Recreating the Berrow Branch?

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Greetings All,

 

Firstly apologies if the thread title is misleading in any way.  I recently discovered Mac Pyrke's Berrow Branch thanks to this forum:

 

 

Lately I've been struggling to get excited about terminus-to-fiddle yard layout plans, then I came across the Berrow Branch.  It's really caught my imagination, and I'm thinking about using the plan as the basis of my own first layout.   I appreciate that it makes compromises but I think that's a necessary evil.  However I'm sure I read somewhere else on this forum that the track geometry isn't compatible with modern Peco turnouts.  Can anyone confirm or deny that?  Has anyone attempted to recreate it in Anyrail?   I'm going to have a stab at it myself  but I just can't get the curves right in Anyrail.  (Harlequin, I'm looking in your direction....... you're good at this sort of thing  )

 

Thanks in advance for any advice offered!

[JohnR]

It was recreated in Peco's latest A4 track plan book, and I presume they used Peco geometry. 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

I guess that answers that then! 

 

Thanks

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

I guess that answers that then

 

Not completely.  The issue isn't recreating Berrow (which is pretty conventional in its actual trackwork), it's how much space you need to do it using a particular track system.

[imt]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

The issue isn't recreating Berrow (which is pretty conventional in its actual trackwork)

 

I saw Berrow in its heyday, and very interesting it was too to a teenager with very little space (or money!).  Since then I have learned a bit more and there are many things I would think of changing now.  Like:

 

1) difficult to access Fiddle Yard (though it was plenty good enough for the timetable)

2) no head shunt for East Brent which would close the main line for any access to the goods facilities

 

I think if I were having a go at "recreating" it I would probably move the turntable to the left of the main line, swing the main line wider, move the point to East Brent right (longer FY and maybe space for a small headshunt using a slip?) and place Berrow station at an angle bottom left to top right giving some more platform length.

 

There is something similar here (Deneside - a layout in a small shed) which is good fun 

  Awful signalling but the rest is good.

 

I do have access to Anyrail so I may have a go.

[JohnR]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Not completely.  The issue isn't recreating Berrow (which is pretty conventional in its actual trackwork), it's how much space you need to do it using a particular track system.

 

Yes, in Peco's "Compendium of Track Plans" they do state that theyve stretched the design to accommodate modern track geometry, and their version is 9'6" x 7'6". 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, imt said:

 There is something similar here (Deneside - a layout in a small shed) which is good fun 

 

Looking at Berrow brought Deneside to mind for me too.  The long branch on Deneside would remove the shunting problem at East Brent, though of course it is a bigger layout.

 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Not completely.  The issue isn't recreating Berrow (which is pretty conventional in its actual trackwork), it's how much space you need to do it using a particular track system.

 

Sorry, that’s what I meant but I clearly didn’t say it very well. 

 

1 hour ago, imt said:

 

I saw Berrow in its heyday, and very interesting it was too to a teenager with very little space (or money!).  Since then I have learned a bit more and there are many things I would think of changing now.  Like:

 

1) difficult to access Fiddle Yard (though it was plenty good enough for the timetable)

2) no head shunt for East Brent which would close the main line for any access to the goods facilities

 

I think if I were having a go at "recreating" it I would probably move the turntable to the left of the main line, swing the main line wider, move the point to East Brent right (longer FY and maybe space for a small headshunt using a slip?) and place Berrow station at an angle bottom left to top right giving some more platform length.

 

There is something similar here (Deneside - a layout in a small shed) which is good fun 

  Awful signalling but the rest is good.

 

I do have access to Anyrail so I may have a go.

 

Fiddle yard access - duly noted. 

 

I don’t see the lack of a headshunt as a big problem; many yards never had one. I’ll just have to make sure the line’s clear in time for the next arrival   I do like the visual impact of a double-slip though and they are a very convenient (and prototypical) way of adding the essential trap. A slip on the runaround at Berrow would also allow for a longer goods siding.  I’d be comfortable losing the turntable altogether. 

 

Thanks for for the link to Deneside, I’ll have a look. 

[Flying Pig]

20 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Sorry, that’s what I meant but I clearly didn’t say it very well. 

 

Probably my irony meter needs its back to backs checking.

[imt]

58 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

I don’t see the lack of a headshunt as a big problem; many yards never had one.

 

I would agree for Berrow Station - the problem is the main line Berrow to Fiddle Yard would be obstructed by any shunting in East Brent.  I'd aim to overcome that one if possible. 

