Jump to content
 

Dursley Mills - 1:76th OOFS BR(WR) ex MR Terminus track plan


Dale
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

post-11004-0-00196300-1496665307_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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 by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D

 

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

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?

 

 

post-11004-0-04952200-1496924277_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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... :P  Bet they wished they had stayed in the FofD :D

Edited by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

 

 

post-11004-0-97127400-1499405811_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

post-20159-0-54703500-1499410233.jpg

 

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 by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

post-11004-0-15644000-1499427396_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dale
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Dale
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

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 by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...