Jump to content
 

Little Fairford GWR BLT


Harlequin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Clachnaharry set the challenge in the recent Wallingford thread to have a look at Fairford.

 

From buffers to overbridge, Fairford is 20ft long at 4mm scale and so really needs to be compressed while still retaining it's essential character. The following idea gets it down to 15ft, including the overbridge, while still being recognisable -  I hope!

 

I traced out Fairford from a 1923 map using Peco Streamline Large Radius points throughout (as always, so that bullhead track can be used):

post-32492-0-04422200-1542480181_thumb.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

Then I attempted to compress it and turn it into a workable layout design:

post-32492-0-22942200-1542480203_thumb.png

[Click to enlarge]

  • Since the track plan has been changed I have called it "Little Fairford".
  • The area from the bridge to the goods shed is almost to scale compared to the actual station and accurately captures the curve of the platform.
  • The area beyond the goods shed is seriously compressed and simplified by removing the second crossing from the running line to the goods shed line.
  • The compression meant that the lower loop would have been shortened to the point of being ridiculous so to overcome that, and provide a loop of comparable length to those in the original station, I extended it further up the line past the end of the platform.
  • I have suggested a 7 road traverser with 1450mm long storage lines.
  • The overall scenic area is 15ft by 2ft and broken down into 6ft, 4ft and 5ft boards.
  • The building roof designs shown are not accurate reflections of the prototype - they are just indicative.
Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 10
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairford was enlarged during WW2 and may provide a better basis in later form with extra sidings.

The single track alongside the platform with loop beyond rather defines Fairford (and Lechlade)for me so the longer loop takes a lot of the character away.

The traverser isn't ideal as most trains seemed to run with the loco chimney first unlike the majority of branches. Cassettes might be easier.

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

Wow - thanks for that Harlequin!

 

I agree with DavidCBroad that that loop level with the platform loses much of the Fairford flavour. A better compromise may be to move the right hand loop points just to the left of the goods shed cross over (as happened prior to 1930 - see photo Fig F6 in GWBLT), and move the left hand loop points to the left of the engine shed cross over. You then end up with a 5 foot round round loop. You  lose the use of the shortened headshunt as an overnight coach stabling siding, so for operational reasons it would be useful to add the siding parallel with headshunt to bring in a bit of flexibility and allow overnight stabling of 2 x 2 coach sets - the first is shunted into that siding and the second is left in the loop at the end of the operating sequence.

 

It looks if the goods siding could squeeze in a couple of extra wagon lengths if the turntable siding is angled a bit more, and the dock spur shortened a bit, and/or shorten the passenger platform by four to six inches.

 

This option should mean that you have one of the scenic boards with no points on it all - always a bonus. Stick a buffer stop on it, and this single 5 foot board could be paired with an 18 inch fiddle yard and exhibited with a diesel railcar shuttle as Fairford 1967 - an alternative reality where the passenger service was retained for Brize Norton airfield and the goods yard closed.

Edited by clachnaharry
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well, it's all a matter of choices and compromises.

 

Personally, I'm most interested in the pre-war version of the station and so I wanted to retain the two loops and to avoid the later extra sidings.

 

I thought that the lower loop passing the platform was the best way to allow the rest of the track plan to be pretty faithful to the prototype and the least visually intrusive. Interestingly, judging by the earthworks on the map, such a loop had been allowed for from the very beginning.

 

Lots of other tweaks and trade-offs are possible but they'd be very personal to suit the individual modeller. So I think I'm going to leave this design as it is for now but I might have a go at the post-war version later.

 

BTW: I imagined loco-lifts would be used to turn locos on the traverser.

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

The extension of the run round loop and the additional siding parallel with the headshunt must have been carried out prior to 1935 as they can be seen in photo fig 6 in Paul Karau's book. The only wartime addition was the additional siding in the goods yard.

Edited by clachnaharry
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Excited to see this one go ahead of this much lamented branch.  If only it was still here today to alleviate some of the traffic congestion going into Oxford, the A40 could be a very different place today!

 

Personally I'd drop the "Little" and just call it "Fairford".  Compression is often necessary, and if you don't draw people to the compromises, often they'll never know!

 

There's a nice model of Fairford here you could refer to: http://www.gwr.org.uk/layoutsfairford1.html

 

Also, there's another in New Zealand which shows the oddly shaped signal box: http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Model.htm

 

As for prototype photos, make sure you check out this website as there are some great colour photos on this site that aren't published in the books: http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Fairford.htm

Edited by Captainalbino
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The extension of the run round loop and the additional siding parallel with the headshunt must have been carried out prior to 1935 as they can be seen in photo fig 6 in Paul Karau's book. The only wartime addition was the additional siding in the goods yard.

Ah yes, I see. Well that opens up the possibilities a bit, thanks. (Note that Karau says the larger 55ft turntable was constructed around 1948.)

 

Excited to see this one go ahead of this much lamented branch.  If only it was still here today to alleviate some of the traffic congestion going into Oxford, the A40 could be a very different place today!

 

Personally I'd drop the "Little" and just call it "Fairford".  Compression is often necessary, and if you don't draw people to the compromises, often they'll never know!

 

There's a nice model of Fairford here you could refer to: http://www.gwr.org.uk/layoutsfairford1.html

 

Also, there's another in New Zealand which shows the oddly shaped signal box: http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Model.htm

 

As for prototype photos, make sure you check out this website as there are some great colour photos on this site that aren't published in the books: http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Fairford.htm

Thanks Captain. It's interesting to see that the model on gwr.org.uk also shortens the goods yard drastically like I did and that it represents a 1920's track plan. You can see that various other compromises have been made, some of which I would try to avoid.

 

I think I might be able to achieve something like the 1930s track plan using Clachnaharry's formula and using a double-slip to concentrate some pointwork. I'll see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's version 7, depicting the mid 1930's track plan (I hope):

post-32492-0-69147700-1542550877_thumb.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

  • I have stolen some space from the bridge end and the bridge itself is now a low relief feature.
  • The whole station has been realigned so that it can still connect to the same fiddle yard traverser as above.
  • Platform length, curve and end loading spur remain true to scale size.
  • Platform faces onto single track again.
  • The second running-to-goods crossover is shown dotted.
  • A double slip at the engine shed end of the station allows the run round loop to be as long as possible while maintaining the prototype topology.
  • Baseboards are now 6ft, 5ft and 4ft with no points on the right-hand 4ft board.

(I think the top left corner offers a great place for some non-railway scenery to root the station in the landscape.)

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thank you for sharing this - looks great!  As with other commentators, the iterative process has drawn out the different aspects of the (necessary) compromises well.  Forgive me if this is a well-known tweak* but it's the first time I've seen the traverser with a point for the final (bottom) siding that effectively means you can have a 7-road storage yard without needing to bash a hole in what may presumably be a wall behind the layout.

 

I'm looking for a GWR BLT plan to turn into a 4mm / OO layout that'll be more than the obvious - and this could have done it - but unfortunately my wall is only around 10' long - so I think I'd lose too much squeezing Fairford further, more's the pity.  Keith.

 

* I've only been on RM Web a week, so have no hope of picking up everything in the assembled body of knowledge any time soon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing this - looks great!  As with other commentators, the iterative process has drawn out the different aspects of the (necessary) compromises well.  Forgive me if this is a well-known tweak* but it's the first time I've seen the traverser with a point for the final (bottom) siding that effectively means you can have a 7-road storage yard without needing to bash a hole in what may presumably be a wall behind the layout.

 

I'm looking for a GWR BLT plan to turn into a 4mm / OO layout that'll be more than the obvious - and this could have done it - but unfortunately my wall is only around 10' long - so I think I'd lose too much squeezing Fairford further, more's the pity.  Keith.

 

* I've only been on RM Web a week, so have no hope of picking up everything in the assembled body of knowledge any time soon!

