Hannet Purney

[Flying Pig]

55 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Regrettably there is a rising gradient on the Devizes line after it leaves Patney which might result in the slip coach terminating at Patney if the points can be reset quickly enough before it rolls back

 

Yes, I took that into consideration: hence the stipulation for a good fast run.

 

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

So some sort of adjustable catapult in the fiddle yard, then, so that every time you use it the slip coach glides to a halt in exactly the same spot against the platform face.

 

The idea is that it shouldn't need to stop at Hannet Purney at all, though as Mike points out, if the run doesn't go well it might reappear from the branch and come to a stand in the branch platform.  So you'd need a pair of catapults.

[The Johnster]

O heck, what have I started.  It was only meant to be a joke...

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

The idea is that it shouldn't need to stop at Hannet Purney at all, though as Mike points out, if the run doesn't go well it might reappear from the branch and come to a stand in the branch platform.  So you'd need a pair of catapults.

Oh, I see...

 

So this coach would just glide silently through the scene like a ghost and exit on the branch line, hopefully without re-appearing.

 

I'm going to need a bigger catapult!

 

[Junctionmad]

Interesting layout , I make new comment on the overall “ play” value which seems very good. 

 

Howevef i do think operator access is far too tight , there are areas with 900mm or more from edge to track , which in my view is very difficult to manage , not to mention almost impossible to work on when erected the central well is far far too restrictive imho 

 

its needs a bigger space 

 

also a 600mm min curve is far too tight these days imho 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Only vaguely familiar with Patney & Chirton, so just been taking a look via old-maps.co.uk, a 1939 OS edition.

 

Like Craig, I think I would tend to stick a bit more closely to the original and not bother with a goods shed. In particular, I would keep the up end as per the original as it saves space and/or enables longer platforms.

 

Phil may have commented earlier in the thread as to why he wants the branch to veer away earlier. It does make its identity as a branch so much clearer but keeping it next to the main line would enable larger radius curves.

 

Generally, it's a great prototype for a layout and I am surprised that it's not been done more often. Even narrow enough to do in 7mm scale.

[Harlequin]

I have been reading Iain Rice’s very entertaining “Mainlines in Modest Spaces”.

 

Hannet Purney has a lot of the ingredients of Rice’s recipe for success but he makes an interesting point: Not to choose a location that requires a vast stock list and a monster fiddle yard. In other words, beware primary main lines like the B&H...

 

I haven’t yet set eyes on an STT for my period but I’m pretty sure that the proposed 13 fiddle yard roads won’t be enough capacity for an average day’s services, even if I cheat by claiming the same stock is actually an entirely different train.

 

I can’t expand the layout so I’m thinking about cassettes to lift whole trains, or more realistically half-trains, on and off the layout.

 

 

Following up on the comments above: Just to reiterate: The gap in the middle is not an operating well, it’s just the gap left after the boards are joined together. It would be operated from front and back. The layout is as big as it can realistically be in the space available and that determines the minimum radii (given that I do think it’s important to separate the main and branch lines before they leave the scene).. Notice that the minimum 610mm radius is only visible in the scenic area in one place, the branch line, where it is obscured in a cutting.

[Stubby47]

Probably not possible in the distance you have between scenic break and start of the FY points, but, could you split the two FYs vertically,  so one is over the other? This would allow more tracks in the same overall dimensions. 

You'd have to raise one have and lower the other.

 

A pair of corner helixes might help.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I have been reading Iain Rice’s very entertaining “Mainlines in Modest Spaces”.

 

Hannet Purney has a lot of the ingredients of Rice’s recipe for success but he makes an interesting point: Not to choose a location that requires a vast stock list and a monster fiddle yard. In other words, beware primary main lines like the B&H...

 

I haven’t yet set eyes on an STT for my period but I’m pretty sure that the proposed 13 fiddle yard roads won’t be enough capacity for an average day’s services, even if I cheat by claiming the same stock is actually an entirely different train.

 

I can’t expand the layout so I’m thinking about cassettes to lift whole trains, or more realistically half-trains, on and off the layout.

