Hannet Purney

[Harlequin]

Hi everyone,

 

I like the process of designing layouts (you might have noticed... ) but I am actually aiming to build something more than my current small non-scenic test layout.

 

My first essay, Hampton Malstead, was a BLT but the trackplan was a cliche, the traffic volume artificial (and even then limited scope) and because the station completely filled the plan there was not much sense of place.

 

Another design, Upton Hanbury, abolished the space restrictions that forced so much compromise on Hampton Malstead. However, it was too big and there were some niggles with the fiddle yard that I couldn't resolve.

 

Since then I've thought about doing a true-to-the-original Minories with folding fiddle yard, a true-to-prototype single track through station Llanglydwen (so beautiful but so little traffic) and fictional "Fenniford" a BLT with a unique track plan and space to breathe, but still a BLT with all that implies.

 

So back on the main line, I realised that a junction station would give more operating potential (e.g. Little Muddle and Stoke Courtenay) and, if it was out in the country, would not need long platforms.

 

Hannet Purney Junction

Hannet Purney station is in a space-time bubble on the Berks & Hants (extension), somewhere near where Patney & Chirton was in our universe. The time is around 1927-1937.

 

The double-track main line heads southwest towards Westbury, Exeter, Plymouth, and Penzance. The single-track branch line, which used to be the main line before the more direct route was created, heads north west towards <somewhere undecided>.

 

The station plan is heavily inspired by Patney & Chirton but the military loops and sidings are replaced by a Pewsey/Thatcham style simple goods yard.

 

The first thing you will notice are the facing crossovers. These are derived from a signalling diagram for Patney & Chirton dated 1957 and I'm aware that that formation might have been different back in my time period and without the military loops. So they are under review.

 

Layout Design

It's not finished. I'm still thinking about the scenery in particular but the track plan has reached a good stage to show you:

• The layout is about 6350*2300mm (21ft by 7ft 6in).
• Edit: I forgot to say: OO 4mm scale.
• There are 11 baseboards in total:
  
• 6 similar baseboards with 5 degree diagonal ends; 3 left-hand, 3 right-hand. Two large rectangular fiddle yard boards and one special central scenic board with 5 degree diagonals at both ends.
• One in-fill board deepens the scenic area on the left and one bridging board carries the reversing loop on the right.
• The scenic area has the station on the far right and includes most of the left hand end curves to maximise the length of plain track running in countryside. The branch line curve will be disguised somehow.
• The backscene is continuous to give a sort of panoramic effect but is irregular because of the deeper scenic area on the left.
• All trackwork is Peco Streamline. Minimum track radius 610mm.
• The branch junction is the smoothest I can make it by using the largest radii Streamline parts available: 1 large radius (~1162mm) and 3 large Ys (1524mm)
• Facing entry crossovers at either end of the fiddle yard allow up trains to enter any of the 13 loops and down trains can access the top 9.
• Branch traffic leaving the scene has access to 5 loops.
• The reversing loop hidden behind the asymmetric backscene on the right can turn entire trains running in either direction and feed the reversed train into any of the 13 storage loops. Some of these manoeuvres require propelling over curved points, however...
• The associated turning triangle can be used to quickly turn a loco without reversing the entire train.
• I might yet add another goods siding or a private siding for a mill but I'm wary of making things too busy and upsetting the railway/landscape balance.
• There will be a river or canal in the scenic area somewhere.

 

What do you think? Have I committed any cardinal sins? 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Harlequin
Correct min track radius

[DCB]

Looks interesting.   My never completed loft layout had a reversing loop concept so all trains could run both clockwise and anticlockwise round the layout which makes viewing much more interesting.

The double track branch connection looks very 1940s. Many branches had no direct connection to the main line  Tetbury springs to mind. I would leave it out and have fun reversing the goods onto the branch.

On the flip side the lack of a branch run round loop at the junction is a bit unusual.

[Harlequin]

Here's Patney and Chirton c. 1924:

Extracted and processed from old-maps.co.uk.

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Harlequin
Citation

[The Johnster]

The facing double junction is so redolent of WW2 that I cannot visualise it without one of those red brick flat roof signalboxes, and would be an essential for any layout post about 1943, and it's absence just as essential for periods prior to that.  I'd leave it out because there is not a lot of operation to be done on this layout (it would be important to me, so pardon and ignore me if I'm projecting my own needs onto your layout), and a high point of whatever operation there is will be the reversing of the pickup across the station throat blocking the main lines and having to be done to timetable to avoid delaying the Cornish Riviera.  I think this would be a Westbury turn.

 

We are looking north for this diagram, and there needs to be high chalk downland behind the station perhaps a mile or so away, which begs the question of where the branch is going; there's not much in the way of towns or villages up there and it doesn't look like an MSWJ or DN&S through route.  

 

The canal, if you have it, will be the Kennet and Avon or a branch of it, capable of taking boats to those dimensions, and needs a K & A 'look' to structures and bridges.  

[The Stationmaster]

The only thing I would wonder about is the double slip in the Up Main Line - yes there was one at Patney of course but they were pretty unusual things in running lines at minor through stations - it's really whether you're after 'spririt of Patney' or something 'typical'.

 

And at least you have a proper, archetypal, junction to the single line - something which so many folk miss out notwithstanding the BoT and successors requiring such an arrangement until relatively modern times although they tended to be associated with branches used by through trains where the preponderance of trains were running through from the 'main' line and hence were not unusual on the B&H and B&H Extension lines so again adding to sense of place.  

 

Going round the back so to speak the reversing loop looks a bit tight radius wise although I can fully understand the space constraint, and it is a great idea which has onbvious advantages.

 

Operationally I obviously don't know exactly what you are looking for but I can see one or two potential headaches.  Firstly  you can't run round a branch train without using the Main Lines, including quite a lone wrong direction move, which might be a nuisance deoending on how busy the throiugh route is.  Patney of course saw mainly - if not at various periods entirely - through trains to/from Devizes with no branch service running round and the back platform was quite short when it came to dealing with freights.  The freights which served the station were also through trains (via Devizes mainly) but obviously you won't be bound by what happened at the real Patney.

 

Overall I loike it and it would make a rather nice layout i think.

[AndyB]

Just a thought, and I may have missed something, but the centre operating well tapers to around 1'.

Will this allow you to access the left-hand end of the layout?

Sadly I'd get wedged if I tried. 

[Stubby47]

It all depends whether the branch train terminates at the junction or not.

 

As there is no facing cross over (clockwise) before the station, branch trains might use Platform 1 before departing, indicating their previous arrival along the main line.

 

Chacewater-Newquay trains originated from Truro, not Chacewater.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Stubby47
Can't tell clockwise from anticlockwise...

[Harlequin]

Thanks everyone. Clearly I need to think about branch services a bit more: Whether they should terminate at Hannet Purney at all and if so, whether I need to improve the run round with a separate loop or possibly by adding a trailing crossover at the east end of the station.

 

And I need to think about the facing double slip on the Up line.

 

The branch is going to Devizes or, if I expand my space-time bubble a bit, to somewhere very much like Devizes. In other words, it's a cross-country branch that rejoins the network at Holt Jcn or somewhere like it and so it can be used as a diversionary route occasionally (Single Red).

 

In the same alternate reality bubble the nearby river is the Hannet of course, not the Kennet , and the canal is the Hannet and Avon - but point taken: it has a particular style.

 

The gap in the middle is just a consequence of how the boards fit together to contain the end curves - it's not an operating well. I realise it's a bit unusual but I don't think it will be a problem.

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Harlequin

[Zomboid]

Are you intending to build this? If so, for what purpose? Exhibitions? Home use only?

 

As others have said, it looks like a watching the trains go by plus a bit of shunting type layout, which would probably work well at an exhibition, but the hole in the middle being as small as it is puts the operator out the front with the punters, and any shunting will probably need the operator to reach over the station when the auto couplers don't work.

 

If it's a home layout you'll need a reasonable gap around all sides to operate it.

[Tallpaul69]

Looks good Phil,

 

However, before you progress any further, I think you should look at the WTT for the area (but I would say that wouldn't I!) and see what were what I call the "signature trains" for the area. In other words much as features of the Kennet and Avon Canal are unique, you need one or two trains that make the layout unique.

 

Immediately there comes to mind the Bristol to Paddington trains that ran via the Berks and Hants and Devizes. In the 30s there was a 11.15 Bristol to Paddington, which only had six coaches plus a syphon G, and one of those was a non corridor 3rd!

The 14.45 down train started as 9 coaches but dropped four at Newbury.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

[mdvle]

On 16/06/2019 at 05:11, Harlequin said:

• The branch junction is the smoothest I can make it by using the largest radii Streamline parts available: 1 large radius (~1162mm) and 3 large Ys (1524mm)

 

More of a general comment not specific to this layout, but something anyone building a layout could consider is (on the assumption that the layout builder isn't interested in handlaying track) is to see if someone else would be interested in making some custom trackwork.

 

 

[Harlequin]

@Zomboid Do I intend do build this? Maybe - if I'm satisfied that the time expense and upheaval will be worth it. I realise that's it's very ambitious for a one-man layout.

 

At home I could erect it and just about get access all round by ducking under and squeezing into the corners of the room. That's not ideal, but a 4mm scale layout has to be this kind of size to do justice to mainline traffic, doesn't it. Doesn't it? It would be a real challenge to compress further while retaining some sense of open countryside.

 

I had imagined operating mainly from behind if it were ever exhibited with just station goods activities run from out front. Good point about auto couplers but I've seen plenty of layouts with similar issues. Have to think about that a bit.

 

@Tallpaul69 Yes, good idea, but I don't know where to find an early-to-mid-thirties STT for the B&H. Where should I look? The 11.15 Bristol to Paddington via Devizes as you describe it is exactly the sort of detail I'd love to get right.

 

@mdvle I realise that I am somewhat limiting myself by sticking to Streamline geometry but I have to draw the line somewhere (ho ho) and make some compromises to get something built. I think (hope!) that by choosing and combining Peco parts carefully I should be able to create reasonable trackwork. If a Streamline formation looks awkward then yes maybe a custom-built formation would be a good answer. BTW: If anyone produced a larger radius single or double slip compatible with Streamline geometry they'd sell like hotcakes!

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Harlequin

[Stubby47]

I was assuming this was 2mm scale.

 

The branch crossing (Clockwise to branch) consists of point/crossing/point. Using Peco Streamline long points, these are 10 1/4", 9 3/4" and 10 1/4" long, a total of 30 1/4".

 

You have all three within less than 24" on the plan.

 

Unless I'm missing something.

 

 

[Zomboid]

They're Y points, it's a Y X Y formation.

[The Stationmaster]

45 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Zomboid Do I intend do build this? Maybe - if I'm satisfied that the time expense and upheaval will be worth it. I realise that's it's very ambitious for a one-man layout.

 

At home I could erect it and just about get access all round by ducking under and squeezing into the corners of the room. That's not ideal, but a 4mm scale layout has to be this kind of size to do justice to mainline traffic, doesn't it. Doesn't it? It would be a real challenge to compress further while retaining some sense of open countryside.

 

I had imagined operating mainly from behind if it were ever exhibited with just station goods activities run from out front. Good point about auto couplers but I've seen plenty of layouts with similar issues. Have to think about that a bit.

 

@Tallpaul69 Yes, good idea, but I don't know where to find an early-to-mid-thirties STT for the B&H. Where should I look? The 11.15 Bristol to Paddington via Devizes as you describe it is exactly the sort of detail I'd love to get right.

 

@mdvle I realise that I am somewhat limiting myself by sticking to Streamline geometry but I have to draw the line somewhere (ho ho) and make some compromises to get something built. I think (hope!) that by choosing and combining Peco parts carefully I should be able to create reasonable trackwork. If a Streamline formation looks awkward then yes maybe a custom-built formation would be a good answer. BTW: If anyone produced a larger radius single or double slip compatible with Streamline geometry they'd sell like hotcakes!

 

I happen to have a late 30s (among others) STT for the B&H/B&H Extension but as it is in a sort of 'combined volume' of all the STTs for that date it is impossible to photocopy and far from easy to photograph.

 

I'm with you as far as single slips are concerned as they were probably the second commonest turnout formation found on double and multiple lines in Britain after ordinary turnouts.  Weird that many people, including Peco, don't seem to realise that.  On the B&H/B&H Extension there were 16 running line single slips and 13 running line diamond crossings although c.one third  of the latter were only laid during WWII layout enhancement work; the Westbury and Stert Line added two more single slips.  Virtually all teh smaller locations had a single slip but diamond crossings were very rare at the wayside stations.

[Harlequin]

25 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

They're Y points, it's a Y X Y formation.

That's right. Here's the formation aligned horizontally on a 305mm (1ft) grid:

The two large Ys in the running lines are part of a longer curve (that's the main trick here) and the opposing large Y allows the branch to start diverging from the main lines at a relatively shallow 6 degrees.

 

[Tallpaul69]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

@Zomboid Do I intend do build this? Maybe - if I'm satisfied that the time expense and upheaval will be worth it. I realise that's it's very ambitious for a one-man layout.

 

At home I could erect it and just about get access all round by ducking under and squeezing into the corners of the room. That's not ideal, but a 4mm scale layout has to be this kind of size to do justice to mainline traffic, doesn't it. Doesn't it? It would be a real challenge to compress further while retaining some sense of open countryside.

 

I had imagined operating mainly from behind if it were ever exhibited with just station goods activities run from out front. Good point about auto couplers but I've seen plenty of layouts with similar issues. Have to think about that a bit.

 

@Tallpaul69 Yes, good idea, but I don't know where to find an early-to-mid-thirties STT for the B&H. Where should I look? The 11.15 Bristol to Paddington via Devizes as you describe it is exactly the sort of detail I'd love to get right.

 

@mdvle I realise that I am somewhat limiting myself by sticking to Streamline geometry but I have to draw the line somewhere (ho ho) and make some compromises to get something built. I think (hope!) that by choosing and combining Peco parts carefully I should be able to create reasonable trackwork. If a Streamline formation looks awkward then yes maybe a custom-built formation would be a good answer. BTW: If anyone produced a larger radius single or double slip compatible with Streamline geometry they'd sell like hotcakes!

 

Hi Phil,

The train details I quoted were from "Train Formation and Carriage Workings of the Great Western Railway" by W.S. Becket published by Xpress Publishing as IBSN 1-901056-08-2. Can't find a publishing date in it!

This gives the formations of all the main passenger trains in 1931/2 but while it includes some timetables, these do not cover the B&H very well. A second hand copy should be reasonably priced, the new book cost 14.95 pounds.

 

I realise this is no help with the freight side, but maybe a few well directed questions to Mike might give you some starting points from his bound STT?

I guess the key questions are about what freight  trains stopped at Patney and Chirton, and how was the branch freight operated?

 

I will watch developments with interest, and if I find any other sources of useful information, I will let you know.

 

Best regards

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

In 1938 the following Down freights were booked to work at Patney -

 

02.35 Reading - Bristol

11.30 Ludgershall - Westbury 

18.25 Didcot - Westbury to call only if there was traffic to pickup

 

Plus at least two Down through freights were booked to shunt for regulating purposes (but not to work).

Edited June 20, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Tallpaul69]

Many thanks Mike,

Does that mean no up freights worked Patney?

 

I assume the 02.35 Reading - Bristol went via the branch through Devizes?

 

Phil,

A good reason to stop one of the normally through freights is a "hot box", especially on a wagon right in the middle of the consist!

 

Best regards

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

38 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Many thanks Mike,

Does that mean no up freights worked Patney?

 

I assume the 02.35 Reading - Bristol went via the branch through Devizes?

 

Phil,

A good reason to stop one of the normally through freights is a "hot box", especially on a wagon right in the middle of the consist!

 

Best regards

Paul

No, what it means is that it is only the Down trains, I didn't have time to look at the Up trains.  The pattern is in fact fairly typical of the western end of the B&H as the 02.35 Reading seems to have been the main service for a number of places.   And don't forget the route via Devizes was the principal. (and only_ route at one time so teh traffic pattern had no doubt built up then plus the Grouping obviously had an effect when the GWR took over the M&SWJR.

 

I have incidentally comes across what might be a passenger train reversing at patney although I need to take a closer look at it - an auto from Westbury via Lavington.

[The Johnster]

Hot boxes were a fairly regular occurrence with the horse hair boxes still common in your period, and not uncommon with grease boxes, especially if a train had a clear run for a bit of distance, something that must have happened quite a lot on the relatively quiet Berks & Hants.  The crippled wagon has to be put off as soon as is convenient, and in extreme cases the brake had to be pinned down and the wheels locked, so that the wagon was slid to where it was put off.  

 

This of course works a flat into the wheels, and the wheelset has to be replaced in situ.  So a road van turns up with the jacks and tools.  It might be some time before they can get around to it and the wagon hangs around the yard for a while generally getting in the way.  If loaded and a delivery date has to be met, of course the load must be transferred to another wagon, which either happens to be around unloaded in that location, or one has to be brought in by the pickup. You can have all sorts of fun with hot boxes!

[Harlequin]

I went to STEAM today and then detoured down to Patney to have a look and get an idea of the landscape.

 

I'll post some of the Patney photos in a suitable subforum later. I need to gets to grips with the new camera and gallery apps that seem to have been installed on my phone first... Grrr...

 

[Harlequin]

Slightly off-topic:

 

I've investigated and I don't think it's possible to create a larger radius slip within the Streamline geometry of 12 degree turn & 2 inch track centre separation.

 

A small change to the crossing angle would allow an inner slip (point blades within the crossing diamond) to have a significantly larger radius (e.g. 9 degrees should allow something like 42in radius). But it would no longer be part of the Streamline system. You'd need at least a matching 9 degree straight point to create a double-track crossover and, really, a whole set of matching 9 degree points and crossings to make a new system and then formations would generally be longer than the Streamline equivalents, even if you allowed for closer, more prototypical, track centres.

 

An outside slip at the 12 degree crossing angle would break the Streamline 2 inch track separation requirement.

 

So that's why the Streamline slips have such abrupt radii and why they are the only game in town.

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Harlequin

[chuffinghell]

Your layout drawings are a work of art Phil

[clachnaharry]

I'm not really keen on this particular plan. The junction and branch greatly increase the track complexity and seem to be forcing compromises without really adding any operational interest.  There are no facilities for wagon exchange or run round, so the branch trains can only pass through the station. On that basis, the junction may as well be off stage further up the line. I preferred your earlier plan based on Hungerford which had facilities for recessing trains etc.