The Western Way - early stages of a 1930s-based GWR layout

[MarshLane]

Proposals changed to the Cardiff Valleys in November 2019, so current readers may wish to skip to this post, to pick up the story. 
 

If your interested in reading the whole thread, there is some fascinating And useful background info below!
 

 

 

Afternoon guys,

I am seeking a little help (from anyone really) but especially those with any signalling, or GWR operations knowledge.  I have decided to build a small portable 10ft x 2ft (wish) N gauge layout to allow me to do some modelling over the summer, and run trains.  As part I really do want to get the authentic approach to track layout, signalling, buildings and operations. The scenic part of the layout will be 6ft x 18" with end pieces allowing the track to turn 180 degrees into the fiddle yard.  

 

The aim is to recreate part of a GWR secondary main line in the 1930s (ie pre-WW2) and within the Big Four - while a future ambition may be a second set of stock to allow the layout to run mid-late 1950s in BR days.  Trackwork will be handbuilt with Code 40 rail. Current thoughts/proposals, drawn very roughly are:

 

 

I have no name for the layout or the station yet, hence 'The Western Way' title.  Meandering through countryside with a town scene to the right hand side is the aim.  But I have a couple of questions to which I would appreciate any views.

 

1) Is there anything in the track plan for the scenic area that is wrong for the GWR way of doing things?

2) Would the crossover be located at the station, or nearer the signal box? This will only be used by autocoach workings arriving from the left, terminating and departing back to the left.  Would this have been a ground signal with the GWR?

3) With GWR operations in the 1930s, would the loops have been loops or recess sidings, in which case other signals would be required and the length of trains may affect the ground signal by the current crossover.

4) To provide some additional operational interest I'd like to get a loading dock/goods shed and maybe a cattle dock or coal siding in, does anyone have any suggestion how best to do this?  At all cost, I want to avoid the station area looking crammed.

5) Would the distant have been provided in this case, or would it in reality have been a banner repeater - I suspect the latter, unless the station area would come under the control of a separate signal box, which I suspect would be the case if the goods yard is included?

6) Any general comments would be welcomed.

 

Rich

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by MarshLane
Amended Thread Title

[Harlequin]

Hi Rich,

 

I think you need to have a look at Upton Hanbury! Very similar idea but designed as a big fantasy, OO project. Somewhere fictional on the Berks & Hants line.

 

The refuge sidings mainly became loops during WWII, as I understand it. So they would have been refuge sidings in your time period. That may sound awkward but it could provide great theatre as a big freight loco stops and propels a long train back into one of the sidings - if you can do it "on stage".

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Harlequin

[MarshLane]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for that - I have totally missed your Upton Hanbury proposals - I take it you didn't proceed with the ideas?  I'll have a read through.  In many respects, refuge sidings help, as it avoids a curved point on the off stage section, and probably means that the siding on the 'Up' line (lowest left side) can be dispensed with.  I certainly think a freight could be reversed into the 'Down' refuge siding without problem, while keeping it ' on stage ', and certainly adds to the operational interest.

 

Revised version attached. 

 

Rich

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by MarshLane
Added revised track plan

[Siberian Snooper]

Take a look at Cornwood on the GW mainline in South Devon,  25 inch map on the NLS website.   https://maps.nls.uk/view/106006547

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Some GWR refuge sidings were converted into loops in the West Country (and elsewhere) in the 1930s but on secondary main lines such work generally didn't take place until WWII.   So a refuge siding now helps convey that feeling, don't forget the exit signal from the refuge siding would have a ring on the arm.

 

The siting of the signal box creates something of a quandary and I think the best answer would be to move the crossover onto the straight by the signalbox rather than moving the signal box nearer to the station (which is the other alternative).  So keep the signal box where you have shown it (or on the opposite side of the running lines).

 

As far as running line signals are concerned it really depends how busy you consider the route to be.  On the line which has the refuge siding I would leave the running signals as you've got them although you could move the Starting Signal nearer to the station platform end (but not necessarily right at the end of the platform).  The other line is a bit more awkward but with the crossover relocated i would suggest moving the signal near the platform end closer to the bridge (but not past it because you don't want trains stopping at the signal to come to a stand on the bridge if it can be avoided).  I would be inclined to provide a Home Signal a good way further back IF you are likely to terminate trains at the station and then move them forward to crossover by the signal box as it would be a means of reducing delay to any following train.  But that takes us back to how busy you think the line would be.

 

You might find this thread useful -BUT MAKE SURE YOU READ ALL OF IT because there are some misleading posts which are later corrected by other contributors

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/&/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/?hl= gwr signals and where to find them

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, MarshLane said:

Hi Phil,

Thanks for that - I have totally missed your Upton Hanbury proposals - I take it you didn't proceed with the ideas?  I'll have a read through.  In many respects, refuge sidings help, as it avoids a curved point on the off stage section, and probably means that the siding on the 'Up' line (lowest left side) can be dispensed with.  I certainly think a freight could be reversed into the 'Down' refuge siding without problem, while keeping it ' on stage ', and certainly adds to the operational interest.

 

Revised version attached. 

 

Rich

 

 

That thread is worth a read because there were lots of very useful contributions, which will not be wasted even though I won't go ahead with Upton Hanbury itself. I'm currently thinking about something more achievable in the same part of the world.

 

Good luck with your project, Rich. I'll be following with interest.

 

[MarshLane]

Morning all,

Well now rmWeb is back up and running again, I'll post the response I wrote at 7pm last night!!

 

50 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Take a look at Cornwood on the GW mainline in South Devon,  25 inch map on the NLS website.   https://maps.nls.uk/view/106006547

 

Thanks SS - that's interesting and very similar to what I am thinking, so some useful info on topography there!  I am assuming the rectangular blocks alongside the viaduct are the piers of an old tressle viaduct which could be an interesting thing to model.  I can't recall really seeing that in a model, although it would probably set the general area as Cornwall I guess?

 

18 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

That thread is worth a read because there were lots of very useful contributions, which will not be wasted even though I won't go ahead with Upton Hanbury itself. I'm currently thinking about something more achievable in the same part of the world.

 

Good luck with your project, Rich. I'll be following with interest.

 

Thanks Phil, I have had a quick skim this afternoon, and definitely want to go back and re-read it when I am sat in a comfy chair with the iPad!  Once I've got the track plan and that firmly settled I'll start a proper topic, but I'll include a link on this thread of course.

 

 

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Some GWR refuge sidings were converted into loops in the West Country (and elsewhere) in the 1930s but on secondary main lines such work generally didn't take place until WWII.   So a refuge siding now helps convey that feeling, don't forget the exit signal from the refuge siding would have a ring on the arm.

 

The siting of the signal box creates something of a quandary and I think the best answer would be to move the crossover onto the straight by the signalbox rather than moving the signal box nearer to the station (which is the other alternative).  So keep the signal box where you have shown it (or on the opposite side of the running lines).

 

As far as running line signals are concerned it really depends how busy you consider the route to be.  On the line which has the refuge siding I would leave the running signals as you've got them although you could move the Starting Signal nearer to the station platform end (but not necessarily right at the end of the platform).  The other line is a bit more awkward but with the crossover relocated i would suggest moving the signal near the platform end closer to the bridge (but not past it because you don't want trains stopping at the signal to come to a stand on the bridge if it can be avoided).  I would be inclined to provide a Home Signal a good way further back IF you are likely to terminate trains at the station and then move them forward to crossover by the signal box as it would be a means of reducing delay to any following train.  But that takes us back to how busy you think the line would be.

 

You might find this thread useful -BUT MAKE SURE YOU READ ALL OF IT because there are some misleading posts which are later corrected by other contributors

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/&/topic/48504-gwr-signals-and-where-they-go/?hl= gwr signals and where to find them

 

 

Mike,

Firstly many thanks for the detailed reply thats great.  As there is only going to be one end of the siding visible, I suppose the query of refuse siding or library is more academic, although it will affect the actual operating methods of the layout.  We'll go with a refuge siding for now.

 

I have taken your comments on board with regards to the crossover, and moved it on Version 3 see below.  This leads me to wonder how it would have been signalled.  Logically I am guessing there would be a ground signal controlling movements over the crossing from the Down to the Up for the auto trains.  But any freights approaching on the Down Main and then setting back would also need to be a signalled moved - so any thoughts on how that would have been handled?  I have also been able to add in a small goods yard, although it remains to be seen if it will actually fit in the location.

 

 

In terms of traffic and volume, my thought was probably not a core main line, but a secondary main line with a reasonable through traffic (allowing the odd King and Castle, but primarily Halls on passenger traffic, and 6400/1400 on Autocoach terminators) with 2800s and 5600s on lengthy coal workings, Prairie/Panniers on local trip freights, and tender/2800 etc on mixed freights.  Maybe the odd LMS 8F may put in an appearance!  My thought was that only Autotrains would terminate in the Down platform, but *IF* when the track formation is drawn in Templot I can fit something like the small goods yard in, then there is the possibility that Up local freights may depart over the crossover too.  That then begs the question if there is a signal box controlled loop, would there be a separate box at the station, and again in that case is the Up distant needed?

 

To be honest it was the appearance of the Farish Pannier, the availability of a Grange, 2800, Hall and Collett coaches from Dapol and the proposed 5600 from Revolution that really made my mind up on the entire project!  

 

I'll certainly go and have a read of the GWR signals topic that you have linked to - another one for when I am sat in a chair with the iPad and hot chocolate later!!!  God I am sounding old aren't I!

 

Rich

[Kris]

I like the ideas behind this but think that you will struggle to fit in all that you want. The station as indicated will hold 3 coaches and your viaduct would be better as a 1 or 2 arch bridge. Viaducts are huge structures on there own and a 5 arch one would be between 75 and 100 cm long. 

 

[Zomboid]

A 5 arch viaduct is quite long, in most cases it would have needed to be a good reason to put the crossover so far from the signalbox.

 

And operationally, I suspect a terminating train would have shunted between platforms (it's not GW, but AIUI both bays at Wareham were used for the Swanage branch - arrive at the up bay, shunt to the down bay, depart - which seems hugely profligate). It would avoid an FPL on the crossover, and would a full sized signal have been needed for a left-bound departure from the top platform, rather than a shunt disk?

[Siberian Snooper]

Thanks SS - that's interesting and very similar to what I am thinking, so some useful info on topography there!  I am assuming the rectangular blocks alongside the viaduct are the piers of an old tressle viaduct which could be an interesting thing to model.  I can't recall really seeing that in a model, although it would probably set the general area as Cornwall I guess?

 

Yes the rectangular blocks are the stumps of the original timber viaduct.

 

With regards your current drawing the refuge siding would have a trap point protecting the exit, just beyond the signal.

 

[MarshLane]

3 hours ago, Kris said:

I like the ideas behind this but think that you will struggle to fit in all that you want. The station as indicated will hold 3 coaches and your viaduct would be better as a 1 or 2 arch bridge. Viaducts are huge structures on there own and a 5 arch one would be between 75 and 100 cm long. 

 

 

Hi Kris,

Yes that was the concern when I added the goods facilities in.  I have removed them again now, as I also felt it would have given a bit of a 'pushed in' look to the goods yard, and complicated the pointwork/signalling somewhat.  Added to which taking the Down Goods Loop out, allows probably a four coach platform, before the landscape takes over again.  I am envisioning that while longer 7-8 coach trains will run through, only the auto train and maybe a 2/3 coach local will call.  I have also taken your comment about the five-arch viaduct into account - I really need to do some measuring up somewhere on arch widths etc. The main aim to achieve with this is a landscape model that has a railway running through it.

 

 

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

A 5 arch viaduct is quite long, in most cases it would have needed to be a good reason to put the crossover so far from the signalbox.

 

And operationally, I suspect a terminating train would have shunted between platforms (it's not GW, but AIUI both bays at Wareham were used for the Swanage branch - arrive at the up bay, shunt to the down bay, depart - which seems hugely profligate). It would avoid an FPL on the crossover, and would a full sized signal have been needed for a left-bound departure from the top platform, rather than a shunt disk?

 

I take your point about shunting from one platform to another, and 'temporarily' on v4 below I have moved the crossover to reflect that.  The problem is I feel that the Down Starter, ground signal for the shunt move and the crossover are too far from the signal box - they would have been very heavy leavers covering that distance, which makes me think that the signal box should be around the station area - I doubt this kind of location would have had two in quick succession.

 

 

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Yes the rectangular blocks are the stumps of the original timber viaduct.

 

With regards your current drawing the refuge siding would have a trap point protecting the exit, just beyond the signal.

 

Thanks, could make an interesting feature! I have forgotten to add it into this version, but I will include the trap. Id forgotten that.

 

So potentially this is where we are - I am still uncertain on the location of the crossover.  What was GW practice for reversing auto trains?  Pull forward and change platform, or depart from the arrival platform?   The latter resolves the signal box positioning query, and follows what Stationmaster said earlier, but would the GW have entertained that length of signalled 'wrong-line' working for a passenger service?

 

Anyway, excuse my poor graphics - no art talent at all me - but this is where we are at the moment.

 

 

 

Rich

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by MarshLane
Add in v4 graphic

[Kris]

3 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

Hi Kris,

 

I have also taken your comment about the five-arch viaduct into account - I really need to do some measuring up somewhere on arch widths etc. The main aim to achieve with this is a landscape model that has a railway running through it.

 

Rich

 

 

Hi Rich. 

 

My Coombe viaduct layout has a 7 arch viaduct as the main feature. The viaduct is about 130cm long. Take a look at the link in my signature to get a better idea of the size.

[Harlequin]

Hi Rich,

You really need to start drawing to scale to know what will fit and to have appropriate lengths for loops and platforms, etc.

 

Note that Upton Hanbury is a design for a very large layout but it only attempted a single span bridge river crossing! That was not just about space but also about the kind of gently rolling landscape in the area.

 

I'm sure you can fit in a small goods yard with a bit of careful planning. If you can put it on the outside of a curve, you'll have more space.

 

You could think about rationalising the position of the refuge siding so that it's near the station and thus be controlled from the station signal box.

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Morning all,

Well now rmWeb is back up and running again, I'll post the response I wrote at 7pm last night!!

 

 

Thanks SS - that's interesting and very similar to what I am thinking, so some useful info on topography there!  I am assuming the rectangular blocks alongside the viaduct are the piers of an old tressle viaduct which could be an interesting thing to model.  I can't recall really seeing that in a model, although it would probably set the general area as Cornwall I guess?

 

 

Thanks Phil, I have had a quick skim this afternoon, and definitely want to go back and re-read it when I am sat in a comfy chair with the iPad!  Once I've got the track plan and that firmly settled I'll start a proper topic, but I'll include a link on this thread of course.

 

 

 

Mike,

Firstly many thanks for the detailed reply thats great.  As there is only going to be one end of the siding visible, I suppose the query of refuse siding or library is more academic, although it will affect the actual operating methods of the layout.  We'll go with a refuge siding for now.

 

I have taken your comments on board with regards to the crossover, and moved it on Version 3 see below.  This leads me to wonder how it would have been signalled.  Logically I am guessing there would be a ground signal controlling movements over the crossing from the Down to the Up for the auto trains.  But any freights approaching on the Down Main and then setting back would also need to be a signalled moved - so any thoughts on how that would have been handled?  I have also been able to add in a small goods yard, although it remains to be seen if it will actually fit in the location.

 

 

In terms of traffic and volume, my thought was probably not a core main line, but a secondary main line with a reasonable through traffic (allowing the odd King and Castle, but primarily Halls on passenger traffic, and 6400/1400 on Autocoach terminators) with 2800s and 5600s on lengthy coal workings, Prairie/Panniers on local trip freights, and tender/2800 etc on mixed freights.  Maybe the odd LMS 8F may put in an appearance!  My thought was that only Autotrains would terminate in the Down platform, but *IF* when the track formation is drawn in Templot I can fit something like the small goods yard in, then there is the possibility that Up local freights may depart over the crossover too.  That then begs the question if there is a signal box controlled loop, would there be a separate box at the station, and again in that case is the Up distant needed?

 

To be honest it was the appearance of the Farish Pannier, the availability of a Grange, 2800, Hall and Collett coaches from Dapol and the proposed 5600 from Revolution that really made my mind up on the entire project!  

 

I'll certainly go and have a read of the GWR signals topic that you have linked to - another one for when I am sat in a chair with the iPad and hot chocolate later!!!  God I am sounding old aren't I!

 

Rich

Right - the good, the bad. and nothing really ugly.  And despite the spaghetti Western the originals were actually mountains in Switzerland although the words area variation on the translation of their real names..

 

Irrelevancies over and back to this - now superseded - idea but a comment is worthwhile.  No way at a location like this should you go for a facing entrance to a small goods yard.  Yes - some existed on the GWR but they were atypical and in any case you don't really have room for what you've added (as others have already said).  So you've done the right thing by removing it.

 

Now the good - you have got all your ground discs in the right place by the original crossover and refuge siding point.  As already noted you do need to add a trap point at the exit from the refuge siding in order to prevent unwanted movements out onto the main line.

 

IF you intend to stick with a rail motor (push-pull) operation for your terminating and returning passenger service you only need one crossover.  The train arrives at the station from the right hand end of your layout, terminates and unloads passengers and parcels etc then runs forward empty to clear the crossover.   What happens next depends on what other trains are about so the rail motor can

either wait on that line for anything to pass on the other line before crossing over and going back to the station ready to start its return trip,

or if there are trains behind it then it would crossover and return immediately in order to clear the line it arrived on,

or if other trains are expected shortly on both lines it could crossover and shunt clear of the other running line into the refuge siding and wait there until there is a path available for it to come out and get to the platform ready to start its return journey.

All of which is 100% prototypical for various past places on the GWR/WR network.

 

 To be honest I think I would leave out the second crossover but that does depend to some extent on how much space you have got and whether you intend to stick with railmotor only terminating trains.  But a word of caution - at this point you need to think through very carefully what you want out of your layout.  The basic plan allows for plenty of through train action so it would be great for watching trains go by.  There is a bit of shunting and potential timetable conflict action with the reversing railmotor plus you can reverse freights into that refuge siding for regulating purposes.  If you really, truly, think that is what you want then you've got a good plan for the space you have available.  If you want lots of 'shunting action' (whatever that really is?) then you've got the wrong plan - but I don't think you've got the space to really go in for that in a satisfactory manner

 

 

[Kiwi]

23 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

The main aim to achieve with this is a landscape model that has a railway running through it.

Rich

 

 

Thats exactly the sort of modeling I prefer too. Luckily before I got started on what I now realize would have been a disappointment, I was given a very valuable tip. It said that to really achieve the “railway in a landscape” look you need to plan on a scenic length of around three times the length of the longest train you wanted to run through it. That means for (say) an engine plus five carriages totaling at least 150cms, you should have a scenic space of 450cms!!!   Of course that’s only a guide, but look at any of the really successful layouts and that’s about the scale you will find.

 

As others have said, start either drawing to scale, or perhaps create a full size mock-up as soon as possible. 

[Harlequin]

You should be able to squeeze some more length by including parts of the end curves in the scenic area. To do that you probably need to flex the general curves of the layout the other way - tracks near the front edge at the sides and near the backscene in the middle.

 

[Schooner]

For potential inspiration, Bradford-on-Avon (1924 1:2500 OS, courtesy of oldmaps.co.uk):

 

 

1930's GWR; relief main line; comparatively small station and goods yard (though recently extended, I prefer the more compact previous trackplan - as per 1901 OS - but horses for courses); river crossing (single span) and refuge siding...seemed to chime with your proposed plan Marsh. Signal box placement might be of interest, although the points arrangement is rather different. Anyway, thought it might be worth sharing 

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

Edited June 4, 2019 by Schooner

[HillsideDepot]

The overall feel of the plan reminds me of Saltash, the station, viaduct and curvy route of the mainline, even the refuge siding (albeit on the opposite side) could be the divergence at Defiance Platform. At Saltash the goods yard, such that it was, was on the inside of the curve between the station and the viaduct.

 

I know Saltash would be far more spread out than a 6 foot run in N, but as someone who spent many hours on the Devon side of the bridge looking at the view as a child, I wonder if there are elements there to inspire?  

[Kris]

2 minutes ago, HillsideDepot said:

I know Saltash would be far more spread out than a 6 foot run in N, but as someone who spent many hours on the Devon side of the bridge looking at the view as a child, I wonder if there are elements there to inspire?  

 

Saltash from the end of the far end of the viaduct to the Culver road bridge (just after the goods yard) is just under 8ft. I know this because I printed out a map of the goods yard to scale and added it to Coombe viaduct. With a bit of compression it could easily fit in a 6ft space. Width wise uncompressed it needs 80cm, but again with some compression this could be made to fit into the available space. 