 

 

Following up on the comments above: Just to reiterate: The gap in the middle is not an operating well, it’s just the gap left after the boards are joined together. It would be operated from front and back. The layout is as big as it can realistically be in the space available and that determines the minimum radii (given that I do think it’s important to separate the main and branch lines before they leave the scene).. Notice that the minimum 610mm radius is only visible in the scenic area in one place, the branch line, where it is obscured in a cutting.

Phil having seen and operated two layouts which are models of East Coast main line stations - with the sort of services that implies even for a condensed day - both come with large fiddle yards plus changeover of stock by acassettes or more manual means.  To me that is a given for just about any doub;e track through station layoit.  But plenty of folk seem to manage their home and even exhibition layouts with much less storage and a Nelsonian attitude when teh same train, possibly with a differeent loco, passes through in the same direction for the third or fourth time of an operating session.  I suppose it all depends on the point at which you suspend disbelief.

 

The lower end of the B&H and more particularly the Stert & Westbury via Lavington would probably not qualify as a 'busy main line' on most days of the week but it definitely would have been on a Summer Saturday with the 'Cornish Riviera' alone running in three parts each with a pretty substantial load.  So in many respects it will be what you make it although cassettes will obviously be a big help in ringing the changes.

[Schooner]

On 28/06/2019 at 11:51, Harlequin said:

Thanks! I wonder where the sparkle comes from? "Less is more"? Or maybe just repeated revision until it's right.

Less is more, absolutely! Although mileage varies, and who's to say what 'right' is but the owner, it seems your preferred ratio of landscape to layout is close to mine

 

Might I ask a couple of cheeky questions?

• what are your (plural!) thoughts on convex vs concave running lines in relation to baseboard edge? I'm wondering as much about the impression of distance and viewing options as any practical considerations.
• would you mind sharing any of Mr Rice's other ingredients for ML modelling happiness? Got main lines on my mind, but I'm currently operating in a book-free environment, which hampers learning opportunities somewhat...

Looking forward to seeing the next iteration of Hannet Purney

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

EDIT: Not that it really matters, but it seems to me that 'right' lies in the direction of something that looks like it was laid out by Mr Brunel but acts like something designed by Mr Freezer. As ever, compromise reigns supreme but if one manages to tick both boxes then tea and medals time!

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Schooner
Forgot to write the relevant bit...

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎19‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 21:04, Harlequin said:

I have been reading Iain Rice’s very entertaining “Mainlines in Modest Spaces”.

 

Hannet Purney has a lot of the ingredients of Rice’s recipe for success but he makes an interesting point: Not to choose a location that requires a vast stock list and a monster fiddle yard. In other words, beware primary main lines like the B&H...

 

I haven’t yet set eyes on an STT for my period but I’m pretty sure that the proposed 13 fiddle yard roads won’t be enough capacity for an average day’s services, even if I cheat by claiming the same stock is actually an entirely different train.

 

I can’t expand the layout so I’m thinking about cassettes to lift whole trains, or more realistically half-trains, on and off the layout.

 

 

Following up on the comments above: Just to reiterate: The gap in the middle is not an operating well, it’s just the gap left after the boards are joined together. It would be operated from front and back. The layout is as big as it can realistically be in the space available and that determines the minimum radii (given that I do think it’s important to separate the main and branch lines before they leave the scene).. Notice that the minimum 610mm radius is only visible in the scenic area in one place, the branch line, where it is obscured in a cutting.

Phil,

Concerns about  models running through a number of times to portray different trains need not be a problem if you think about the realistic length of an operating session, and what you can portray in that time.

If you run your session in real time and plan that probably 2-3 hours is as long a session as is realistic, then even if you ignore the night shift and portray 18 hours of the day, it will take you a week or so to get through a day. So the fact that an express ran through at the end of hour 1 of session 1, will be forgotten when it appears again after 5 minutes of session 3, as that will be 2 days later!

If you can reverse the train and run it through in the opposite direction so much the better.

The real problem are the GWR/WR beloved named trains. At least pre war there were less of them than in my period of late 1950s/60s.

 

However the 1950/60 period has the advantage of the advance of standard coach formations which GWR never got around to!!

 

On which subject, have you thought about what couplings to use?

