of these break cardinal rules. Especially as we get older, we need to keep everything easily accessible. Even my small layout which has boards just 32 inches wide is a pain to work on at the back without damaging stuff at the front. Yhat long hidden branch behind a backscene would be a nightmare to clean and maintain. Imagine getting to a broken dropper wire or a bad joint. Derailments happen no matter how good the initial tracklaying. Just a couple of brief impressions.

 

I assume you mean #201. I don't understand why the 2ft radius curve would be disruptive and, as covered above, the incline behind the Ledbury backscene is reasonably accessible from the access hatch and from behind.

 

Other hidden trackwork is accessible from the side and from above by the suggested lift off sections of scenery (green dashed lines in the drawing).

 

I would argue that accessibility is not much worse than in #72, which also needs side access and lift-off access to the fiddle yard feed triangle. (And consider the difficulty of fixing broken droppers or bad joints on the branch line bridge behind Ledbury viaduct in #72.)

Edited March 12, 2018 by Harlequin

[Denbridge]

Interstingly, when developing my layout i experimented with curves, never having ised less than 3' radius before. Of the 11 rtr locos tried only 5 were happy on 5 coach trains @ 2' rad. The rest slipped on 3 or more. This was at scale speeds. Fortunately for me, most of my locos are kit and scratchbuilt and will pull the house down. I am not being argumentative, but if i were building on that scale, the curvature and access would be no no's. Most of that branch is inaccessible . Wheres #72 is more maintainance friendly. One or two lift out scenic portions and you can get at everything from above

Even the branch behind the viaduct is more manageable. Believe me, having built several large layouts i speak from experience AND mistakes

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Philou,

 

Re. plan #201:

The tight radius of the Gloucester branch on leaving Ledbury is a compromise to make the design work and is comparable to the relatively tight curvature of the prototype (in compressed model form). It could be wider but that has knock-on effects. In mitigation; it's a branch line, the curve occurs where the line disappears out of view so will be somewhat disguised and in compensation note that the radii on the visible main line are much larger than 1.0m.

Ledbury Gloucester branch.png

 

Where the branch passes behind Ledbury station it is simple straight line, so should be reasonably trouble-free. Note that the access hatch allows you to reach a good distance along the line to poke recalcitrant trains into life and the 6ft drop behind is actually a good thing because a ladder would allow further access from the ground floor if required.

 

(BTW: The false backscene is just the most obvious way to hide the branch line behind Ledbury but there are other options.)

 

Since Ledbury and Pontrilas in the real world are not directly connected and on completely different lines with Hereford in between, the fact that they are connected in the "wrong" orientation in the model shouldn't really be a problem. Modeller's license is already being applied to allow them to be directly connected at all so a little bit more, and judicious use of the turntable, should be enough to handle the orientation issue.

 

Ledbury and Pontrilas are directly connected in the real world so the latter point does not address the situation in past years when many trains ran through both stations.  That of course is 'period modelled' dependent but covers the whole of the Grouped period (and earlier), and the 1950s into the early 1960s in the BR period (and in fact there are even a couple of Q trains in the current timetable which are booked to run through both locations).  And is of course perfectly achievable, with trains remaining in the correct orientation throughout, in the plan at Post 72.  If the train ran via a turntable it would inevitably be the wrong way round at one station or the other.  

 

As I've said previously this might not necessarily matter and it does depend on period modelled but if it could be done properly on the model why not do it?

[Philou]

Hello chums, 'tis I again,

 

I haven't abandoned ship (perhaps chips in my case). I had a problem with my DCC controller and some helpful chaps over on the DCC forum were kind enough to put their thoughts together and I am now a happy bunny again.

 

Just to let you know that after doing a marathon (do you remember those before they became 'Snickers' - eueuh) read of Gordon s' Eastwood, it has given me impetus of getting something done. So, today after months of 'not doing things' I got my low-relief buildings out to put on the finishing touches. Had a bit of a moment finding all my materials, but I'm under way again. I'll post a couple of photos in due course to show the module in its near-finished state (nothing grand, mind you), just to keep the thread bumping along. I will also tweak the plan ..... I hadn't forgotten .

 

It will no doubt go quiet for a little while soon as I'm waiting (still) for the scaffolding - the weather has taken a turn for the worst recently - rain, rain, rain. (Bit home from home really.) As soon as its up and the weather dry-ish, I shall be outside hacking and repointing.

 

Kind regards,

 

Philip

[Philou]

I'm back!!

 

I just thought I would post a couple of photos of the buildings I'm preparing for the module - not forgetting that this module will be placed amongst French ones. A bit anachronistic - non?

 

Scalescenes models mounted on standard 1mm or 2mm card as needed. The back street scene I've modified a little bit by adding an extension on one, a garage and a dormer on another, plus lighting. The windows are Brassmasters. Some I've left a little open just to make a change. I haven't shown it in detail but there is a working street light on the pole simply made with a single LED and cardboard ring as a reflector. It looks as if I've used chicken wire on the post and wire fence - it's not. The lane is surfaced with cobbles and it's showing through.

 

The shop rears I split into two separate parts rather than one, to create an alley between them. This isn't as yet finished as there's flocking to do and the surfacing of the street itself. The post is deliberately leaning so as to make a little cameo of a vehicle having come into contact with it - a bit of interest. There will be the wiring of the posts to do as well.

 

The error that I have made is that the street scenes are modules within the module so that they can be safely packed away for transport or storage. Unfortunately I chose 2mm card as a base and it's not stable - oh dear me no. It likes to warp according to the air humidity despite being coated in PVA many times over. I shan't be using that again. Probably 2mm ply next time.

