Inspired by Brent June 1947

[Ravenser]

A little more Templot progress,

 

The tighter OO min radius and the GW points has helped to make a little more space in the London end of the yard. This means the point for the loop is moved out of the platform. There are two options, the prototype (in blue) with a shorter loop, or the red option

I'm undecided as to which I prefer.

 

 

If this goes ahead in OO, I need a standard. Some P4 stock will need converting back, this will still have sprung w irons etc and will likely get Gibson wheels. Locos will all need to stay with the OEM wheel sets (assuming recent designs) for older toolings at the least an etched chassis will be built, while kits will likely end up with a mix of romfords for the county and Saint (as they came with the kit) and gibsons henceforth. I also like the idea of being able to use bog standard peco track in the fiddleyard, but that is not critical)

what would best standard to go for?image.jpeg

 

I would recommend OO Intermediate/BRMSB trackwork, as this fits modern RTR wheels properly and Romfords more or less as well, and should be perfectly workable down to 2' radius.

 

Given that you've been pushed into OO by the need to have pointwork with significantly tighter radii than are permissible in EM or P4, and that you want to run 4-6-0s I don't think you've much alternative

 

Of course you'll now be able to use bog standard Peco code 75 bullhead in the fiddle yard.....

[mightbe]

Or you have the option of going to 00-SF or EM, which have the same common crossing appearance and radius considerations. Quite simply, use gauge-widening. Upwards of .3 mm of it round the corners. For which there happens to be a ready-alternative if you choose 00 over EM. 

 

I think you should explore EM a bit more though--you can get down to 2'6" curves just fine (ditto with 00 of any kind*). 3' would be adequate for 4-6-0s and long coaches. Just make sure to increase the track spacing (Templot has a feature to help you work out collisions).

 

EM also allows you to keep a decent 'front end' appearance to stock. All stock is affected by this in 00...but GWR stock all the more so because of the graceful proportions used. I think the proportion is more important than the actual size of the flange--you have to look a bit closer to see if THAT's wrong.

 

*People tend to forget that 00-SF is no different than 00 anything else once you get below a 30" radius. 00-SF and EM work by the same principles. Just keep the radius about about 30", and make sure your locos have enough sideplay. Always build stock for the layout you intend to run them on.

 

Quentin

[The Fatadder]

I had rejected EM for the same reason as the plan not being viable in P4, there are too many points which breach the minimum radius.  If the garage had been a couple of feet wider in both directions I would not be having these problems....  The other issue with EM would be the cost associated with rewheeling everything to yet another standard.  As for OOSF, I never quite got my head around why I would want to be making my gauge narrower still, nor what the minimum radius would be.

 

 

Moving a little further with the planning,

I have made a start on the fiddle yard, taking the minimum radius down towards 700mm has allowed a much better working fiddleyard. comprising 2 up loops and 3 down loops (each being long enough to handle a minimum of a King with six 61ft coaches.  based upon my rough calculation at least 3 lines should be able to handle a King on a  set of six 70ft coaches.  The Branch is intended to only hold 2 trains at any one time, one passenger and one freight with a central run around loop.  Representing the station at the end of the branch.

 

 

Still need to do some final work setting up the slips, and also adding catch points.  The key thing now is to get the plan printed, so that work can start on checking siding lengths are workable. Im also interested to see in the flesh the left hand curve board, I want to do some more testing to see if the original planned viaduct will work, or if the expansion of the fiddleyard is going to mean there is not enough room to do the job properly.  I have been looking at Glaze, Slade and Blatchford viaducts for inspiration if a south Devon location ends up being chosen.  I like the idea of having the old pillars alongside it.

 

The final job, I really think that I need to get on and build at least one Comet 70ft coach for clearance purposes.  until that is done, I guess a mk3 will have to suffice. the fact that a 70ft restaurant is required for my 1947 Limited, means that will probably be the first...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Fatadder]

One more set of track refinements is going to be needed tonight…

 

I have been looking some more at the prototype Brent, and while I still have no desire to make an accurate model (for a start I am 99% certain due to the compression of length it would be impossible to locate the goods shed in the correct location.) But I am finding it very useful to use the geography of the real location to help get the details right for the civil engineering.