[Zomboid]

You want trains in the landscape, so do you really need a station?

Some suggestion of a station is necessary if you'd like to represent terminating local trains, but it could just be the crossover, with the platforms being the just other side of the scenic break bridge (or just the stubs of platforms poking through, Axminster/ Botley style - did the GW have any stations like that?)

 

Of course if building a station is something you'd enjoy then obviously it's the way to go, but if not then you could do a lot more landscape without one.

[MarshLane]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Right - the good, the bad. and nothing really ugly.  And despite the spaghetti Western the originals were actually mountains in Switzerland although the words area variation on the translation of their real names..

 

Irrelevancies over and back to this - now superseded - idea but a comment is worthwhile.  No way at a location like this should you go for a facing entrance to a small goods yard.  Yes - some existed on the GWR but they were atypical and in any case you don't really have room for what you've added (as others have already said).  So you've done the right thing by removing it.

 

Now the good - you have got all your ground discs in the right place by the original crossover and refuge siding point.  As already noted you do need to add a trap point at the exit from the refuge siding in order to prevent unwanted movements out onto the main line.

 

IF you intend to stick with a rail motor (push-pull) operation for your terminating and returning passenger service you only need one crossover.  The train arrives at the station from the right hand end of your layout, terminates and unloads passengers and parcels etc then runs forward empty to clear the crossover.   What happens next depends on what other trains are about so the rail motor can

either wait on that line for anything to pass on the other line before crossing over and going back to the station ready to start its return trip,

or if there are trains behind it then it would crossover and return immediately in order to clear the line it arrived on,

or if other trains are expected shortly on both lines it could crossover and shunt clear of the other running line into the refuge siding and wait there until there is a path available for it to come out and get to the platform ready to start its return journey.

All of which is 100% prototypical for various past places on the GWR/WR network.

 

 To be honest I think I would leave out the second crossover but that does depend to some extent on how much space you have got and whether you intend to stick with railmotor only terminating trains.  But a word of caution - at this point you need to think through very carefully what you want out of your layout.  The basic plan allows for plenty of through train action so it would be great for watching trains go by.  There is a bit of shunting and potential timetable conflict action with the reversing railmotor plus you can reverse freights into that refuge siding for regulating purposes.  If you really, truly, think that is what you want then you've got a good plan for the space you have available.  If you want lots of 'shunting action' (whatever that really is?) then you've got the wrong plan - but I don't think you've got the space to really go in for that in a satisfactory manner

 

 

 

Mike,

Firstly, thanks again for taking the time to provide such a detailed reply.  I know from reading your posts on other threads that your operational background and Western knowledge is invaluable to those of us who have a grounding but not the details, so thank you.

 

The issue over the facing entrance to the goods yard, was a thought that occurred to me and another reason for removing it.  I think given the space, its going to be best to leave that out of the equation all together.  I do enjoy 'pottering' about shuffling wagons between sidings, splitting down and making up goods workings, but the reality is that even in N, space to do that effectively and meet the aim of what I am doing will be difficult (if not impossible!) to achieve.  As you say, while the operating potential is a little limited, the idea for the layout is more than just operating, so yes I am happy with letting the trains wander past, creating opportunities to photograph the models and dealing with the Railmotor and freights.

 

Before I start drawing this up in Templot, I think the subject of the crossover is the big query.  You have raised an interesting thought in that the auto train arrives from the right hand side.  For no other reason that I hadn't thought about it, I'd always envisaged it arriving from the left, through the scene, and into the station, then reversing and departing back again.  But operationally, I think working from the right hand side and putting the crossover back against the signal box would be more interesting.  As you comment, it also gives the option to recess in the refuge siding if necessary.

 

Can I post you a question or two Mike?

Given that anything approaching the home signal at the left hand end of the layout (Down Main) is from the previous signalling block.  Would the crossover be in Position A, B or C?  My thought is B, with the ground signal on the Up Main controlling the set back onto the Down Main, and the ground signal on the Down Main controlling the reverse of anything from the Down Main into the Down Refuge Siding.

 

The use of A would prevent any movement across the crossover while a train is in section approaching from the left, while C would involve freights reversing over two facing points, that I am guessing would be avoided if possible?