Is that 10 feet the total length available or can you use the next wall at right angles as well?   If its total you really only have 7 feet for the station allowing for a loco and 2 coaches on the traverser, which is what we have on our BLT "Haddenhoe" in 00 loosely based on Faringdon.  and I regularly run 4 coach trains and 15 ish wagon freights, as it is the end of our garden line with a lot of main line to act as a headshunt .  My son named it, I asked what we should call it and he said "Haddenhoe" roughly translated from teenSpeak he meant he did not know but the name sounded good to me.   Two mistakes I made. 1 too many points and short useless sidings. 2 a Kickback siding. No use what so ever until Bachmann bring out a full function shunting hores and gang of blokes with pinch bars. You have to clear the main siding to shunt it and then stick everything back. Super tedious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Is that 10 feet the total length available or can you use the next wall at right angles as well?   If its total you really only have 7 feet for the station allowing for a loco and 2 coaches on the traverser, which is what we have on our BLT "Haddenhoe" in 00 loosely based on Faringdon.  and I regularly run 4 coach trains and 15 ish wagon freights, as it is the end of our garden line with a lot of main line to act as a headshunt .  My son named it, I asked what we should call it and he said "Haddenhoe" roughly translated from teenSpeak he meant he did not know but the name sounded good to me.   Two mistakes I made. 1 too many points and short useless sidings. 2 a Kickback siding. No use what so ever until Bachmann bring out a full function shunting hores and gang of blokes with pinch bars. You have to clear the main siding to shunt it and then stick everything back. Super tedious.

 

A very good mistake for everybody to learn from there David - kickback sidings will only work on a model railway if you have the space and runround etc to be able to get an engine on the right end to shunt them.  Otherwise you are into string (and the intrusion of overscale fingers) or waiting for that Bachmann shunting horse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

2 a Kickback siding. No use what so ever until Bachmann bring out a full function shunting hores and gang of blokes with pinch bars. You have to clear the main siding to shunt it and then stick everything back. Super tedious.

 

So the gasworks kickback at Wallingford, which uses the short engine shed siding as it's headshunt, is not quite as daft as it looks at first sight - because the engine shed siding would be guaranteed to be empty while shunting at a one-engine-in-steam station.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's version 7, depicting the mid 1930's track plan (I hope):

attachicon.gifLittle Fairford 7.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

  • I have stolen some space from the bridge end and the bridge itself is now a low relief feature.
  • The whole station has been realigned so that it can still connect to the same fiddle yard traverser as above.
  • Platform length, curve and end loading spur remain true to scale size.
  • Platform faces onto single track again.
  • The second running-to-goods crossover is shown dotted.
  • A double slip at the engine shed end of the station allows the run round loop to be as long as possible while maintaining the prototype topology.
  • Baseboards are now 6ft, 5ft and 4ft with no points on the right-hand 4ft board.

(I think the top left corner offers a great place for some non-railway scenery to root the station in the landscape.)

 

I see no reason not to split that as 3 x 5' boards. The loop to the goods shed would need a short length of rail between the points where you can put the join.

 

The only downside is that, unless one has some particular affinity with Fairford, one can do so much more with that space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Doesn't the proposed layout render the dock kickback siding virtually inaccessible since (I assume) a loco can't enter the goods shed?

 

BTW, (more) compressed versions of Fairford have been created before—Roy Link's The Art of Compromise recently reprised in the October 2018 Railway Modeller, and Iain Rice's Broadwell Green, from MORILL Vol. 1 No. 5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Doesn't the proposed layout render the dock kickback siding virtually inaccessible since (I assume) a loco can't enter the goods shed?

 

.....

 

Something I almost said myself - until I noticed that the original was like that too.  Now had I been designing the original, and given that there was a crossover "before" the goods shed, I'd have had that particular crossover the other way round so ye olde horse or pinchbar gang could have moved the vans through the shed and out onto the stub so a loco could nip in and take them out without filling the shed with smoke, steam and sparks.  I don't know how it would have been done in "real life" - were there shunting trucks come spacer wagons that could be used?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality, I suspect vehicles would have been loose shunted through the goods shed into the dock. Extraction would have probably been via a pinchbar. For model operation, the dock siding can be shunted from the engine shed end, using any other wagons in the siding as reach wagons.

 

I disagree with the premise that kickbacks should be avoided on model railways. They were very common in reality and as far as I am concerned, they add to the operating interest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In reality, I suspect vehicles would have been loose shunted through the goods shed into the dock. Extraction would have probably been via a pinchbar. For model operation, the dock siding can be shunted from the engine shed end, using any other wagons in the siding as reach wagons.

