Dale

Nice idea but my partner in crime wants to be able to use that crossover for an engine to run around its coaching stock whilst a second engine can continue to shunt the yard. Goods trains arrive on the platform road. The train engine shunts the brake van out of the way, into the cattle dock or engine release if using the first crossover, or any siding it likes if using the second. It can then propel the goods train into any of the goods sidings by using the outer crossover. And thus the platform is quickly cleared for passenger action.

Thanks for all the input folks and I can certainly appreciate the comments about the middle cross over but the track is already laid as per my initial drawing. This is an existing layout to which I am trying to add as prototypical signalling as both the plan and the operational intent will allow for. I am sure modellers licence will need to be applied in spades but such is life, i'm OK with that. D.

Is this looking any better then? I admit i remain confused. Should there be a shunt signal at all three points of a turnout? Edit: 1930's LNER, ex NER So the signal at the far right of the headshunt should be a small-arm semaphore being painted yellow with a black stripe? That allows you to pass either to that stub siding or out onto the main running line?

Hi folks, Would any of the fine folk of RM Web be able to offer me some guidance on where the ground signals should be placed on the attached layout plan. The semaphore's seem straight forward - each platform has a starter and out to the right is a home for the main platform and a bracket with the home for the bay road. Its the pesky ground signals that is confusing me. I am also unsure how they work, The bracket home makes sense. Its either all stop, proceed ahead or proceed left to the bay road, but the NER ground signals I have to control shunting are either stop or go... so how do you know which way on a crossing your being routed? I have already spotted a place where there should be a ground signal - coming off the loco shed. Confused.com... Cheers, D.

How about this for a development? This put's the TT in the same orientation as Nailsworth. That sits well with me, as the plan is to be a taste of the area, not a faithful copy of Dursley. This plan puts the TT area into local context at least. Thoughts? D

Thanks Stephen, That link opened up a whole world of fun. Certainly food for thought. My TT is 50', the London Road Models kit so not prototypical but it's what i have. I can also turn 2MT moguls with it which is a boon. I was tempted to sit my Metalsmiths 65' Cowans in as its already made but thats stretching believability a touch too far.... When I have some time I will review the TT based on Nailsworth and see if there are any advantages in design to be gained. D.

I have been trying to upload a couple of images over the last few days and neither the old or advanced uploader allows me to complete the upload. Both types seem to stream the image to you but then hang at the end. Odd. Any thoughts?

A wise man once told me that having a direct line onto the turntable was a bit of a No No, I imagine from a safety point of view? So I have set the little headshunt and kick back point to the TT to avoid the runaway troublesome trucks ending up in the well. I am only as clever as my last instructions so in any plans I play with I have always avoided direct TT access. I think it's really starting to look like a nice little train set. I have been playing around with the semi Dursley layout for years now and even cut timber, only to send it to my mate's log burner. I think this looks like a good mix of play, fealty to the prototype and scenic setting. Just need to get off this bl00dy rig, get my chunky self back home and make a start! D.

Thanks for your response and help folks, it's greatly appreciated. D.

Bump

Another question has wriggled it's way to the fore front of my mind - the second goods shed.... now Listers had it's own sidings a little further down the line from our scene, where I would imagine raw materials and finished items were handled, so what was going on at the second shed toward the rear of the layout? For my purposes, this shed could be for 'Listers goods', as it offers a diverse range of stock and the ability to reach in from the back scene to load/unload wagons, but I do wonder what happened at the real site? Perhaps the Mawdsley's traffic went through one shed and Listers through the other? D.

Solid point Quentin. Does this seem better? I certainly think so. Its not really much of a step away from the real location but the headshunt and TT add a lot of play value. Who is to say, if Listers had grown more, that it may not have been a viable option so 4F's etc could be turned when running in from Gloucester... Close to the real thing but a few little addition's makes it Dursley Mills and not Dursley. D.

Taking on board the comments so far, I have come up with this development. personally i like it, it looks natural and breathes more than some of the previous efforts but as always, i welcome and comments. D.