[Flying Pig]

6 minutes ago, imt said:

 

I would agree for Berrow Station - the problem is the main line Berrow to Fiddle Yard would be obstructed by any shunting in East Brent.  I'd aim to overcome that one if possible. 

 

As usual it depends.  If as I suspect this is going to be a home layout worked with one operator in steam, then it makes little practical difference that a shunt at either station uses the other as a neck or blocks the junction.  And as the operator is looking at the station being worked, then provided there's a half decent scenic break between the two it shouldn't be visually intrusive either: the track beyond the starter can be imagined to be the section that should exist between the two stations and it can all be worked in a railwaylike manner with disbelief adquately suspended.

 

The junction could be the most visually tricky aspect of the layout as it's rather too close to the throat at East Brent but the original hides it behind the mill and in the photos East Brent looks quite self-contained.

 

[Harlequin]

It's quite an old-fashioned track plan in many ways.

 

Probably best to just pick out the aspects that you like and try to make something new on that basis. Maybe a fully scenic end-to-end with a connection to a detachable cassette for fiddling? A cassette like that would be accessible but would not take up permanent space.

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's my quick draft in Peco Streamline:

 

All the points are small radius left, right and Y apart from one curved left and one double-slip. Minimum radius 610mm.

 

[tractionman]

thanks for posting the plan, Phil--seeing it stripped down to the track layout only it looks quite an interesting layout operationally, and the small radius points, lots of sidings and loops, to me suggest it's a plan that would suit an industrial-themed layout, food for thought!

 

cheers,

 

Keith

 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

As usual it depends.  If as I suspect this is going to be a home layout worked with one operator in steam, then it makes little practical difference that a shunt at either station uses the other as a neck or blocks the junction. 

 

Wise words. It hath been said a long time ago that the average service on a model railway makes Clapham Junction look idle. In practice there was oodles of time for shunting cramped yards without anything being delayed. We can't ever add adequate separation between stations on our models. But if we operate each as a single location with headshunt it still feels just right. 

[Flying Pig]

That does show how cramped a site East Brent occupies.  I would suggest using a curved point at the outer end of the loop, hard up against the junction to gain as much length as possible.  Moving the points mostly out of sight would probably also help to suggest that the station islonger than it really is.

 

I'd also make the entry to the main platform at Berrow straight through, simply to move the platform to the right and gain some space for the goods yard which is very tight as drawn.  You could adjust the main line curve to get the angle you want.

 

I like the loop from the bay to the turntable but I wonder how it was worked.  I'd be tempted to put the cattle dock on it just to make market days really weird!

 

 

[Brian D]

4 hours ago, imt said:

 

I saw Berrow in its heyday, and very interesting it was too to a teenager with very little space (or money!).  Since then I have learned a bit more and there are many things I would think of changing now.  Like:

 

1) difficult to access Fiddle Yard (though it was plenty good enough for the timetable)

2) no head shunt for East Brent which would close the main line for any access to the goods facilities

 

I think if I were having a go at "recreating" it I would probably move the turntable to the left of the main line, swing the main line wider, move the point to East Brent right (longer FY and maybe space for a small headshunt using a slip?) and place Berrow station at an angle bottom left to top right giving some more platform length.

 

There is something similar here (Deneside - a layout in a small shed) which is good fun 

  Awful signalling but the rest is good.

 

I do have access to Anyrail so I may have a go.

 

Thanks for the plug imt.  Can we agree to disagree about my signalling? 

 

However, my layout was inspired by the U shape version of Berrow as shown below in a semi recent Railway Modeller layout special.

 

 

However, I have double tracked the main line, turned East Brent into a simple colliery and raised the (rear) fiddle yard and dropped the narrow colliery sidings in front.  I have also included a traversing fiddle yard to improve access and egress to the main lines.  Current track plan is as below.

 

 

Layout is housed in a 11 ft x 7 ft shed so is net 10 ft 6 inches x 6 ft 6 inches.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Brian.

[Izzy]

I really like the original design because everything ‘fits’ in a way that allows a wide variety of moves so long as you accept the limits of short trains, and the minimal amount of scenery possible blends in to make it seem real/logical/feasible in a way many other layouts don’t. TBH I have never ever realised that a second siding existed at the rear of East Brent, always appearing to be just the one with the mill siding opposite and in the front. 