While I understand your front or back operating position, I think that decision and the need to juggle even coach formations, does make couplings an issue to consider sooner rather than later.

You may be able to arrange things so that the majority of coach juggling takes place "between" operating sessions not during them.

 

Hope everyone is managing to do some modelling in these unrealistic temperatures?

 

Best regards

Paul 

 

 

[Harlequin]

On 23/07/2019 at 20:51, Schooner said:

Less is more, absolutely! Although mileage varies, and who's to say what 'right' is but the owner, it seems your preferred ratio of landscape to layout is close to mine

 

Might I ask a couple of cheeky questions?

• what are your (plural!) thoughts on convex vs concave running lines in relation to baseboard edge? I'm wondering as much about the impression of distance and viewing options as any practical considerations.
• would you mind sharing any of Mr Rice's other ingredients for ML modelling happiness? Got main lines on my mind, but I'm currently operating in a book-free environment, which hampers learning opportunities somewhat...

Looking forward to seeing the next iteration of Hannet Purney

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

EDIT: Not that it really matters, but it seems to me that 'right' lies in the direction of something that looks like it was laid out by Mr Brunel but acts like something designed by Mr Freezer. As ever, compromise reigns supreme but if one manages to tick both boxes then tea and medals time!

 

 

I would say that the relationship between the line and the viewer is more significant than to the baseboard edge.

Convex: Exaggerates the perspective of the trains passing by - like looking through a fish-eye lens. The train rushes towards you, flies by very close and finally you see the tail-lamp disappearing off-scene. It's a dramatic event and the train is the star.

Concave: Flattens the perspective as if you are standing on a distant hill watching through binoculars. The train moves in a measured way through the scene and gives you time to contemplate it and the landscape. It's an ensemble performance.

 

Of course, roundy-round layouts mainly have concave scenes when viewed from the inside but if the viewer is outside and you want to give him/her the concave experience then you have to adjust the curves, which is exactly what Hannet Purney does.

 

 

Rice's Recipe for Mainlines in Modest Spaces in summary:

• A mainline doesn't have to be double or quad track but it must connect places of importance with regular services including long-distance passenger trains. 
• A mainline has a distinctive ambience: The track and lineside are immaculate, the structures are solid and strong, cuttings and banks clean, fences well maintained, many telegraph wires.
• Curves are essential, straight lines are boring. Curves place the railway in the landscape more realistically (for Britain). Transition curves give smoother running at main line speeds.
• Hide severe radii wherever possible and hide the unrealistic effects of any tight radii that are on scene.
• Choose a location or period where shorter trains were authentic or reduce the vehicle count to compress train length.
• Avoid locations that require a vast stock list or a monster fiddle yard.

He says other interesting things about scales, realistic track layouts and DCC (inc. DCC Sound).

 

[Schooner]

Thank you - all good stuff to keep in consideration

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting comments there from Iain Rice about 'main lines'.  Guess where this one is - note the new diesel heading a Mk1 corridor coach, immaculate lineside and cess path.

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting comments there from Iain Rice about 'main lines'.  Guess where this one is - note the new diesel heading a Mk1 corridor coach, immaculate lineside and cess path.

 

Hmmm, no idea but I note the very tight curve and the guard rail. I'll let someone else have a stab.

 

BTW: I pondered whether to say "mainline" or "main line" but since the title of the book is "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" I went with that.

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

On 25/07/2019 at 12:32, Tallpaul69 said:

Phil,

Concerns about  models running through a number of times to portray different trains need not be a problem if you think about the realistic length of an operating session, and what you can portray in that time.

If you run your session in real time and plan that probably 2-3 hours is as long a session as is realistic, then even if you ignore the night shift and portray 18 hours of the day, it will take you a week or so to get through a day. So the fact that an express ran through at the end of hour 1 of session 1, will be forgotten when it appears again after 5 minutes of session 3, as that will be 2 days later!

If you can reverse the train and run it through in the opposite direction so much the better.

The real problem are the GWR/WR beloved named trains. At least pre war there were less of them than in my period of late 1950s/60s.

 

However the 1950/60 period has the advantage of the advance of standard coach formations which GWR never got around to!!