Dursley had a ground frame, one engine in steam stuff. There is no need for a signal box in this version sadly. I do think a signal box and some working signals adds a lot but it was ground frame and token on the real thing. I am not sure if there could even be a signal box here if 'modellers licence' was introduced. With a 2 1/2 mile branchline with only one engine on it, putting a signal box in and staffing it would clearly be job creation for the boys... the station masters nephew wasn't the sharpest tool in the box but he needed a job, now his sister was expecting their first... Bet they wished they had stayed in the FofD

looking at the plan, it would make more sense to reverse the Quag Bridge scene to put the houses at the front of the track. A mill (version of Woodman's mill?) could be used to scene block the exit to the fiddle yard?

This is where i am kind of heading design wise... the breathing version. less track and more line features.. Work in progress but better or worse?

Thanks for your thought's Quentin, which I take on board completely. One issue for me is time vs reward -I like to play trains and as such, I don't want to put a lot of time and work into a layout with limited play value. I completely agree about a layout in the landscape though. My current drift is certainly toward a smaller layout and the simplified plan replicating the real location. As nice as the canal scene is, the brook at the front would fit and take up less space. Perhaps the canal can be saved for the next bright idea...? I will have a play around over lunch time and see what I can come up with. Time to breathe As for templot....... no chance. My pointwork is already built by a man infinitely more skilled than I, which I have lifted from an old layout for reuse. D.

Looking at the simplified plan, it does have one significant plus that jumps out to me - the layout can be significantly reduced in size. Loose the canal aspect and instead we can have the River Cam (Elweme beyond Dursley I believe) which would be a lot less space, modelling and thus time. Realistically I think the far left baseboard adds little for the space it takes up. D.

It does indeed sir, but from an exhibition perspective, the public at the fiddle yard end of the layout have nothing to watch, (The curse of F/Y to BLT layouts) except the odd train entering or exiting the scenic section. It's very close to the real location's track plan but is it entertaining? One engine in steam - sleepy BLT, all very prototypical of the real place but does it have the play value, the entertainment value and the diversity that will make it both sustainably fun to operate, and pleasing to watch for Joe and his public? I am not so sure.. A signal box and working signals, a small turn table, coaling, turning and watering, shunting suspended for a passenger trains arrival or departure, they all add to the play fun Food for thought though certainly. D.

Hows this?

The Gallows footbridge needs to be muscled in somewhere for sure

I have had a bit of a play around with the track formations and tried to incorporate a bit of the engine shed plan from the original idea, combined with the canal scene at the front. I offer it up for comment. Step forward or step backward? D.

Thanks for both the interest and the pic's Tony. How things have changed. I lived at Kingshill (Olive Grove, behind the old cinema/Kwicksave) when I was a kid but I was young and don't remember a great deal. It was a decent walk to primary school and Highfields was worse I had moved to Berkeley before secondary school though so missed out on the Rednock experience. I hope to get back down to Gloucestershire this year so will have to have a wander around Dursley again. Dale.

Thanks for the input folks, its massively prreciated. The canal at the front stays but the row of cottages simply dont fit in the room available. It add's a nice scene and also 'looks right' to me. I have always wanted to model one too, which is why I dont have the River (ditch?) Cam as it was in the prototype. I have often wrangled with simply sticking with the real thing, but IMHO one of the weaknesses of F/Y to terminus layouts at exhibition is that the action is one ended. By adding the modest yard and TT, viewers at that end have something to watch beyond the brief arrival and departure of trains. Whilst being 100% faithful to reality, I dont think a model of Dursley as it was would be enertaining enough for the 'Average Show Joe'. I will have a look again at the first incarnation Mike and see if that track plan can be incorperated with the off track detail from the last version. D. EDIT: A few learned and wise folk have mentioned trailing and facing cross overs, and whilst I know what they are, as the line is single track bi-directional, I have no idea which one is which on the plan. At worst there are three cross overs, the far right at the station end, the middle and the far left nearest the scenic break. Which ones which lads? D. (again)

A little more development of this plan...