 

To my my mind it works well as a single-handed operator layout simply because when on your own you can really only do one thing at a time on which to give your attention unless you have a circular type on which other trains can just be left to circulate.

 

I have often thought that it would be handy if the bay could be longer, say if the station building was end on, so ‘mainline’ services could arrive, the carriages being pulled off by a shunter and releasing the train loco to use the loop to reach the table. Or even the train loco, if there was enough space, to reverse the stock into the loop until needed.  With enough space it would be possible to re-arrange the whole track design here. Have the loop run to where the engine shed is, which would be extended as a headshunt, and have table and shed access from it going the opposite way, perhaps even the shed off the table. So many possible variations.........but the basic and simple core design still holds good to me. But then I do prefer smaller and simpler layouts as they seem more achievable for the individual modeller.

 

regards,

 

Izzy

[imt]

1 hour ago, Brian D said:

Thanks for the plug imt.  Can we agree to disagree about my signalling? 

 

 

Hi Brian! Sorry - I should have known you would see that cheap (and unnecessary!) comment.  I apologise.  Rule 1 applies in all such cases.

[JohnR]

Phil's version is based on a later version of Berrow, when it was 'L' shaped. The version I was talking about earlier was the 'U' shaped one, in Peco's 'Compendium of Track Plans' - which said that they had stretched it to accommodate Streamline geometry. 

 

The 'U' shaped Berrow was an earlier version - and of course there was the version which had a model of Midford on the intermediate board!

[Titanius Anglesmith]

17 hours ago, imt said:

 

I would agree for Berrow Station - the problem is the main line Berrow to Fiddle Yard would be obstructed by any shunting in East Brent.  I'd aim to overcome that one if possible. 

 

Ah yes, I see what you mean now.  A necessary compromise with the space constraints I think, but otherwise yes I agree.

 

16 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's my quick draft in Peco Streamline:

 

All the points are small radius left, right and Y apart from one curved left and one double-slip. Minimum radius 610mm.

 

 

Thanks Phil, you never cease to amaze me

 

16 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

That does show how cramped a site East Brent occupies.  I would suggest using a curved point at the outer end of the loop, hard up against the junction to gain as much length as possible.  Moving the points mostly out of sight would probably also help to suggest that the station islonger than it really is.

 

I'd also make the entry to the main platform at Berrow straight through, simply to move the platform to the right and gain some space for the goods yard which is very tight as drawn.  You could adjust the main line curve to get the angle you want.

 

I like the loop from the bay to the turntable but I wonder how it was worked.  I'd be tempted to put the cattle dock on it just to make market days really weird!

 

 

 

I like those suggestions, especially spacing out the goods yard.  With regards to the turntable and engine shed I could quite comfortably lose them altogether.  Maybe replaced with an exchange or carriage siding?

 

15 hours ago, Brian D said:

 

Thanks for the plug imt.  Can we agree to disagree about my signalling? 

 

However, my layout was inspired by the U shape version of Berrow as shown below in a semi recent Railway Modeller layout special.

 

 

However, I have double tracked the main line, turned East Brent into a simple colliery and raised the (rear) fiddle yard and dropped the narrow colliery sidings in front.  I have also included a traversing fiddle yard to improve access and egress to the main lines.  Current track plan is as below.

 

 

Layout is housed in a 11 ft x 7 ft shed so is net 10 ft 6 inches x 6 ft 6 inches.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Brian.

 

Interesting, thanks for the diagram. 

[Chimer]

If I was reworking this, I think I would try to have the junction between the East Brent twig and the main branchline to the rest of the world as part of the Berrow scene, so as to have two distinct lines leaving Berrow.

 

But I'm not sure I'm entitled to rework something I thought was just wonderful when I first saw it back in the day!

[Pacific231G]

On 29/04/2019 at 18:07, Harlequin said:

Here's my quick draft in Peco Streamline:

All the points are small radius left, right and Y apart from one curved left and one double-slip. Minimum radius 610mm.

 

Hi Phil

The original version of Berrow was laid with Pecoway track and most of the trackwork in Berrow station itself seems to have remained in place through the layout's various iterations. I've got two or three Pecoway points, made to BRMSB standards, and, with a nominal radius of three foot, they are very similar in geometry and length-they're about 1/8 inch shorter- to the current Streamline medium radius point. 

 

I've had a go at reproducing the original plans from 1958 and 1962 as closely as possible using Streamline and it does all fit without having to resort to small radius points or anything other than left and right hand  medium radius points. So far as I can make out from photos, Mac Pyrke seems to have simply used left and right hand Pecoway points straight out of the box.  

