Dale Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzine Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 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. Or step sidewards young Jedi (nah middle aged Jedi). Greetings from Obi Lunn Kanobi 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithHC Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Also don't forget to go along everlands. The gallows footbridge still exsists. If you look at the NLS map site it shows sveral other industries close to the rail. There is the Gas works, a corn mill on church road and a brewery. On the subject of the culverted river as the listers site is being redeveloped it is being opened out to make a feature through the development. As can be seen from Tony's photos the land on which the station and the factory stood is now being redeveloped.Also have a look at the following web site as well: http://www.dursleyglos.org.uk/html/dursley/railway/railway.htm Keith HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 The Gallows footbridge needs to be muscled in somewhere for sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Looks like a bit too much track for my taste, especially with it sprawling all over in the back. I would repeat the suggestion that an MPD at this location is at best unnecessary - few branch termini had them, as workings were generally made from the (somewhat more important) junction end. Personally, before trying to reimagine anything, I would import an OS map and recreate the track layout precisely. This step gives a better impression of scale and shows how Dursley (or any location) functioned, and then you can revise the layout directly on top of the original. The top-down view is often misleading - it's not how we typically see trackwork, so I like to pick up my laptop and stare from all sorts of ostensibly eccentric angles. In actuality I'm just looking at the plan as I would a real layout. (Because it mimics how we usually see real trackwork, I favor end-on views or similar.) It smooths the mental transition from 2D to 3D and helps me visualize balance and flow. I might suggest looking over track plans of layouts you like and seeing how yours compare, especially from the low/end-on angles I mentioned. I find it indispensable when refining a layout idea. Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hows this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulgabill Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hows this? Certainly looks less "busy" and more in keeping with what I've seen of the real set up. All the best 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Certainly looks less "busy" and more in keeping with what I've seen of the real set up. All the best 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I'll be the first to admit I don't understand "exhibition culture" but why on God's green earth would you let concerns about 'entertainment value' or Joe Public's ignorant tastes compromise the layout? It looks much better than it did, and the vast majority of the real railway is plain line in open country. The most recent plan breathes. Remember that at locations like this an hour or more might pass between trains. The last thing I would want to see is a "busy" BLT with a train every 10 minutes, or worse, two locomotives on scene at one time. I say let the layout exist within the landscape - don't let the layout define the landscape as such. The canal scene sounded great! Seeing as you're doing 00-SF, I would say it's time to fire up templot and work with some real turnouts Quentin Edited June 7, 2017 by mightbe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Relatively little has changed though it must be said that the realignment of the top goods track makes a large (positive) impact. I agree; the mill would be a natural viewblock. (I don't see a signal box anywhere?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) Relatively little has changed though it must be said that the realignment of the top goods track makes a large (positive) impact. I agree; the mill would be a natural viewblock. (I don't see a signal box anywhere?) 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 Edited June 9, 2017 by Dale Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) The adjustments look good indeed! One minor thing: shunting almost always took place along the running line at such locations, and the headshunt provided is far too short to be of use--you can simply flip the trailing crossover as shown to make it prototypical. I'd also say the small turntable (alone) is much preferable to the engine sheds which graced previous plans. Good change. Quentin EDIT: Just occurred to me that a trap will be needed on the lowest siding Edited July 7, 2017 by mightbe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited July 7, 2017 by Dale 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited July 7, 2017 by Dale Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithHC Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Can't answer you questions but as a matter of interest. Have a look at the facebook page for Vale of Berekley railway in the past couple of days an album of pictures from Dursley station appeared. Keith HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulgabill Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Afraid I can't answer either, but Listers were a company which produced a very diverse range of products, and could conceivably have used more than one loading point. Its true there would have also been Mawdesleys products, and those of other concerns. As you would know, Dursley used to be quite an industrial centre, in a rural area. In earlier years pretty much everything would have come and gone by rail. With regards the track-plan, is there a reason why there would be an extra turnout to create your turntable road? If the crossover at the start of the goods loop was further West, then the 2nd point could be reversed and lead directly into the loco facilities. Might not look so pretty, but economically would have been more likely. Just a thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) I believe that may have been a rule of thumb for some companies, but there are so many exceptions one wonders how seriously it was taken if so. I know Padstow almost had a straight shot from running line to turntable at one time: http://maps.nls.uk/view/105992815 Compare to this later diagram, which is a fair bit safer: http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srq/S3577.htm As an alternative you could get rid of the kickback and put the turntable on the road originally intended as a headshunt, maybe curving it off to the right a bit to make space? (Like I said, this wouldn't impede shunting) Edited July 9, 2017 by mightbe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted July 11, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) For the turntable, it's a bit hard to say what typical Midland practice was as the BLT really wasn't a Midland thing. However, nearby Nailsworth might give some inspiration. I think what's drawn as a diamond crossing is in fact a double slip, providing an engine stabling siding alongside the turntable and a trap to protect the running line, doubling up as an end loading or dock siding. Bear in mind that the turntable will be 42 feet diameter - the standard Midland size, big enough to turn a tender engine with 8'0" + 8'6" wheelbase - anything up to a 4F. Edited July 11, 2017 by Compound2632 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 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. 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