 

On which subject, have you thought about what couplings to use?

While I understand your front or back operating position, I think that decision and the need to juggle even coach formations, does make couplings an issue to consider sooner rather than later.

You may be able to arrange things so that the majority of coach juggling takes place "between" operating sessions not during them.

 

Hope everyone is managing to do some modelling in these unrealistic temperatures?

 

Best regards

Paul 

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

I think I would be running in some sort of accelerated time but I take your point: A long enough elapsed time between the same train appearing, ideally with a different loco, should obscure the repetition - so long as the train is not particularly memorable. The strategic changing of a few vehicles and, as you say, being able to reverse the train would also help. Since this layout has the ability to reverse entire trains maybe wagons with different liveries on each side would be a good cheat! (Only joking!)

 

Couplings are a thorny issue, aren't they? As you say, with the pre-war GWR you can't really run fixed formations of coaches, you need to be able to really mix things up. I have a long list of features that the ideal coupling system should have and when I can't sleep at night my mind turns it over and over, trying to work out a way to satisfy all the major points on that list...

 

I hope Lower Thames Yard is still coming together somewhere!

 

[The Johnster]

The ideal coupling system is fully functional, can be automatically coupled or uncoupled as required even when propelling in any position on the layout, and has a scale appearance.  No such thing has ever existed for UK or European outline modelling, and I cannot see how one could be devised within those parameters.

 

Your coupling system will inevitably be a compromise.  Scale couplings are awkward to use, especially with gangwayed stock and require scale curves if you are to avoid buffer locking.  Any other sort looks hopelessly wrong.

[Harlequin]

Here's the latest update:

 

 

• Smoothed out some trackwork here and there.
• Added a slipcoach catapult launch road (top right). This is semi-serious now! The perfect space was just waiting to be used and although it sounds like a silly idea at first, I think it would work and would be a great talking point. (It's all your fault @The Johnster!)
• Revised the reversing loop bridging board to only connect to two other boards rather than three.
• Converted the top storage loop into a cassette connection loop and created another optional cassette connection point for the branch line.
• Altered the backscene curve on the left so that the scene doesn't try to go round the corner so much - more definitely faces forward. That means that the secondary backscene, the bit that you see through the holes in the main backscene, is on the same board, making things a bit tidier.

You might ask, why do you need a reversing loop if you've got cassettes? I think it is still useful for turning locos and trains without having to handle them and, crucially, it allows whole trains to be shuffled between the storage loops without appearing on scene. That's a very important part of the process of injecting trains from the cassettes - so both are needed.

 

[chuffinghell]

Apologies for repeating myself but your drawings are superb

 

As far as the layout is concerned the sweeping nature of the track looks perfect

[The Johnster]

13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's the latest update:

 

 

• Smoothed out some trackwork here and there.
• Added a slipcoach catapult launch road (top right). This is semi-serious now! The perfect space was just waiting to be used and although it sounds like a silly idea at first, I think it would work and would be a great talking point. (It's all your fault @The Johnster!)
• Revised the reversing loop bridging board to only connect to two other boards rather than three.
• Converted the top storage loop into a cassette connection loop and created another optional cassette connection point for the branch line.
• Altered the backscene curve on the left so that the scene doesn't try to go round the corner so much - more definitely faces forward. That means that the secondary backscene, the bit that you see through the holes in the main backscene, is on the same board, making things a bit tidier.

You might ask, why do you need a reversing loop if you've got cassettes? I think it is still useful for turning locos and trains without having to handle them and, crucially, it allows whole trains to be shuffled between the storage loops without appearing on scene. That's a very important part of the process of injecting trains from the cassettes - so both are needed.

 

I'll accept any blame you need to give me for the slip coach madness!  Assuming your layout is flat, it should be possible to devise a spring loaded coach firing mechanism that can be adjusted to shoot the coach out on to the layout shortly after a down express has thundered through at a correct speed for it to glide to a halt somewhere in the down platform!  If you want to be really clever, perhaps it could be fired electronically by the train passing over some sort of detector....

 

The launch road could simply be a slope that the slip coach rolls off; it needs to be the correct steepness.