 

This is the plan for Berrow based on the original L shaped version of the layout Railway of the Month in the September 1958 Railway Modeller. The junction point for E. Brent was on the corner baseboard on the far side of the road bridge. Mac Pyrke's plan for this shows a two foot wide baseboard which is what I've used here. That first plan was less carefully drawn than those in later articles so I think it's really the same 20-21 inch wide baseboard that appears in every subsequent plan and the street is narrower than it appears here. The first plan also shows the track as parallel to the baseboard edge but I think it was angled as in later plans though I think they may exagerate the angle somewhat

Berrow reappeared less than two years later as Railway of the Month in June 1960 as a U shaped layout but for me the "real" Berrow branch was this version, L shaped again, that was Railway of the Month in June 1962 and appeared again in October 1963 in an article titled "Operating Berrow" which explains the timetable and the graph used to produce it in some detail. This is the version of Berrow that imspired me as a youngster 

 

To render this with Peco Streamline the only places where I really had to compromise from Pyrke's plans were on the 1962 version with the approach curve to the engine shed which I think may be tighter than on the actual layout and in the rear siding at E. Brent. However colour photos in the December 1978 RM reveal the E. Brent goods yard to be far more cramped than it appears on the plan. Two of the points there,  the loco release and the mill siding entance,  are actually both the other way round from his plan as I've shown them.

 

The curve between the entrance to Berrow and the East Brent junction occupies a quarter radius of 24 inches without transitions so was probably a bit tighter than that which is something he talks about in one of the articles. Away from proprietary products the usual advice for OO in those days was to use a minimum curve on plain track of  two foot or preferably two foot six while a nominal three foot radius seems to have been the de facto standard for points. So far as I know Pecoway points weren't offered in any other radius.  Mac Pyrke went on to use Firmway track, which I think used soldered copperclad (pcb) strip, but all photos of the Berrow Branch show the equivalent point geometry (I've got some SMP 3 ft radius points and they're pretty close in geometry to the others) 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Pacific231G
spelling

[Nearholmer]

231

 

With your "encyclopaedic knowledge of former layouts" hat on, could I ask you: didn't Charford gain a 'twig from the branch', as per Berrow-East Brent, at some stage?

 

If so, is there a track-plan for that around?

 

Kevin

[Pacific231G]

23 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

231

 

With your "encyclopaedic knowledge of former layouts" hat on, could I ask you: didn't Charford gain a 'twig from the branch', as per Berrow-East Brent, at some stage?

 

If so, is there a track-plan for that around?

 

Kevin

Hi Kevin

The answer is operationally yes but sometimes virtual. The original imagined plan of the branch has its main junction inland at Chard but a "Bridport Branch Junction" two miles up the branch from Charford for a branch running parallel to the coast east to Bridport where it connected with the GW branch. In the original timetable described in February 1956 this line had just one return goods working each day but it had no physical existence on the layout.

By 1959 the original "caravan" layout had grown into a still portable but slightly larger L shaped layout (John Charman was an RAF Flight Officer living in married quarters at various bases) This had a simple four road storage yard but in front of it the first stop on the Bridport line Whitchurch Halt was modelled to hide the storage sidings- a desirable move domestically as the layout normally occupied a corner of the lounge. Operationally, the GW goods train  ran as far as Whitchurch andthough in imagination it went through to Bridport, the line beyond Whitchurch  was non existent so the goods actually reversed there . According to the timetable the Bridport branch goods train came into Charford fairly early in the morning and returned in the early afternoon so its loco, a pannier tank, effectively lived at Whitchurch. 

 

At some point, the Bridport goods was joined by a GW autocoach, operated by the same pannier tank as the goods, and In a second article on timetabling in February and March 1962 this ran several times a day to and from Bridport (but really no further than Whitchurch) .

Charman retired from the RAF in 1962 and moved to Woking where he was able to establish Charford as a permanent layout with a continuous run for  testing and larger storage sidings under the station board. Whitchurch was now closed to passengers, the non existent line to Bridport  closed and lifted beyond Whitchurch which now became a goods only terminus with a mineral depot served by a narrow gauge tramway. The GW autotrain now just ran between Charford and Chard Central. 

I rather like the idea of visible storage sidings modelled to look real even if their operational role isn't. Maurice Dean used them for his Culm Valley Railway.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Pacific231G