 

If you, as my critics, are reasonably happy with the finish (there is always room for improvement, I know), I will proceed to make some buildings for the Pontrilas and Ledbury parts of the layout. In this case, I think Google Streetview will be my friend, in case, and whatever I can scavange from old photos on the internet.

 

Hmmmm ....... it won't let me choose my photos.

 

I'll post them separately in a couple of minutes (hopefully).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited March 17, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Here they are - better late than never!

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

Well, thank you Darren Ray, figworthy and gordon s for the thumbs up! I really feel motivated to carry on! Brilliant! (Lucky I didn't do close-ups ).

 

BTW, I apologise for the very modular look, but that's the way these French modules work - there's less than 180mm between edge of track and baseboard edge - it's all straights and very little by way of curves and the like.

 

Philip

Edited March 17, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Hello chums,

 

I'm back again. I cannot believe how long it has taken me to make 3 cranked 8' concrete fence posts out of 3 matchsticks, make 3 pieces of 'barbed' wire and 3 bits of fence retaining wire out of stranded copper wire, glue them all together, add a bit of netting and a drop of paint and bit of 'grass'. ALL afternoon! It only measures about 2" high and 3" long. Deity help me when I tackle the layout!

 

An idle question BTW: Have you chaps had any problems with cyanoacrylic going 'off' - perhaps due to old age or climatic conditions? It's partly the reason why it took so long. Both my tubes just wouldn't grab the items to be glued - fine on my fingers - no trouble sticking those together - oh no!

 

I haven't been idle on the plan front either and I'm reporting back.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to proceed with Phil's turntable idea - though I thought it was an idea well worth pursuing as the turntable could have been set further eastwards and the accesses into and out of Ledbury tunnel shortened. However, as you will see on the plan below, the red circle measures 3m diameter and as you can see it is ENORMOUS. I need 3m (or thereabouts) to be able to store a complete HST (2+8) or a decent 9/10 coach + loco. I am also going to need to park a double headed MGR (Class37s) with as many HAA as possible. (I have the required 32 to make up the full length train but even 3m (10ft) won't be enough).So I'm afraid it's going to have to be a traverser instead - pity in a way, as the idea of turning whole trains was very attractive.

 

In turning to 'Dymented', I have shown a simple station, double platform to allow for trains along the GVR and the Gloucester branch to access from each direction. Though the possibility of through-running could be done in my world, prototypically, it simply could not have happened and therefore trains will terminate and then return from whence they came. I have shown a simple siding with a platform (perhaps equipped with a small 4ton crane, a coal staith or three and perhaps a cattle pen). As it was not possible to provide a traverser in the manner I had seen in my mind's eye, I have for the time being, shown a small fan of sidings within which it is possible to hold a couple of mixed traffic trains, a railcar, or, a DMU depending on the period being modelled on the day. Other branch-line traffic can be held in the sidings at Ledbury or as seems to have been more prevalent, at Pontrilas.

 

At Dymented, I have also shown retaining walls at the back of the platforms so that main-line traffic passing at the higher level can be readily observed so as to follow Phil's view in that matter. I was impressed by Gordon s' use of Slater's 7mm stonewalling for his retaining walls - I wondered if a similar look could be achieved but using a colour to represent the Raglan red sandstone that was in and around Ledbury, and of course, Raglan being alongside the Newport/Shrewsbury line.

 

In going back to the 'business' side of the layout, I have now added a head-shunt from the traverser so that the traverser pilot can take stock away to release the loco without fouling either of the access lines. The head-shunt will remain under the Malvern Hills. For the time being I have retained the turntable and a small fan of sidings for stabling locos as there is no MPD elsewhere. I really ought to have extended the traverser to a length of 3m but as it was already over 2.5m long as drawn originally, I thought that it would not add much to the plan at the moment.

 

Here are the plans:

 

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Philip

Edited March 23, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Just as an add-on to clarify a point - the red circle shown is not a turntable as such, it is simply the area taken up when the storage/turntable is being rotated.

 

Out of curiosity, I will over-lay on another plan, the area that a traverser will take at its maximum throw (north and south and the plan).

 

Regards

 

Philip

[Denbridge]

Just as an add-on to clarify a point - the red circle shown is not a turntable as such, it is simply the area taken up when the storage/turntable is being rotated.

 

Out of curiosity, I will over-lay on another plan, the area that a traverser will take at its maximum throw (north and south and the plan).

 

Regards

 

Philip

im not sure you really need those storage sidings at Dymented.they make it look a bit crowded. For operational purposes a train leaving one main line station can simply change identity at the crossing point, then proceed to the other as , in effect, a different train.

[Philou]

@ Denbridge

 

The only reason for having the storage sidings is that the branch line stock would need to travel to the main storage area - there would be more stock than could be comfortably 'parked' either at Ledbury or Pontrilas. However, I do admit that the stock using the GVR was very limited - old 0-6-0STs that had been loaned by the GWR to the GVR and thereafter having taken them over, the line was worked by a variety of 0-4-2Ts. In the case of the Ledbury line, this was worked (from the photos that I have seen) by Panniers, Prairies and the GWR railcar. Rule 1 can always be enforced , but in this instance there is an opportunity to keep things 'prototypical'.

 

I don't mind having the stock on show - that is why my main storage area is in the middle and not hidden behind some scenic background - which brings me conveniently to the plan now showing the traverser at its maximum 'throw'. It takes up 500mm less space (north/south) than the turntable. I have also shown it at a length of 3m. A saving in width could be made by removing the need to access the turntable directly from the traverser and the little stub road that I had shown for parking the traverser pilot:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip