Jump to content
 

Advice please


JohnR
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I have started thinking of my next project, and I was looking for comments and any advice people may want to suggest before I commit. The trackplan is based on Sidmouth (see below), but obviously compressed. Does it still work as a plan, despite the liberties I've taken? I'm also in two minds about which side should be the "front" for viewing and operating purposes, ie should the fiddle yard be on the left or right. Also, thoughts on whether a traverser would be better than say Cassettes?

 

Thanks in advance.

Budmouth.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Your plan is very similar to my layout Danemouth - have a look here

 

May I make two suggestions:

  • Harlequin of this parish suggested a curve in the platform - for me this transformed a trainset look into something far more prototypical, and
  • BR2975 also of this parish suggested taking the headshunt under the bridge and into the fiddleyard - this makes shunting easier and in theory could lead to a "turntable" (Peco loco Lift) for tender engines.

Also my track layout does not require any trap points - others are better placed than me as to where they are needed on your plan.

 

Looking forward to seeing how things progress - I am a sucker for BLTs!

Cheers,

Dave

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not familiar with Sidmouth, but if this is a replica of the actual track plan it should be capable of being worked exactly as the original was, perhaps with shorter trains as it’s been compressed.  As it stands, it needs any freight service to occupy the main platform road before setting back on to the headshunt prior to running around and shunting; similarly, it must occupy the main platform road having been made up prior to departure. 

 

This is can be avoided by providing a facing crossover to enter the run around loop from the main running line without setting back, and to depart directly from it.  Re trap points,  needed to protect running lines, one is needed to protect the bay platform road from the short ‘’top’ siding, unless this is meant to be a siding to handle parcels or milk traffic, in which case both roads need a trap to protect the running line from them. 

 

Traversers vs cassettes depends on how many trains you need to be operating to run the timetable. If five are enough (local shuttle from Budmouth Jc, pick up goods, through portion ACE from Waterloo, milk/parcels, and+1), the traversed will suffice.  If you want more, and to change stock on a regular basis, cassettes are the way to go. 

 

How about a hybrid system, 4 road traverser with a blank end for cassettes?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Danemouth said:

John,

Your plan is very similar to my layout Danemouth - have a look here

 

May I make two suggestions:

  • Harlequin of this parish suggested a curve in the platform - for me this transformed a trainset look into something far more prototypical, and
  • BR2975 also of this parish suggested taking the headshunt under the bridge and into the fiddleyard - this makes shunting easier and in theory could lead to a "turntable" (Peco loco Lift) for tender engines.

Also my track layout does not require any trap points - others are better placed than me as to where they are needed on your plan.

 

Looking forward to seeing how things progress - I am a sucker for BLTs!

Cheers,

Dave

 

Thanks for those suggestions, Dave. I agree, it does look a little "square" - but I was trying to capture the essence of Sidmouth in the space that I have, while maintaining the ability to run around 3 coaches (prototype could handle 7 in platform 1 and 5 in platform 2).

 

I had thought about the headshunt not being long enough. The bridge isnt prototypical (at least not this close to the station) the line was in a cutting for a 1/4 mile on leaving the station. Not too worried about tender engines, as the East Devon branches were almost exclusively operated by tank engines, although I may well sneak the odd 700 or T9 onto it. 

 

According to the signal box diagram, there was only a trap point on the former Engine shed siding off the bay, I might be able to squeeze it in, but I really want to ensure I can store at least one coach there (as per the prototype, the shed being disused by my period).

 

 

 

 

Sidmouth_Signal_Box_Diagram_(2).jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Not familiar with Sidmouth, but if this is a replica of the actual track plan it should be capable of being worked exactly as the original was, perhaps with shorter trains as it’s been compressed.  As it stands, it needs any freight service to occupy the main platform road before setting back on to the headshunt prior to running around and shunting; similarly, it must occupy the main platform road having been made up prior to departure. 

 

This is can be avoided by providing a facing crossover to enter the run around loop from the main running line without setting back, and to depart directly from it.  Re trap points,  needed to protect running lines, one is needed to protect the bay platform road from the short ‘’top’ siding, unless this is meant to be a siding to handle parcels or milk traffic, in which case both roads need a trap to protect the running line from them. 

 

Traversers vs cassettes depends on how many trains you need to be operating to run the timetable. If five are enough (local shuttle from Budmouth Jc, pick up goods, through portion ACE from Waterloo, milk/parcels, and+1), the traversed will suffice.  If you want more, and to change stock on a regular basis, cassettes are the way to go. 

 

How about a hybrid system, 4 road traverser with a blank end for cassettes?

 

 

A Hybrid might be the way to go, especially to help changing stock over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looking at that plan, there were 2 traps, one off the loco shed road and one off the 'dock', which means that 'no. 2 road', as it's name suggests, is a passenger running road, protected by traps, interlocking, and facing point locks where necessary.  'No.1 road' is the other passenger road, and what I am calling a runaround loop is called a 'goods siding'.  The splitting home refers to the up and down single running line despite being sited to the left of the headshunt, something that confused me on initial perusal.  It is marked correctly on the diagram as applying to the up and down.

 

This all suggests that the station was operated with the goods traffic occupying no.1 road until it set or was drawn back into the headshunt, blocking that road for use by passenger traffic for this period.  The timetable must have allowed for this, passenger traffic still being able to access no.2 and return if it was a push-pull, or even be drawn out by a loco from the shed, releasing it's incoming loco.  

 

No trap is needed from the loop/goods siding because the crossovers are interlocked to prevent conflicting movements on to the passenger or running lines.  Branch lines of this sort often had slack periods mid morning and afternoon during which a goods could shunt without causing delay to the other traffic.  I'm assuming that the coal cells marked on your layout plan are in the correct position, but I'd expect them to be at the other end of the yard and closer to the weighbridge.  The part of that siding not used for coal traffic would be devoted to 'mileage rate' traffic, unloaded by the recipient's staff into his vehicles.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi John,

 

Here are some tweaks you could make that I suggest would improve things:

 

(I'm going to assume that the viewing side is at the bottom and backscene at the top.)

 

I think you need to make more space around the goods shed because there isn't room to back a lorry up to the loading doors at the moment. So I'd suggest pushing the goods shed track and all the others above it as far back as possible while leaving a decent gap for background scenery. Another reason for doing that is that the area behind the station building is not really visible from normal viewing angles so it's kind of wasted space.

To help move those lines further back I suggest straightening up the engine shed siding as much as you can. I think that's a reasonable compromise. (Even more radically, you could turn it around into a kick back siding...)

 

If you can move the connection to the traverser further down then it gives you more room for traverser roads, which is always a good thing.

 

Those two suggestions would give you a basically diagonal alignment for the station from top left to bottom right (ish) with a small curve to the left just before the line(s) leave the scene. That would make the design a bit more "dynamic", less "square".

 

The headshunt at Sidmouth paralled the main line in the cutting for quite a distance and so you could push your headshunt through the scenic break, like David did with Danemouth, and then:

  • You could push all the station throat pointwork closer to the scenic break. (I would leave just enough space for a loco to remain on scene when its running around.)
  • That would make all the sidings and platform lines longer.
  • You could then insert the trap in the old engine shed siding.
  • And it would help to open up the goods yard a bit more.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The only real problem with your plan is that the headshunt is far too short and with the crossover the same way round as on the prototype you are stuck with a very short train length to run round.  If you are prepared to accept those limitations then the idea is fine - but train length will be severely restricted and, even worse,  shunting the goods yard will be difficult.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I havnt included the dock road, as I dont want to clutter things too much. By the 50s it wasnt used much for cattle traffic anyway.

 

The timetable has the Goods train coming down early in the morning (arriving 8.15am) and returning in the mid afternoon (3.5pm) - not with the same loco!

 

The pictures I've seen of the station show coal bins all along that siding, ( see https://24a04536d882ca0087a3-289132c7eabba70668e526ce8cd83a46.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/production/vh/resources/heroes/sidmouth-station-w560.jpg) but I havnt included it, again because I dont really want it to look too crowded - I've compressed the station in width a fair bit as well. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Danemouth said:

 

  • BR2975 also of this parish suggested taking the headshunt under the bridge and into the fiddleyard

 

You could also steal a foot out of the headshunt and run in (to the right of the signalbox) and put it in the platform roads (to the right of the goods shed). That would open it all up a bit

 

I would like to see that dock on number two road come back, very idiosyncratic 

 

Richard

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi John,

 

Here are some tweaks you could make that I suggest would improve things:

 

(I'm going to assume that the viewing side is at the bottom and backscene at the top.)