 

As mentioned yesterday, my view now is that the planned viaduct is probably a step too far given the increased length of the fiddle yard. So this has left me looking for alternatives. I like the photo opportunity of a train crossing a viaduct (and the options to take low down shots looking up at the loco). So some sort of bridge is going to be necessary. Looking back at the prototype two features come to mind, first the multi arch bridge over the Avon, looking at the partial photos I have found online, I really like the multiple phases of construction having different styles. Hopefully at some point I will be able to get down to Brent and take some photos.

My thinking is to have this as per the prototype, immediately after west road bridge. I am also going to do a quick test with the track to see how well I can incorporate the up loop while I am at it (I assume it is the inclusion of this loop rather than the conversion from single broad gauge to double standard gauge which requires the extra width to the bridge?)

 

Further to this I am also thinking that I will add a second bridge just before the fiddle yard entrance, based upon the Aish Lane prototype, (which would be connected to the road crossing the down end of the station.)

[The Fatadder]

The plan is now almost ready for printing, however I remain to be convinced about the left hand double slip.  The radius are all within tolerance, however there is very little space in the K crossing area.  so much so the check rails have to be very very short.  I am worried about the impact on running, so this week I intend to try moving the entrance point-work slightly further around the Plymouth curve, in order that the slip can be stretched by another inch or so.

 

The fiddle-yard has also needed a few changes, shifting the throat point-work slightly closer to the tunnel mouth in order to lengthen the sidings.

 

As I am away from home a fair bit for work, it has left me a lot of time in Airport Lounges, Hotels and Trains to spend doing research.  But not a lot of time for any real modelling.   A positive of this is that it has enabled me to do a lot of research into coaching formations for the layout.  The formation for the 1947 reviera which was posted by Chris F on another thread was the first to be chosen (seeing as it gives an excuse to run three Hawksworth coaches).  For the rest the carriage working documents for 1947 and 1947 through workings, along with the 1956 Plymouth workings (all on the BR Carriage Yahoo Group) have been incredibly valuable, and I can't thank them enough for sharing it.  Finally thanks to John Lewis on the same group for sharing some fantastic information on the Kingsbridge branch workings.

 

I have also been putting some more thought into the design of the fiddle yard.  Those who have seen my previous layouts will be well aware of the shortfalls (and lack of planning) when it came to fiddle-yards. Mostly as a result of there being not enough space at home to have the fiddle-yard set up, meaning it was never an immediate priority.  This culminated with Blackcombe Tor for which the fiddle-yard (if you could describe 4 tracks taped to a board as a fiddle-yard), which was assembled the in the leisure centre in Leatherhead the night before Scaleforum!   

 

So, with all this carriage information in hand I have set about doing some proofing work to ensure that the fiddle-yard should be capable of serving a good running session.

 

Kingsbridge ­­– This is formed of a through central line, with a loop either side.  The idea being that it represents Kingsbridge station, so that a train can arrive, run around and then depart.  The first loop is for the freight service (57xx and up to 3ft of wagons), while the second is for passenger (which will hold a 4575 and 2 E140 B Sets along with space for a van or BCK added to the rear to be attached to a London bound service.  There will be a second siding off the lower loop which will hold the second B Set when it is not required. 

 

Paddington:

This will comprise 3 loops (one 6ft and two 8ft), with the possibility of using the mainline as a forth road.

Road 1: Down Cornish Riviera Limited

BTK A, TK, FK, RC, CK, TK, BTK B, King

Road 2a: Exeter – Plymouth (Set 23)

BCK A, TK, 51xx

Road 2b: Down Goods

4ft freight, 28xx

Road 3: Newton Abbot – Penzance (M Set 10) drops BG at Brent

BG, BTK A, TK, CK, BTK B, Hall

Mainline: TBC – although either a milk train or the TPO appeal.