 

I disagree with the premise that kickbacks should be avoided on model railways. They were very common in reality and as far as I am concerned, they add to the operating interest. 

 

Loose shunting into goods sheds was prohibited unless there was sufficient room for somebody to be alongside the vehicle on the ground in order to apply the brake. (same applied when shunting towards a dock siding).  Simple answer at would have been to either run an engine through the goods shed (unless there was a local prohibition on that, use some reach wagons when positioning vehicles in the dock or drawing them out, or use pinchbars.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Is that 10 feet the total length available or can you use the next wall at right angles as well? If its total you really only have 7 feet for the station allowing for a loco and 2 coaches on the traverser, which is what we have on our BLT "Haddenhoe" in 00 loosely based on Faringdon. and I regularly run 4 coach trains and 15 ish wagon freights, as it is the end of our garden line with a lot of main line to act as a headshunt . My son named it, I asked what we should call it and he said "Haddenhoe" roughly translated from teenSpeak he meant he did not know but the name sounded good to me. Two mistakes I made. 1 too many points and short useless sidings. 2 a Kickback siding. No use what so ever until Bachmann bring out a full function shunting hores and gang of blokes with pinch bars. You have to clear the main siding to shunt it and then stick everything back. Super tedious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Oops, still learning how to use RMWeb (esp. on a phone). Introducing a right angle gives the potential for a longer run, but raises new issues of the curve, eg: radius, rationale. Trying to think of an example (St. Ives is different as the station is curved), but that would be a new topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, still learning how to use RMWeb (esp. on a phone). Introducing a right angle gives the potential for a longer run, but raises new issues of the curve, eg: radius, rationale. Trying to think of an example (St. Ives is different as the station is curved), but that would be a new topic.

 

Rationale can be easy - the layout of the land (ie. a hill in the way), a river, a quarry, etc.

 

Railways (as a generalization) tried to choose the cheapest option which means reducing / eliminating such wonderfully scenic things like bridges / viaducts / tunnels and to a lesser extent cuttings and embankments.

 

This of course was often thwarted by the need to remain relatively flat in a non-flat world but still a curve, particularly before/after a station where the train would be slow moving anyway, would be a preferred option I would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With regards to Fairford, what were the kicbacks by the station and turntable used for? Is this covered in the Karau and other books on the line, the platform end one looks like it's for end loading?

 

The kickback by the Station was an end loading bay.

http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Fairford.htm

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

  • RMweb Premium

Rationale can be easy - the layout of the land (ie. a hill in the way), a river, a quarry, etc.

 

Railways (as a generalization) tried to choose the cheapest option which means reducing / eliminating such wonderfully scenic things like bridges / viaducts / tunnels and to a lesser extent cuttings and embankments.

 

 

BTW, (more) compressed versions of Fairford have been created before—Roy Link's The Art of Compromise recently reprised in the October 2018 Railway Modeller, and Iain Rice's Broadwell Green, from MORILL Vol. 1 No. 5.

 

 

The kickback by the Station was an end loading bay.

http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Fairford.htm

 

Pulling these points together, one modelling attraction of Fairford is the roadbridge just before the station platform.  It provides a good scenic break,  as per Harlequin's designs that lead this thread, and as appears in  Roy Link's 1978 article too (I admit I was amongst those influenced by it when it came out).  If a curved entrance to a right-angled fiddle yard is required to fit a room, this can be easily hidden and therefore as tight as rolling stock can negotiate, even when not part of a prototype that would follow the rules mdvle outlines.

 

However, I wonder if the roadbridge also explains the kickback arrangement - there simply isn't room for it at the other end of the platform?  Keeping it as part of the building work for the station platform presumably simplified the task of building the station, as well as making access from the station forecourt / road entrance easier too.  This might would explain why such arrangements can look like a bay platform elsewhere (when none is needed)?  If this is the case, then what I might see as an awkward siding for operation has a number of other reasons for it - that were of greater practical consideration to Victorian 12-inch to the foot layout builders?

 

I'm still curious as to the other kickback siding at the turntable end of the goods loop.  My best guess is that it might just be for siding capacity / to help with shunting.  The map doesn't seem to give any clues as to other uses - the location adjacent to the turntable looks a co-incidence?

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...