 

I think you need to make more space around the goods shed because there isn't room to back a lorry up to the loading doors at the moment. So I'd suggest pushing the goods shed track and all the others above it as far back as possible while leaving a decent gap for background scenery. Another reason for doing that is that the area behind the station building is not really visible from normal viewing angles so it's kind of wasted space.

To help move those lines further back I suggest straightening up the engine shed siding as much as you can. I think that's a reasonable compromise. (Even more radically, you could turn it around into a kick back siding...)

 

If you can move the connection to the traverser further down then it gives you more room for traverser roads, which is always a good thing.

 

Those two suggestions would give you a basically diagonal alignment for the station from top left to bottom right (ish) with a small curve to the left just before the line(s) leave the scene. That would make the design a bit more "dynamic", less "square".

 

The headshunt at Sidmouth paralled the main line in the cutting for quite a distance and so you could push your headshunt through the scenic break, like David did with Danemouth, and then:

  • You could push all the station throat pointwork closer to the scenic break. (I would leave just enough space for a loco to remain on scene when its running around.)
  • That would make all the sidings and platform lines longer.
  • You could then insert the trap in the old engine shed siding.
  • And it would help to open up the goods yard a bit more.

 

Hi Phil,

Although my first feeling is that this should be viewed/operated from the bottom (with backscene at the top), I'm not set on it. I think part of that is because most photographs are taken from the top looking into the station, it just seems the natural viewpoint, but I'd like to see my trains, not have then hidden behind platforms and buildings hence my viewing it from the other side.

 

Your other suggestions are really interesting, although I want to keep it looking Sidmouth-ish, so probably wouldnt turn the engine shed siding into a kickback.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only real problem with your plan is that the headshunt is far too short and with the crossover the same way round as on the prototype you are stuck with a very short train length to run round.  If you are prepared to accept those limitations then the idea is fine - but train length will be severely restricted and, even worse,  shunting the goods yard will be difficult.

 

Appreciate the headshunt is quite short, that was one of my concerns, but if I could push it through the "scenic break" that might solve that. In terms of the crosover, again thats a feature of Sidmouth I want to keep, albeit I've used a 3-way point to save space.  I think I can run around a 3 coach train, but goods traffic would have to be quite short.

 

Quite a bit to ponder....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You have limited space and whatever solution you choose will be a compromise.  Unless the traverser area can be widened you will lose a traverser storage road while the headshunt is being used if it is extended into the area, and of course you will not be able to operate the traverser while the headshunt has stock on it across the gap.   The traverser area needs to be widened on both sides of the layout and if there is a wall directly behind one side, you are snookered.

 

The train lengths you are suggesting currently are suitable for the traverser roads, but 3 coaches are a very tight fit in the run around loop.  Again, I am in the dark as to what stock was used at Sidmouth and how long the train were, but things are tight enough to make it worthwhile what sort of stock you are going to use, 64 foot Bullieds or shorter Bullieds/Maunsells/LSWR.  If the clearance is for 3x 64', fine, but you might run into problems otherwise.  This suggests a limit of 9 wagons for the pickup, and your headshunt is long enough for about 6 and a loco.  The headshunt is a lot longer in reality and serves the gasworks siding as well; gasworks traffic can be accommodated if the headshunt extends into the traverser area.  Roundabouts and swings.

 

I agree with Steve Harlequin's points about the goods yard.  Width between roads in goods yards is traditionally 18 feet, the turning circle of a horse drawn 4 wheeled cart.  The famous Scammell Mechanical Horse matched this performance, one of the reasons for it's popularity as a railway delivery vehicle.  You need 18 feet clearance between the road loading platform and the next road, building, boundary fence or whatever there is, and similar clearance for the mileage siding and coal road.  If you decide to include the end loading dock, then this needs clearance for road vehicles to manoeuvre as well.  