 

Penzance:  As per Paddington

Road 1: Plymouth – Liverpool

Castle, BTK B, TK, BTK A, LMS BTK B, LMS RC, LMS BCK

Road 2a: Up Freight

WD 280, 4ft of oil tanks

Road 2b: Up Parcels  

Grange, GWR BG, LMS BG, 4 wheel van.

Road 3: Plymouth – Exeter (Set 11)

Pair 4575, BTK B, CK, TK, BTK A, BCK A (dropped at Brent)

Mainline: Up Cornish Riviera (Centenary)

Castle/pilot, BTK B, TK, TK, CK, RF, RO, BTK

 

I think I have about half of the required coaches, with most of the rest needing to come from Comet (I think there is a need for one more Sunshine BCK, and one Hawksworth TK to come RTD).  Although a lot of these do still require paint (such as the 5 Colletts I am expecting to be delivered this week.)  Loco wise there are still a lot of missing locos but gaps will be slowly closed over the next year as I sell off more modern locos.  

[The Fatadder]

The left hand side of the track plan is still giving me a certain amount of issues trying to fit in the double slip at a suitable angle given that I have to curve the approach point in order to get it to fit.  This has been further compounded by continuing efforts to try and fit the goods shed in the right place, and hence really get the look of the prototype location nailed down (I have already removed one window section from the shed in order to compress its length and try and assist in fitting it in.

I think a bit of full sized planning is going to be needed to see how a few ideas are working out in practice before starting the Templot plan for the scenic section from scratch working from the original map.

 

I have also been trying to fit in the post war track layout changes, which was a simple enough job adding the Plymouth end's look, but a lot more difficult at the Exeter end.  This time I will be keeping this in mind when I draw up the revised plan...

 

Another week in Spain for work has given some productive work on the layouts fleet list, finding numbers for the majority of the planned fleet. (along with buying a WD Austerity for one of the freight services from eBay.  Really need to find some more 1946/7 photos of Brent and the Kingsbridge branch to help with the final details.  I am assuming a Newton Abbot allocated pannier would be the motive power for the branch freight (which I have yet to find a period photo of).   The question is whether the Ken Williams book on the branch has more photos in the post war GW period than the Mitchell book (which I recall only had one suitable photo.)

Of the planned 20 locos, 8 are ready for service pending decoder install, 5 are in various stages of detailing and the remaining 7 still need to be purchased.   Though given not everything can fit in the fiddleyard at once, the focus now is on the key omissions (goods freight being the most needed along with a King).   Of course what is needed most of all is something to run them on!

 

Moving on to actual progress, I have just taken delivery of the woodwork for the baseboard support structure.  Today's job is to get it all put up in the garage (along with sorting out all of the under layout storage).

 

Unfortunately other than the 2 boards which are already built progress wont get much further than this as we are away for the weekend, but at least its progress.

[ktundu99]

I'm not at all familiar with the prototype, but it does occur to me that a train destined for the branch is forced to run wrong-line into the station (unless, of course, the branch trains all terminate)...

[The Fatadder]

I'm not at all familiar with the prototype, but it does occur to me that a train destined for the branch is forced to run wrong-line into the station (unless, of course, the branch trains all terminate)...

 

I think I am right in saying that it is only from the east (right hand side of the layout) which has services that enter the station, the track plan revisions did connect the east loop with the branch providing a better entrance to the station.

 

There is one operation that I am more unsure as to how it works in practice, where a coach from the Exeter direction is detached at Brent (and after a trip to Kingsbridge is then attached to an afternoon train back to Exeter).  Does the branch loco run wrong road to get to the loop and then shunt back the coach full of passengers onto the back of the waiting train from Plymouth?  Sounds a lot more of a faff than just having the passengers change trains.  

Likewise there is a similar working with the movement of vans from the branch to the mainline.

 

Certainly once the layout starts getting some track down, I have a lot to learn about how to operate it prototypically!

