Hampton Malstead

[Harlequin]

Very interesting! It's good to have my fixed ideas challenged and I can see pros and cons in your suggestions.

 

I'm going to have to think about this...

Edited January 14, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for your thoughts and advice everyone.

 

I will rotate the diagram at some stage, adjust the lever numbering and see what I can do about the FPLs on the bay crossover. Luckily I have one spare lever!

 

I haven't yet devised a full back-story or thought about exactly what facilities lie further up the line (down the valley). When I do, things in the station might have to be tweaked but the basic idea for now is that Hampton Malstead is a thriving moorland town that serves villages for many miles around. Some of the ideas from earlier in the thread will be applied to justify the level of development at the station:

• The surrounding countryside is renowned for its beauty and variety and so has become a tourist attraction. (Maybe I should create a publicity poster...)
• There is a quarry a few miles down the valley that occasionally makes use of the station facilities because its own infrastructure is pretty basic.
• Point-to-point races are held nearby that regularly draw entrants and crowds from across the county. (So yes, I should give more thought to horse loading and unloading.)

The toe-to-toe turnouts in the goods yard straddle a baseboard join and so cannot be easily combined. Also, the trackwork is all rendered in Peco Streamline Bullhead so I'm restricted to using their large radius straight left/right geometries at the moment. Even the trap point will be a cut down large radius Streamline bullhead point. (I'm not ready to start building my own track yet.)

 

@Regularity: For me at least, part of the satisfaction of the layout will come from knowing that other people also find it satisfying. So I am listening intently to what everyone's saying! I hope that I haven't yet strayed into the realms of the unconvincing and I think I can justify my choices so far:

1. Exactly modelling the prototype requires a lot of space, as I found when attempting to compress Moretonhampstead, hence the fictional location.
2. I'm doing my best to obey the rules, not make exceptions, within the constraints of compression and the need to create something that is artistically pleasing (e.g. follow GWR signalling practice). 
3. I hope I'm stitching together typical features in a concentrated but realistic way.
4. For me, the operational possibilities also need to be concentrated. A beautifully convincing model that only received a prototypical one train a day would be wholly unsatisfying to me. Hence, more than one engine in steam, the bay platform and the backstory.

If I ever "Jump the Shark" everyone should please shout at me!

 

A couple of things -

 

A.  It was not in the least unusual for horses, especially thoroughbreds, to be loaded/unload at station platforms if there weren't decent facilities elsewhere.  And there's no way anyone would let their best hunter be loaded/unloaded at a cattle flock - too much risk of injury and that applies very much to quality horses coming to/from point-to-point meetings.  So make sure there's suitable gateway from the road to the passenger platform.

 

B.  Your signalling is absolutely spot-on  in terms of what signals are where and their form for the period you are modelling so no need for any more changes.  I seriously wonder just how many GWR branch termini had Calling On signals back then - even Kingsbridge which was resignalled and given a new bay platform in 1915 didn't have one; our local branch terminus didn't get one until the second half of the 1950s while the bay platform at our branch junction never had one.

 

C. Interestingly the goods shed at our local branch terminus led away from the station platforms at an angle due to the presence of the cattle dock.  The cattle dock at our branch junction was alongside the branch bay platform's run round loop.  In other words a lot of the railway was a long way from idealised or picture perfect or had exactly the sort of facilities in exactly the places people think they ought to have been.  It's rather like the idea of 'interesting shunting' which in everyday life would no doubt be considered 'bl**dy nuisance shunting' and although it has been done chain shunting is near impossible on a model railway while fly shunting is totally impossible for a kickback siding.   But kickback sidings can be shunted so nowt wrong with having one.

 

You're getting towards a back story with your ideas about what there is in the area and you have a station suitable for serving that sort of thing.  Arguably the goods yard might be larger but that could be said of most model railways because space, or rather lack of it, is often a problem.

[Harlequin]

I have been looking at the info Regularity kindly sent me about Cardigan and searching for other relevant prototypes.

 

A very interesting example is "Barnstaple (Victoria Road)": http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/stat_1.htm

 

Barnstaple Victoria Road was a terminus originally built to broad gauge standards and later taken over by the GWR.

 

The links to the track plan and signal diagram on that page are not obvious (white on a cream background...) so I will repeat them here:

 

You can see that the basic topology is very similar to Hampton Malstead as currently conceived, even down to the difficult-to-shunt kickback fuel siding.

 

[clachnaharry]

There are a couple of interesting features about that layout.

 

The bay appears to be signalled for departures, but not for arrivals. There does not seem to be much siding space which would have been suitable for handling coal.

[Regularity]

There are a couple of interesting features about that layout.The bay appears to be signalled for departures, but not for arrivals. There does not seem to be much siding space which would have been suitable for handling coal.

Many, many, many bays were signalled only for departures. Reason being, no run-round loop, so running round would require the main platform road anyway. Once run round, the coaches could then be put in the bay, where unlike a carriage siding, they can remain undisturbed until departure time. Most bay platforms were more than long enough to cope with the usual daily train, plus a bit more for the odd parcels/milk/npcs vehicle. Most main platforms were long enough to cope with the peak loading - and then not always!

Barnstaple is a port on the North Devon coast, and a lot of its coal was delivered by boat from across the Bristol Channel. Anything else would be loaded directly from wagon to cart/lorry on the mileage or short roads. There were also two other standard gauge stations in the town, plus the L&B.

 

The important thing with all track plans is to understand the situation and services surrounding them: looked at in isolation, you can very easily draw the wrong conclusions.

 

Phil: the fuel siding was for petroleum and diesel, not coal. Wagons were probably pinch-barred into the siding by some sturdy men, or a rope or chain was used connected to an engine on the parallel siding.

 

Addendum: The “short road” is still longer than most people’s main goods sidings.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Regularity

[Regularity]

Barnstaple Victoria Road was a terminus originally built to broad gauge standards and later taken over by the GWR.

 

Also - and always - looking at the old-maps.co.uk website: you can get an interesting shot from slightly earlier to 1:500 scale. (You will need to zoom out a bit, then zoom in on “Old Station Road” and select 1:500.)

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/256500/133500/13/100688

I think this is post gauge conversion, but with a few remnants of the extra rail still in place.

Worthy of note is the crossover beyond the goods shed, allowing wagons once processed to be pushed/pulled/manhandled/horsed out and round the back, with a new load of vans pushed in. A veritable one-way system

Also worth noting is that the engine release crossover is much further back along the platform, reflecting the shorter trains of the day and allowing for two trains in a single platform.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Regularity

[The Stationmaster]

There are a couple of interesting features about that layout.

 

The bay appears to be signalled for departures, but not for arrivals. There does not seem to be much siding space which would have been suitable for handling coal.

 

 

That is indeed the case - all trains, of whatever category, had to arrive at the main platform and were then shunted from there to either the yard or bay platform if that was required.  The ground signals protecting the facing connections to the bay and the yard were not 'leading shunts' in the later context but could only be cleared when the points to which they applied were standing reverse - thus an arriving train had to pass two successive ground discs at danger so they were presumably discs which showed a  white light when at danger (although unusual to find them applying to facing points within a signalled route).

 

The locking was altered in 1950 and the spare levers/spaces at that date included 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 which suggests there could well have been an Inner Home prior to that although I can't find any indication of it on photos and the levers are shown as 'spaces' on a copy of the locking chart which is dated 1935.  So it might just be that the lever frame was installed new in 1910 with the possibility in mind that an Inner Home might be added later if circumstance/traffic so warranted and that never happened.

 

 

BTW you don't need to be particularly strong to get a wagon moving with a pinchbar (unless you're trying to move it uphill of course  ) - relatively easy to get a wagon moving, far less easy to stop it

Edited January 15, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Harlequin]

Still thinking about options and convincing scenarios but inspired by Regularity's modifications and Barnstaple (Victoria Road) I came up with this possible variation:

 

 

Pros

• Extra goods/cattle siding
• More spacious feeling to goods yard
• Goods shed performs better as view blocker
• Still two sidings opposite gasworks kickback to make shunting a bit easier
• Goods shed line make full use of baseboard diagonal
• No major changes to signalling (!)

Cons

• Too much track?
• More track joints across baseboards
• Less opportunity to disguise baseboard joint
• May have to abandon clever perspective ideas about slightly different levels for goods and passenger lines
• May have to abandon remains of broad gauge train shed

Edited January 15, 2018 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Variation 33d: Push goods shed line into bottom left corner but don't add a 3rd goods/cattle siding.

 

Goods yard is opened up. Trackwork is simple, Goods shed view blocker. Can play with levels and can retain broad gauge shed post bases.

Cattle pens and end-loading from spur at end of run round loop, as originally intended.

 

[Regularity]

Cons

• Too much track?