 

Rich

[MarshLane]

Guys,

Firstly, thanks for all the input, its all very valid and interesting to read and consider.  Its one of the things I really enjoy about rmWeb is people being involved in what would otherwise just be a one person project, potentially seen by very few!  So thanks to all of you for taking the time.

 

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Rich,

You really need to start drawing to scale to know what will fit and to have appropriate lengths for loops and platforms, etc.

 

Note that Upton Hanbury is a design for a very large layout but it only attempted a single span bridge river crossing! That was not just about space but also about the kind of gently rolling landscape in the area.

 

I'm sure you can fit in a small goods yard with a bit of careful planning. If you can put it on the outside of a curve, you'll have more space.

 

You could think about rationalising the position of the refuge siding so that it's near the station and thus be controlled from the station signal box.

 

 

Phil, yes redrawing in Templot is the next step, but I wanted to make sure the basic track layout was right first. I have got use to Templot in the main and can do what I need to do, but its easier for me, to do adjustments in Illustrator than Templot!  You may well be right about changing to a single span bridge or similar, part of that will be more evident once its drawn to scale.

 

52 minutes ago, Kiwi said:

Thats exactly the sort of modeling I prefer too. Luckily before I got started on what I now realize would have been a disappointment, I was given a very valuable tip. It said that to really achieve the “railway in a landscape” look you need to plan on a scenic length of around three times the length of the longest train you wanted to run through it. That means for (say) an engine plus five carriages totaling at least 150cms, you should have a scenic space of 450cms!!!   Of course that’s only a guide, but look at any of the really successful layouts and that’s about the scale you will find.

 

Hi Kiwi,

Yes thats not a bad rule of the thumb.  Part of the problem comes from using baseboards that were designed for a previous small O gauge project that I didn't progress with for a variety of reasons.  As a result, the scenic boards have end boards on them which is constricting where the track runs on and off.  You may ask, so why not start from scratch?  Well I could, but to be honest, having reacquired the boards from the friend that I gave them to, when he said he'd decided to build a layout in a shed rather than a moveable one, they really were out too good to throw away!  Each one can be manhandled by one person, and LED lights have been fitted!  

 

Excuse that they are in my lounge   The end (off scene) boards are both 28" square, allowing a single track to turn 180 degrees into the fiddle yard that runs along the back of the scenic boards.  I hadn't built that bit when I took this shot!

 

My overall scenic lengths 6ft or 180 cms roughly.  One thought I have had is to swap the scenic exits, so the tunnel is into the hillside (left hand) and a road bridge at the right hand side - which is probably more logical anyway.  That way, only part of the platforms needs to be visible - say enough for a loco, plus coach and a half - the remainder would be off scene.  The down side is that the refuge siding would have to go, and I think operationally that needs to stay, which keeps that area more towards a cutting or over bridge exit.

 

44 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You should be able to squeeze some more length by including parts of the end curves in the scenic area. To do that you probably need to flex the general curves of the layout the other way - tracks near the front edge at the sides and near the backscene in the middle.

 

Hi Phil,

Yes I had thought about that, but (unbeknown to you) if you look at the pic above of the baseboards, you'll see why that isn't an option, unfortunately.  The two end boards will be out of the scenic area and entirely used for turning 180 degrees into and out of the fiddle yard, and merging the double track down into a single track for the curves.  I have laid some meter lengths and run a loco and some wagon around it several times to prove that the 180 degree curves are viable.  Not ideal, but we work with what we have.

 

23 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

You want trains in the landscape, so do you really need a station?

Some suggestion of a station is necessary if you'd like to represent terminating local trains, but it could just be the crossover, with the platforms being the just other side of the scenic break bridge (or just the stubs of platforms poking through, Axminster/ Botley style - did the GW have any stations like that?)

 

Of course if building a station is something you'd enjoy then obviously it's the way to go, but if not then you could do a lot more landscape without one.

Hi Zomboid,

Again, a very valid thought. I quite like the idea of station buildings, and the footbridge linking platforms, but again, it doesn't necessarily have to be the full station, and that may be the answer as I have commented above.

 

Rich

Edited June 4, 2019 by MarshLane

[The Stationmaster]

25 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

Mike,

Firstly, thanks again for taking the time to provide such a detailed reply.  I know from reading your posts on other threads that your operational background and Western knowledge is invaluable to those of us who have a grounding but not the details, so thank you.