 

Some width space may be saved by either dispensing with the loco shed and assuming that the loco is serviced at the junction, or having it as a kickback parallel to the running line.  

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, I realise this now I've seen the Sidmouth plan.  Budmouth is intended to be recognisably Sidmouth and must operate in the same way, but is too compressed to be built as a scale Sidmouth layout.  It is an interesting one to operate because of the 'backwards' crossover, which gives it it's distinctive character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

You have limited space and whatever solution you choose will be a compromise.  Unless the traverser area can be widened you will lose a traverser storage road while the headshunt is being used if it is extended into the area, and of course you will not be able to operate the traverser while the headshunt has stock on it across the gap.   The traverser area needs to be widened on both sides of the layout and if there is a wall directly behind one side, you are snookered.

 

The train lengths you are suggesting currently are suitable for the traverser roads, but 3 coaches are a very tight fit in the run around loop.  Again, I am in the dark as to what stock was used at Sidmouth and how long the train were, but things are tight enough to make it worthwhile what sort of stock you are going to use, 64 foot Bullieds or shorter Bullieds/Maunsells/LSWR.  If the clearance is for 3x 64', fine, but you might run into problems otherwise.  This suggests a limit of 9 wagons for the pickup, and your headshunt is long enough for about 6 and a loco.  The headshunt is a lot longer in reality and serves the gasworks siding as well; gasworks traffic can be accommodated if the headshunt extends into the traverser area.  Roundabouts and swings.

 

I agree with Steve Harlequin's points about the goods yard.  Width between roads in goods yards is traditionally 18 feet, the turning circle of a horse drawn 4 wheeled cart.  The famous Scammell Mechanical Horse matched this performance, one of the reasons for it's popularity as a railway delivery vehicle.  You need 18 feet clearance between the road loading platform and the next road, building, boundary fence or whatever there is, and similar clearance for the mileage siding and coal road.  If you decide to include the end loading dock, then this needs clearance for road vehicles to manoeuvre as well.  

 

Some width space may be saved by either dispensing with the loco shed and assuming that the loco is serviced at the junction, or having it as a kickback parallel to the running line.  

 

Yes, its a compromise - and probably more than one! Its why I decided not to call this Sidmouth, but to try and make it recognisable, and be able to be operated as Sidmouth was. 

 

 There is a wall behind the layout, so while there would be space for it to swing forward (if the exit was moved forward), there is not a lot of space to go the other direction. Looking at the plan, I think I allowed too much space between the tracks on the traverser - I will have to do some testing.

 

Stock used at Sidmouth was a mixture! Most branch sets in the 50's/60s were either the 58' Rebuilt LSW coaches, or Maunsell 59' stock. However, the Mk1 suburbans also made an appearance, and these were 64', and of course, there were 3 coach sets of Bulleid main line stock as portions of summer Saturday through traffic (Weekdays would be a BCK attached to a branch set).

 

I think the gas works siding would need more width, which is why I dispensed with it in my original plan, but if the headhunt was extended back onto the traverser, I could suggest it is shunted off stage too. The gas works were closed in 1956 and the Camper Van factory wasnt operational until 1960, but the long trains of CCTs or Conflats which appear in the few pictures are probably too big to be handled on Budmouth.

 

While I could make the board wider, I'm reluctant to do so, as 2 foot is probably at the limit of my reach. The loco shed was only going to be modelled in low relief - it had closed in 1930, with the siding ending just in front of the door. 

 

When I get home, I'll have a go at tilting it diagonally to create some more space in the goods yard.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ok, I've had a go at tilting the layout slightly, and extending the headshunt into the fiddle yard. I've put in the second siding off the bay too, but it seems a little short to be able to accommodate a full coach. 

 

Thoughts?

Budmouth - tilted.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think that's going in the right direction; moving the point at which the running line and headshunt disappear off stage releases space for the traverser to move back towards the wall, gives the layout a nice curve which will make it look longer than it is, and has allowed you to squeeze another road on to the traverser.  The second siding off the bay is a cattle/end loading dock, and would not be required to to accommodate a coach.  

 

Be careful of the space between roads on the traverser; it's a balance between getting as many as you need in and being able to get your fingers between rakes to lift items on or off.  As you've now been persuaded to have both the running road and the headshunt running in to the traverser area, all the traverser roads must match the track spacing of those two roads exactly.  Also, close inspection shows that the 'back' road is over the 1foot square marker; you will not be able to push the traverser home against the wall unless there is clearance

 

I can't help feeling that in many places the platform would taper out as far as it could between no.1 and no.2 roads, or be squared off short of that as suggested on the Sidmouth diagram.  A quick squiz at Google Images for Sidmouth shows a photo of the station in a derelict state with the platform ends squared off.

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That looks good.

 

You can have many more roads on the traverser because from the position shown it should only need to slide out towards the viewer/operator. Heavy duty full extension drawer runners will support it while it's fully extended.

 

The spacing of the traverser roads is determined by the spacing of the mainline and the headshunt - and that's good because they can be a bit more widely spaced than standard double-track. (You could splay the roads out on the traverser to get even wider spacing but that way lies madness!)

 

I wouldn't bother with the second end loading siding, personally.

 

You could still lengthen the platforms and sidings by pushing the throat pointwork towards the scenic break a bit. If you also moved the release crossover to the left slightly then your run round loop would be much easier to use.

 

Finally, with the scene exit so close to the front edge it's going to be a bit difficult to disguise it naturally. To solve that you could make the baseboards just a few inches wider to give you a bit of space to scenically disguise the exit better. And that would also allow a bit more width in the goods yard, which is still  tight at the moment. Just 2inches baseboard width would give an extra scale 12ft6in between the shed and the coal siding - much more realistic.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks Phil. I'm afraid I cant really increase the width much, as 2 foot is as wide as the domestic authorities will allow. I'll see if I could nip some space out of the headshunt - should be able to, and I'll have a go at moving the throat pointwork to the right - I think the issue there is going to be to fit in the curve.

 

My only concern is that with the headshunt extended like that, it doesnt "look" right - almost as if it should be a double track line.....

Edited by JohnR
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, JohnR said:

Thanks Phil. I'm afraid I cant really increase the width much, as 2 foot is as wide as the domestic authorities will allow.

Shame. It's only 2 inches... :wink_mini: But I understand the delicate politics involved!

 

Quote

I'll see if I could nip some space out of the headshunt - should be able to, and I'll have a go at moving the throat pointwork to the right - I think the issue there is going to be to fit in the curve.

You could probably use the first point itself to make some or all of the curve like this:

1948007914_JohnRBudmouth.png.640e8308eb7eeaeb5f465c1c4bf1f993.png

 

That's two large radius and three medium. It sets up a 12 degree angle for the station but it could be fettled to look a bit more organic and set up whatever angle is needed.

 

Quote

 

My only concern is that with the headshunt extended like that, it doesnt "look" right - almost as if it should be a double track line.....

I know what you mean but I think it's OK because it would have appeared that double track was disappearing into the distance from the station platform:

PG01982.jpg

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Like most headshunts, it extended a long way beyond the station

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=50.6907&lon=-3.2458&layers=168&b=1

 

The short dock had a platform along the side and end for loading goods, carriages, road vehicles and other stuff

 

Richard

 

Yes, this image is focused on the camper van factory (former Gas Works site), but does show the relationship with the railway on the left. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sidmouth Camper Van.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I wouldn't bother with the second end loading siding, personally.

 

I tend to agree.  While it's a notable feature of the prototype, it will be almost hidden behind the canopy on the model and will be difficult to work.  A CCT parked at the end of the bay will give the same operational interest.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm not convinced that the lines needs to exit at the very front of the board (how many traverser roads do you actually need?) so here's another take on this theme.  I have placed both siding points outside the crossover and moved the bay turnout outwards a little; this appears to be closer to the prototype layout and IMO results in a more spacious and flowing throat.

 

As regards the headshunt, it could be visually differentiated from the running line by the colour and condition of the track and ballast; you might also find room to plant the home signal between the two.  The separation of the two lines as they enter the fiddle yard can easily be adjusted by tweaking the curve on the running line and the position of the Y point.

 

sidmouth3.png.af7ca2719ae01dd84b8c8dc65de93c52.png

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
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...