[The Stationmaster]

I think I am right in saying that it is only from the east (right hand side of the layout) which has services that enter the station, the track plan revisions did connect the east loop with the branch providing a better entrance to the station.

 

There is one operation that I am more unsure as to how it works in practice, where a coach from the Exeter direction is detached at Brent (and after a trip to Kingsbridge is then attached to an afternoon train back to Exeter).  Does the branch loco run wrong road to get to the loop and then shunt back the coach full of passengers onto the back of the waiting train from Plymouth?  Sounds a lot more of a faff than just having the passengers change trains.  

Likewise there is a similar working with the movement of vans from the branch to the mainline.

 

Certainly once the layout starts getting some track down, I have a lot to learn about how to operate it prototypically!

 

Some one will know how it was done - and the Coach Working will provide the answer - but the coach(es) for Kingsbridge will either be formed front from the east and shunted off by the train engine onto the branch platform or be formed rear, detached on the Down Main and then shunted onto the branch platform by the branch engine.  The latter would involve the least delay for the mainline train and would also probably be the safest way to do the job because of sight lines through the bridge.

 

It definitely didn't take long - the 1929 Summer timetable shows the 10.55 exPaddington on Saturdays arriving at Brent only 12 minutes before the branch train departed at 15.05 and I would in fact consider that a generous allowance for a fairly simple set of moves.  Obviously far handier with all your holiday luggage to remain seated while the Kingsbridge coaches were shunted across to the Branch Platform ready to set off along the branch.  Similarly going the other way the through coaches to Paddington avoided the need to hump luggage over the footbridge and find your seat on the mainline train, al in all a nice civilised way to go on your holidays (and take lunch on the train from London as well of course).

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[The Fatadder]

That makes more sense, certainly sounds a great way to travel to me!

 

As for this afternoons construction session, the support structure is now complete for the two sides along with the basics finished for the far end.

This structure was inspired by "St Endoc"'s Mid Cornwall Lines,

U shaped frames shown earlier contain the inner side along with the top and bottom. A length of 4 by 1 softwood with 2 by 1 sections cut out at the spacing for the legs was screwed to the stud work around the walls. The c assamballays were then slotted into position, glued and screwed the the floor. A second beam was added on the outside edge and screwed to the legs. The 12mm ply deck will be supported by 2by 1 slats and fixit blocks, hopefully that will be next weeks job.

 

Once the fiddleyard and main station baseboard top is fitted it will be a simple job to work out the height needed for the far end to give the embankment, river and bridge (with a ply deck for the track and expanded foam everywhere else.

 

The final section will be the enterance, for which I still haven't quite decided. I am torn between making a completely removeable section, or a lifting bridge. Given I still need to be able to get bikes and skis in an out of the garage (eventually will also need to be able to get the the exhibition layouts out of storage in the back).

At the moment I am tending towards the first option given it will give a bigger enterance, but I haven't quite worked out how I will pull it off.

 

Photos will follow once I get started baseboard top, for the moment it's a real mess in there as I haven't found space to put away theology layouts yet...

[Joseph_Pestell]

And another update.

 

I think this is probably the final iteration, so would definitely welcome feedback as to whether this is a viable plan.  Details on both double slips have been added and the branch has been connected up properly now.

 

The potential issue,

The two curved points (possibly also the double slip) include a curve which gets close to 750mm radius on one, and about 850 on another.  I understand the minimum radius should be around 1000mm.

 

So the question is, will this work?

And what can be done to mitigate the impact.  I had been planning fixed buffers and 3 link couplings, I realise as a minimum sprung buffers will be needed.  Would using a different coupling help?

 

I suspect at the end of the day, this may end up as the deciding factor which will decide if it remains in p4, or hand made points in OO....

 

  Capture3.JPG

 

The updated box file is also attached

 

If you were to put a bit of a curve to the platforms, you should be able to open out the radius of the tighter curves a bit.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not at all familiar with the prototype, but it does occur to me that a train destined for the branch is forced to run wrong-line into the station (unless, of course, the branch trains all terminate)...