 

The issue over the facing entrance to the goods yard, was a thought that occurred to me and another reason for removing it.  I think given the space, its going to be best to leave that out of the equation all together.  I do enjoy 'pottering' about shuffling wagons between sidings, splitting down and making up goods workings, but the reality is that even in N, space to do that effectively and meet the aim of what I am doing will be difficult (if not impossible!) to achieve.  As you say, while the operating potential is a little limited, the idea for the layout is more than just operating, so yes I am happy with letting the trains wander past, creating opportunities to photograph the models and dealing with the Railmotor and freights.

 

Before I start drawing this up in Templot, I think the subject of the crossover is the big query.  You have raised an interesting thought in that the auto train arrives from the right hand side.  For no other reason that I hadn't thought about it, I'd always envisaged it arriving from the left, through the scene, and into the station, then reversing and departing back again.  But operationally, I think working from the right hand side and putting the crossover back against the signal box would be more interesting.  As you comment, it also gives the option to recess in the refuge siding if necessary.

 

Can I post you a question or two Mike?

Given that anything approaching the home signal at the left hand end of the layout (Down Main) is from the previous signalling block.  Would the crossover be in Position A, B or C?  My thought is B, with the ground signal on the Up Main controlling the set back onto the Down Main, and the ground signal on the Down Main controlling the reverse of anything from the Down Main into the Down Refuge Siding.

 

The use of A would prevent any movement across the crossover while a train is in section approaching from the left, while C would involve freights reversing over two facing points, that I am guessing would be avoided if possible?

 

Rich

Right - so now we need to look at several things.

 

Firstly if dealing with a double line station which terminated and reversed trains you would normally have the trailing crossover in advance of the arrival platform.  Thus the train would arrive and then draw forward, empty, in the right direction, clear of the crossover before setting back through the crossover and thus crossing onto the other line in its right running direction.  You'd obviously need two crossovers if it's a hauled train where the engine needs to run round and the run round might precede or follow the crossing of the coaches depending on local circumstances.  Hence I took your railmotor as arriving from the right from your original siting of the crossover.

 

Now to ABC where we have to consider several separate things.  Firstly the civil engineer, especially on the Western, would like to avoid having pointwork, particularly crossovers, on curved track if it could be avoided - it was simpler (and cheaper) to maintain particularly if there was any superelevation involved on the curves.  But not always possible of course.

 

In operating terms it makes relatively little difference because the relative distances between A, B, & C are not much when compared with the quarter mile (440 yards) needed for a signalling Clearing Point.  The only thing that would change on your three sketches is that the Down Home Signal on A would have to be moved  back to protect the crossover (and on all three sketches each trailing point end will need a ground disc).  There were plenty of instances where trains setting back into a refuge siding - or yard - would pass over another point end which was normally trailing; in reality setting back over one properly maintained point was very little different in risk terms from setting back over several as speeds were low. 

 

Now we come to the biggie - other trains about while crossing over.  Under the standard Signalling Regulations - which would not be modified at a wayside location such as this - the Signalman needed a Clearing Point of 440 yards in advance of his (outermost) Home Signal before he could accept a train from the 'box in rear.  So in your modelled scenario there would never be a railmotor using the crossover, or a freight setting back into the refuge siding, while a train is approaching on the Down Main.  The only time the railmotor crossing would be allowed is if a Down train has already passed or has arrived and is standing at the Home Signal - if such a train is approaching and hasn't yet arrived and stopped at the Home Signal the railmotor would have to wait on the Up Main until that train has either passed or has stopped at the Home Signal.

 

Similarly if a freight has arrived and will set back into the refuge siding then another train cannot be accepted on the Down Main.   At a place like this the alternative - of providing an additional Home Signal 440 yards in rear of the one immediately protecting the points - would be unlikely.  For example at both Chalford and Saltash, where railmotors were regularly crossed over on relatively busy lines, there were no additional Home Signals to create a Clearing Point which didn't foul the crossovers.

[LBRJ]

At first glance the plan reminded me not so much of Saltash, but the next station down the line,

St Germans.

 

As show in this link to the NLS website

 

St Germans

[Siberian Snooper]

Reading the Stationmasters first post, my thoughts immediately turned to Defiance Platform.

 

https://maps.nls.uk/view/105994510