Mike Storey Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have long wanted to model the Sheppey branch, having worked there in the 1980's. I was going to just represent Queenborough, but on reflection and many drawings later, believed it would be quite limited in operation. So, I have developed a plan which includes both Queenborough and Sheerness, also to include the connections to and from the various freight customers' sidings and freight from locations off site, of which there were many. The key premise for me was to ensure that empties that went in, came out loaded, or vice versa. For example, empty Cartics/Autics/flats go into the MAT yard and disappear at the end, into the fiddle yard. Loaded same re-appear at the far end, from the fiddle yard. The same applies to the Sheerness Steel traffic, which has its own off-screen yard, and other sundries that used that connection. Room available is 22ft x 11ft, although I could squeeze a bit more out of this. For those unfamiliar with the AnyRail system, the dotted lines are off-scene, hidden by screening or trees/buidlings. I have obviously compromised on distance and shape, but tried to retain prototypical length trains, for platform lengths and sidings. This will not be built for another six months due to other priorities, but I would appreciate any comments meanwhile for improvements. 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 It is far from clear which lines are hidden and which on view especially as there seems no gap between tracks for the scenic break. Access to the hidden? tracks EMU sidings looks awkward but they would look good modeled as a scenic feature. My own uncompleted loft layout is designed so the fiddle yard is an on scene marshalling yard plus MPD and the off scene hidden storage is loops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 A line disappearing into the "unknown" at Queenboro' would be a good addition - final destination for many a condemned wagon.......... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 It is far from clear which lines are hidden and which on view especially as there seems no gap between tracks for the scenic break. Access to the hidden? tracks EMU sidings looks awkward but they would look good modeled as a scenic feature. My own uncompleted loft layout is designed so the fiddle yard is an on scene marshalling yard plus MPD and the off scene hidden storage is loops. I am still finding my way around AnyRail - the dashed lines, which are the hidden sections, aren't that clear, I agree. I will try to do these in a different colour. I did try adding where the back scene screening would go, separating the scenic areas from the off-scene lines, but it all became a little too complicated to read at this size. Perhaps I should split the plan into different areas to highlight these? A scenic EMU shed and yard would be good - but I am not sure how this would work out of context with the branch line! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 A line disappearing into the "unknown" at Queenboro' would be a good addition - final destination for many a condemned wagon.......... That would be into Rushenden Metals and QB Shipbreaker's yards, which, strictly speaking, are to the right (West) of the station, and such trains would just arrive at the station and then be propelled back into the the reception sidings. I don't have the room to scenically model that side of the bridge, but I guess I could use modeller's licence and draw them into the MAT sidings and then bring on a shunter to tow them back, or pretend that Rushenden is further up the MAT yard. I may also pretend that Ridham dock is between Queenboro and Sheerness, so I can run MGR's and other wagons that would not normally have appeared that far up the branch, except for when cripples had to be towed to the Queenborough yard for M&EE attention. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Nothing to add with regard to design or planning, but what an excellent choice of prototype. Good luck with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Great looking project. Access to the hidden sidings will be tricky and disguising them even more so. Could you shuffle Sheerness left a bit and fit your hidden yard on the right hand side. That way it could be left more open access? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2015 Nice. The only thing I wonder about is the closeness of the hidden parts at Sheerness and whether or not the shunting there will be entirely satisfactory? But having see that as a possible problem I can't see an easy potential solution that's any better than your layout as proposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Great looking project. Access to the hidden sidings will be tricky and disguising them even more so. Could you shuffle Sheerness left a bit and fit your hidden yard on the right hand side. That way it could be left more open access? You are right! It looked nice and tidy on paper but probably a hostage to fortune arranged like this. I can't shift Sheerness any further left without destroying the minimum radius of 36", or shortening the platforms, but there is a lot of wasted space to the right so I will try to fit the station along that side and see how it works. I can take another foot or so in depth at that end (it is an odd shaped barn loft) and will post another version in a day or two. Many thanks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Nice. The only thing I wonder about is the closeness of the hidden parts at Sheerness and whether or not the shunting there will be entirely satisfactory? But having see that as a possible problem I can't see an easy potential solution that's any better than your layout as proposed. Thanks Mike. I agree and will try to alter as per my post to jon. Mike 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 There seems an awful lot of sidings hidden which might add to the interest if they were exposed - though if you are using prototype track layout I guess the sidings wouldn't all exist in reality. But if you kept your EMU sidings as hidden but exposed the through sidings you intended to store freight trains in then you could have visible exchange sidings next to the station. Add in a couple of loops in the hidden track beyond queenborough and you could exchange shunters for mainline locomotives to allow say a full train to depart from Sheerness through Queenborough and then enter a hidden loop where the mainline loco swaps for a shunter and after a delay is delivered back to the through sidings as if a new train had been tripped to the sidings. The reverse can then happen with empties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted June 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are there any constraints on using the middle of the room. I would be tempted to put in the EMU hidden sidings ("Sittingbourne") on a peninsula. If that not possible, then perhaps below the Sheerness platforms. Sheerness Steel should surely be in the open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I have seen a scheme for this area somewhere, probably an old Toddler. Anyone else remember it? Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 There seems an awful lot of sidings hidden which might add to the interest if they were exposed - though if you are using prototype track layout I guess the sidings wouldn't all exist in reality. But if you kept your EMU sidings as hidden but exposed the through sidings you intended to store freight trains in then you could have visible exchange sidings next to the station. Add in a couple of loops in the hidden track beyond queenborough and you could exchange shunters for mainline locomotives to allow say a full train to depart from Sheerness through Queenborough and then enter a hidden loop where the mainline loco swaps for a shunter and after a delay is delivered back to the through sidings as if a new train had been tripped to the sidings. The reverse can then happen with empties. Interesting idea - I will have a think about it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are there any constraints on using the middle of the room. I would be tempted to put in the EMU hidden sidings ("Sittingbourne") on a peninsula. If that not possible, then perhaps below the Sheerness platforms. Sheerness Steel should surely be in the open. Thanks. I am going to try to move Sheerness so the EMU and freight sidings can be more to the fore. I tried the peninsula idea in an earlier version but ended up with very tight curves, which won't suit the close coupling methods I will be using.. The layout within SRA Steel was a very complex triangle and I am not going to attempt to replicate it. I need to hide it, so I can swap empties for loaded "off-scene", otherwise the operations won't feel prototypical. Likewise the car traffic to/from QB. I am approaching this as though it is a play about a day in the life of the publicly visible part of the Sheppey branch, with costume changes hidden from view! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted June 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2015 I have seen a scheme for this area somewhere, probably an old Toddler. Anyone else remember it? Ed Yes. It was a Plan of the Month by Nigel Burkin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted June 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2015 Thanks. I am going to try to move Sheerness so the EMU and freight sidings can be more to the fore. I tried the peninsula idea in an earlier version but ended up with very tight curves, which won't suit the close coupling methods I will be using.. The layout within SRA Steel was a very complex triangle and I am not going to attempt to replicate it. I need to hide it, so I can swap empties for loaded "off-scene", otherwise the operations won't feel prototypical. Likewise the car traffic to/from QB. I am approaching this as though it is a play about a day in the life of the publicly visible part of the Sheppey branch, with costume changes hidden from view! I take your point about the steel. Loads of scrap would be a difficult one and, like you, I don't like to see wagons arrive and depart unloaded. I am surprised that you would have coupling problems on EMUs as there are not any buffers to lock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 I take your point about the steel. Loads of scrap would be a difficult one and, like you, I don't like to see wagons arrive and depart unloaded. I am surprised that you would have coupling problems on EMUs as there are not any buffers to lock. Very true! But I will also use that for Mark1 coaches (for charters) and CCT vans for the morning papers, so it would be a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not sure how much you are modelling beyond the fence, but there's a lot of local history info (much of it reliable) and photos on kenthistoryforum.co.uk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted June 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2015 I have had a quick look at Google Earth and now have a better understanding of the real site. If you can put the passenger station on an angle, the access to Sheerness Steel should be able to go into the hidden sidings OK. But how to hide them? Unless you move the A249 (Brielle Way) onto a new alignment further east. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not sure how much you are modelling beyond the fence, but there's a lot of local history info (much of it reliable) and photos on kenthistoryforum.co.uk Thanks but I mainly use the sheppeywebsite.co.uk (which is a link off Kenthistoryforum, I notice) which contains far more photos and plans, rather than recollections. Both are very useful in their own ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 I have had a quick look at Google Earth and now have a better understanding of the real site. If you can put the passenger station on an angle, the access to Sheerness Steel should be able to go into the hidden sidings OK. But how to hide them? Unless you move the A249 (Brielle Way) onto a new alignment further east. Not a problem - there was a massive wall separating the main line from the SS yard, at one time. I think a lot of it has since become fencing. I quite fancy creating a very enclosed entrance and exit to their yard, from the memory of a photo of a similar situation at Macclesfield many moons ago. For some reason, that image has stayed with me for decades. I saw something similar today at the side of the K&WVR shed at Haworth (we are staying in the area for a few weeks). I shall have to artistically make it up! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes. It was a Plan of the Month by Nigel Burkin. I have never seen that! presumably it was for N gauge but it would still be interesting to see how he tackled it. Any idea which mag and when please, pretty please? Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted June 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 18, 2015 I have never seen that! presumably it was for N gauge but it would still be interesting to see how he tackled it. Any idea which mag and when please, pretty please? Mike Certainly Railway Modeller. As I get older, I find it harder to get much perspective on time (policemen younger, etc). But I would guess that it was around 1990. It was 4mm but much simpler than you are proposing and with tighter curves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 RM July 1986 Plan of the Month: Sheerness Dockyard. Would that be the one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now