 

There are not that many rural GW junction stations where a train could run directly from the main line onto the branch. Those examples that do exist are mainly for the benefit of freight rather than passenger trains.

[The Stationmaster]

There are not that many rural GW junction stations where a train could run directly from the main line onto the branch. Those examples that do exist are mainly for the benefit of freight rather than passenger trains.

 

Very much horses for courses I think as it depended very much on where the branch came into the junction in relation to the through route plus traffic demands so it would be quite easy to roll out a list where a through connection, signalled to passenger standards, was provided.  But equally none too difficult to produce a list where there wasn't a facing through signalled route onto the branch although quite unusual to find one without a signalled through route off the branch trailing into the through lines (as at Brent) although there were some.

 

But in terms of through coaches (as opposed to through trains) it didn't really matter provided there was a suitable layout to get them from the through platforms to the branch and vice versa.

[The Fatadder]

Today's job is to get the plywood for the baseboard top ordered, ready to make a start on fitting it when I get back from Madrid on Thursday. 

 

In the mean time I have been reworking the track plan.  On the Plymouth end tightening the radius of the curved point and reducing the double slip to1:6 has flattened the station entrance (and in the process added 3inches to the platform length.)

The London end has again been flattened out by pushing the radius slightly, something like 25inch at the tightest in the switch), the net result of these two changes is straightening the goods shed loop and the runaround loop.  In turn this means that the goods shed can be located in the right place (shown in red)

 

The curve still means stretching the approach pointwork, which in turn throws out the location of the bridges.  On the London end it wasnt possible to add the loop, so as a compromise I have added the pointwork connecting the branch to the loop (but instead connecting to the main) and this will take place offscene (the extents of which are shown by the black lines)

 

At the Exeter end the bridge over the Avon has also had to be moved to the left (green), in order that it aligns with the bridge and the low level baseboard section.

 

The plan still needs the Plymouth double slip converting from  the base diamond, likewise the single slip on the down mainline at the Exeter end.  I am giving serious though towards commissioning the construction of these having never built a slip before (and more than enough standard points to build as it is).  The plan is also still short of catch points, although given that they are integrated into the points I am thinking about just making non working representations in order to derisk any potential running problems from the additional complexity

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to getting the boards finished, laying the mainline and finally being able to run a train.  Im assuming after looking at the C&L site that OO track bases are only available with BR chairs.  Its a shame they haven't released the Exactoscale sleeper bases for separate chairs in OO

[The Fatadder]

The past few days I have been busy drawing up the goods shed for Brent.  Above all other buildings this is the only one which has a material impact upon the track plan, given the need to ensure sufficient clearance between the run-around loop and the shed loop.  Once I am able to spread out the templot file I will know for certain...

 

The drawing has been created from a couple of sources, the start point was Google Street View which very helpfully has driven right down the side of the shed.  From this it was possible to work out the key dimensions by scaling bricks, with a measurement from Google Earth as a sanity check (it came within a few inches!)

 

However the roof, ends, side door and office have all significantly changed.  So for these it was a combination of some quite grainy photos and photos of the rather excellent buildings by "Gravy Train" for Brent Plus. 

 

So 2 evenings work has got to the attached, there is one major issue outstanding.

 

  I cant work out how the side door originally looked, I think that the arch is original (though I cant understand why the engineers blue bricks continue 4 courses above the arch.)  I can see where the beams supporting the canopy were chopped off.  but I have no idea what the 3 large stone blocks were for, nor how the doors attached.

(extract from Google Street View used under their fair use policy)

 

The below PDF are all extracted from AutoCAD, and should be true to 4mm scale if you print 100% full size no scaling.   More than happy to share the source DXF files with anyone interested.