  Normally I would agree with you and go down the “less is more” route, but in this instance you are trying to convey a sense of the importance of the town served.

• More track joints across baseboards

  Man-up and bite the bullet!

  If your boards are well made and you use an accurate way to repeatedly re-align the boards at the joint, and you lay your track well, thus will not be a problem. And you don’t have to solder the rails to nails or pcb sleepers. I didn’t, and neither has anyone in my circle of modelling friends. And we all work to scale standards.

• Less opportunity to disguise baseboard joint

  Always tricky. There are various ways to try to reduce the impact, but the truth is that most of us wish we do better.

• May have to abandon clever perspective ideas about slightly different levels for goods and passenger lines

  As it would nearly all be within the station area, there would be little difference and no ballast shoulder. Better to make sure the running lines have stone ballast, and the rest varying grades form mostly stone to mostly dirt.

• May have to abandon remains of broad gauge train shed

  I think you could keep the whole thing!

I like what you have done with the various suggestions. Is that still a bay platform, or just a headshunt for the engine shed? Edited January 15, 2018 by Regularity

[Craigw]

I have been just been looking through this. Following your design and thought process has been interesting, as GWR branchlines (as cliched as they are perceived to be) are a very rewarding modelling subject to me.

 

The two things that still jar to me are:

 

The engine shed off the bay. I simply do not think it would be there. Anything in the bay and the shed is out of action without some painful shunting.

 

The bridge to the gas works. I think the short head shunt being extended and run off from that is more likely rather than building a bridge which would have been a substantial cost.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Harlequin]

I have been just been looking through this. Following your design and thought process has been interesting, as GWR branchlines (as cliched as they are perceived to be) are a very rewarding modelling subject to me.

 

The two things that still jar to me are:

 

The engine shed off the bay. I simply do not think it would be there. Anything in the bay and the shed is out of action without some painful shunting.

 

The bridge to the gas works. I think the short head shunt being extended and run off from that is more likely rather than building a bridge which would have been a substantial cost.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

Hi Craig,

 

I can answer your points (sorry, that word again) to some degree:

• I only have a small space available in the model (2400*575mm scenic) so I need to use all the valuable real-estate that I've got. That's obviously not a satisfying prototypical answer but you might argue that something similar applied at 1:1 scale because of the geology at the head of the river valley.
• Since the bay platform is mainly used to hold trains for short periods before departure it wouldn't interfere with access to the engine house that much.
• When the bay is occupied and a loco needs access to or from the engine house, I don't think that's too painful because the loco can easily wait somewhere out of the way until the bay is cleared.
• I need the gasworks building to be "on stage" for various reasons. Again, a modeller's answer not a prototypical one...
• The GWR didn't want work on the gasworks siding to adversely affect the existing trackwork or day to day operations and they were worried about the increased risk of flooding. So they allowed the connection on condition that it was made to the goods yard and did not require any work on the culvert.
• Remember that in the imaginary real world (confused?) these features would be much longer and more spaciously separated.

Having said all that, you have made me think about the engine house spur and I can see the distant glimmer of an idea that might improve things.

 

@Regularity:

I'm not fully committed to the platform bay yet but I think it has more pros than cons at the moment and the example of Barnstaple (Vic Road) gives me prototypical license.

 

And this morning, on balance, I think the simpler 33d version without the 3rd siding is a better representation of the inland rural station. Hampton Malstead is not as big as Barnstaple and as you've pointed out operations would already be very interesting. The real clincher for that "decision" is that I could add that 3rd siding in later on - just as might have been done in the imaginary real world. Knowing that, I can prepare in the model by making sure a point servo will not be fouled by supports and I can cut the track and rejoin it. This is real planning ahead!

Edited January 16, 2018 by Harlequin

[Rivercider]

I could see that the regular branch service might be operated by an auto-train with the loco sub-shedded at HM,

supplemented by two or three visits a day by through trains from further afield.

On market days or during the summer tourist season the number of through workings from the Torbay(?) area is increased

and trains are strengthened to meet demand,

 

cheers

[Regularity]

For consideration, may I suggest 33E?

 

The goods shed road comes off the loop, and curves slightly less. The road which serves as access to the kick-back can also be part of the yard, maybe for local coal traffic not for the gasworks.

 

Also, I suggest you tighten the curve on the backscene, rather than chop off the engine shed: the important thing is not to have a corner, and believe me I know that having too generous a radius can eat up the scarce space.