 

I would like to hear any issues so that I can resolve before I start building!

goods shed-1mk2.pdf

Exeter End

goods shed 4 mk2.pdf

Plymouth End

goods shed5.pdf

Yard side / Office sides

goods shed3.pdf

Floor plan

goods shed2.pdf

Station side

[gwrrob]

Any idea of the footprint of the model yet Rich ?

[BG John]

Do these help? Taken in June 1976. I've messed with one of them to try to make it clearer. It wasn't that bad originally, just too dark to see much detail on the side!

 

 

[The Fatadder]

The templot plan shown in post 39 has been fitted onto baseboards in CAD with a max length of 4710mm and a max width of 2440mm.  The length is slightly more of an issue than the width (where there is an extra inch or two to play with), but the length is about 150mm longer than the support structure (which was based around a theoretical clearance for the garage door.

 

The centre of the Exeter end curve is removable, and the worst case scenario is that it has to be put away when I finish operating.  but my hope is that I can squeeze in the extra 150mm without obstructing the door mechanism.

 

Either way, this is a real limitation on the scenic potential past the bridge at the Exeter end, and most of the trackwork past this point is more intended to provide operational interest than to be correctly modelled.  Likewise while it will be ballasted and have as much of the retaining walls / banks as I can fit, this is more to provide a good back drop to photos taken towards the bridge.

 

[The Fatadder]

Do these help? Taken in June 1976. I've messed with one of them to try to make it clearer. It wasn't that bad originally, just too dark to see much detail on the side!

 

 

Thank you that is incredibly useful.

You have actually got a really good view there of one angle which I have not seen before showing the underside of the roof at the Exeter end.  A couple of changes needed, along with a much more complex drawing of the roof.

 

It also highlights that the beam above the end doors is in the wrong place (and needs to be lowered by 2ft or so), so will have to get on with some more CAD changes...

 

Do you have a higher resolution copy that I might have a look at please?

Edited June 15, 2016 by The Fatadder

[BG John]

PM me your e-mail address, as they're both over the 1Mb limit.

[The Fatadder]

PM sent,

 

One final post for the moment,

The current status of the garage after my father popped round while I was away.  The whole layout is now ready for the baseboard surface to be fitted into place, So as soon as the little one is asleep tomorrow I am going to be in the garage fitting plywood!!!

 

[Trains&armour]

 

  I cant work out how the side door originally looked, I think that the arch is original (though I cant understand why the engineers blue bricks continue 4 courses above the arch.)  I can see where the beams supporting the canopy were chopped off.  but I have no idea what the 3 large stone blocks were for, nor how the doors attached.

google.JPG

(extract from Google Street View used under their fair use policy)

 

 

 

I don't have any photo's showing that side of the shed with the canopy. But could two of the blocks have been mounting point for two canopy supports:

 

 

 

Something like this. (valancing omitted for clarity, your drawing)

The extra blue brick courses are probably an architectural device, visually supporting the canopy.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Trains&armour

[gwrrob]

I'd put money on David Geen having a photo or two of that side of the goods shed.Incidently there's a photo in the Middleton Press book shewing the crane used inside.

[The Fatadder]

I don't have any photo's showing that side of the shed with the canopy. But could two of the blocks have been mounting point for two canopy supports:

 

 

Something like this. (valancing omitted for clarity, your drawing)

The extra blue brick courses are probably an architectural device, visually supporting the canopy.

That sounds very sensible, and must be the purpose of the two identically sized stones. I will do some digging and see if I can find a photo.

 

Still have no idea what the large square stone is for which is only on the left hand side.

 

I need to contact Dave Geen for a couple of kit bits anyway, so will ask about this at the same time

[The Fatadder]

I am now starting to get a little confused about those stone blocks...

 

I have been looking at other GWR brick built goods sheds of a similar design, in particular that at Tetbury. It again has the rectangular stone blocks but there doesn't appear to be anything attached to them, making me think its either decorative or attached to something internal.

No sign of the confusing square block though.

 

I think for the moment I will add them to the drawing (and the model when its made) and worry about adding the canopy later once better information comes to light. (hopefully with Mr Geen publishing his book...)