[clachnaharry]

I would keep the additional siding parallel to the run round loop. it provides a good mileage siding, but can also be cleared on "race weekends" to hold passenger stock from the additional trains. If your back story goes this way, then this provides good justification for the relatively elaborate signalling for what is normally a sleepy backwater.

 

In the same vein, I would scrap the bay idea. Having to clear the mileage siding and shunt the coaches there to allow the branch train access to the platform provides much more interest than just trundling an auto train into and out of a bay platform.

[Harlequin]

I received "Great Western Branch Line Termini Combined Edition" (Paul Karau) and "The Newton Abbot to Moretonhampstead Railway" (Kingdom & Lang) today. Thanks for the gentle nudges.

 

The fire is lit, wine is poured, lasagne is in the oven and I'm ready to settle in for some serious reading, cats allowing.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

I didn't get as far with my reading last night as I hoped to:

 

And today I got "Great Western Branch Line Modelling Part One" (Stephen Williams) in the post to add to the reading pile.

 

Even though there's still more research to be done, another possible variation (33g) popped into my head this morning, picking up on Regularity's suggestion and on Barnstaple (Vic Road) again:

(You can see the previous design 33d hatched underneath.)

None of the scenery or buildings are shown on this drawing yet because I've got to move them all...

 

Pros:

• The whole axis of the station is turned another degree (now 5degs). Some of the station forecourt is sacrificed to make room for the goods sidings. I think I can make that work.
• Goods sidings are longer and smoother - still with nice curves.
• Mileage siding.
• Longer "Back siding" disappears off stage to imply that it's even longer than modelled.
• Entry to Gasworks siding brought forward to better separate the bridge from the culvert and make the bridge longer.
• Fairly open goods yard.

Cons:

• Too much track (still)?
• A bit less scenery
• Not quite the country station I'd pictured (but I realise that my original concept may have been wrong).
• VERY difficult baseboard joins - will need some creative thinking

 

This is not just vacillating (I hope). Exploring the options should mean that I make the best choice(s) before starting to build. (Something like the Iain Rice method but done on a computer.)

Edited January 17, 2018 by Harlequin

[Regularity]

That’s what I would build!

Apart from the bay, of course…

You will see from Branch Line Modelling that the number of GWR Branch termini with a bay was outnumbered by those without.

Also, from your general reading up, that there is no such thing as a “typical” GWR Branch Line terminus!

Edited January 17, 2018 by Regularity

[The Great Bear]

 

And today I got "Great Western Branch Line Modelling Part One" (Stephen Williams) in the post to add to the reading pile.

 

 

Well done. That and the other volumes (to slightly lesser extent vol 3) are IMHO essential reading for any GWR modeller, not just of branch lines, if fidelity to a real prototype or plausible fiction and a detailed model are a priority. (Unless you happen to be the Stationmaster or similar and have encloypedic knowledge of all things western.)  Enjoy your reading.

[clachnaharry]

If interesting operation is your thing, then look at the Fairford timetable. If you can replicate that on your layout, you have two trains in the station several times a day.

[Lacathedrale]

33G looks pretty spectacular, particularly the angled station. The 'back siding' ending stage left would provide the option for some kind of cassette, extension, left hand staging, etc. and maybe makes the gasworks line a little more plausible?

 

Maybe make the points which form the exit of the runaround loop and access to the goods siding a single slip? Or is that just as catch point?

 

What about asymmetrical boards? 3' + 5' would drop the dividing point nicely down the middle of straight track.

[Harlequin]

Well done. That and the other volumes (to slightly lesser extent vol 3) are IMHO essential reading for any GWR modeller, not just of branch lines, if fidelity to a real prototype or plausible fiction and a detailed model are a priority. (Unless you happen to be the Stationmaster or similar and have encloypedic knowledge of all things western.)  Enjoy your reading.

 

Got "Part Two" in the post today. :-)

Edited January 18, 2018 by Harlequin

[Miss Prism]

Engine shed access was sometimes changed. Here's early Helston, with the shed accessed from the loop. Later, the layout was changed to provide a simpler connection from the platform road.

http://www.rosewarnejunction.me.uk/Images/HelstonStationTurnOfCentury_Small.jpg

[clachnaharry]

What a bizarre arrangement of trap points.

[Miss Prism]

Not really, although the placement of the ground signals is interesting. Here's the view in later times, after remodelling:

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/7211170_orig.jpg