 

You'd need to look into the correct tail lamps for such trains; the Cornish Riviera carried about 16 tail lamps at one time, and it's outside my area of expertise so I can't help you (paging Stationmaster, Stationmaster to the thread, please).  There might be further slip coaches in the train for destinations further west, as well.  And a slip coach requires a pilot loco to move it out of the way and attach it to an up service for it's return journey, an interesting bit of operation.  The pilot could well be the branch loco between duties, but the timetable would have to allow this; you can't have the West of England Down Main blocked for hours by a slip coach waiting to be shunted out of the way!

[Harlequin]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I'll accept any blame you need to give me for the slip coach madness!  Assuming your layout is flat, it should be possible to devise a spring loaded coach firing mechanism that can be adjusted to shoot the coach out on to the layout shortly after a down express has thundered through at a correct speed for it to glide to a halt somewhere in the down platform!  If you want to be really clever, perhaps it could be fired electronically by the train passing over some sort of detector....

 

The launch road could simply be a slope that the slip coach rolls off; it needs to be the correct steepness.

 

You'd need to look into the correct tail lamps for such trains; the Cornish Riviera carried about 16 tail lamps at one time, and it's outside my area of expertise so I can't help you (paging Stationmaster, Stationmaster to the thread, please).  There might be further slip coaches in the train for destinations further west, as well.  And a slip coach requires a pilot loco to move it out of the way and attach it to an up service for it's return journey, an interesting bit of operation.  The pilot could well be the branch loco between duties, but the timetable would have to allow this; you can't have the West of England Down Main blocked for hours by a slip coach waiting to be shunted out of the way!

 

I'm thinking of something akin to a crossbow mechanism: A rubber band stretched across the launch track between two pegs with a hook on a threaded bar to pull it back. Pull a pin out, the hook falls away and the rubber band is released. The screw thread would allow fine adjustments to find the right launch speed and, once set, should give repeatable operation.

 

Remember that, as @Flying Pig suggested above, the slip coach would be destined for Devizes, or the equivalent place in my universe where the gradients would allow better slip coach working than in our world. So it would normally glide through the station and only need a pilot if something went horribly wrong.

 

I fully admit this is all a bit silly but: It's novel, it simulates a bit of railway practice that's rarely modelled and it won't cost much time or effort to set up - so no great loss if it doesn't work!

 

[Harlequin]

Deleted duplicate post...

Edited August 1, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Phil I presume the cassette arrangement is deliberate in that it will only cater for westbound 'main line' (i.e. via Lavington) trains or Devizes branch trains in either direction?

 

As far as the slip(pery) coach is concerned it only needs to come to a stand in the Down Main platform and be picked up from there by an engine off the branch or perhaps even be picked up by the Westbury motor (push-pull) train and worked forward to Westbury by that. (Although vehicles slipped for Westbury were normally slipped at Heywood Rad Jcn and collected from there by the Westbury Pilot).  

[The Johnster]

Not sure slip coaches for through working on to branches ever featured running through the junction station without stopping; it is far more likely that the slip would stop at the junction, to provide a though passenger service from Paddington, and then be attached to a branch train for the rest of the journey.  I'm pretty certain slips would not be allowed to be signalled directly into the next section anyway!

 

I'm beginning to think all this is anything but a bit silly.  It sounds a bit silly, but might be capable of being able to be a) made to work, and b) run at realistic speeds and come to a smooth realistic stop in a suitable position.  Drivers were by and large contemptuous of guards' ability to stop the coaches in the right place, and of course once the guard had used up his vacuum reservoir blowing off over-cautious braking he was in the lap of the gods and ended up where the coach ran out of momentum or where the brakes leaked on (he had a handbrake as a backup as well, of course).  But it didn't always work perfectly in real life, and a pilot was on hand to rescue a slip that had overshot or stopped short.  I reckon you need a pilot, even if it is borrowed from the branch for the time the slip is booked to arrive.

 

Success depended on the slip guard's road knowledge, as  the release coupling operated by him at a suitable point off for the speed the train was doing.  Not sure he had a speedo, and the actual speed might be slightly different on a day to day basis as steam locos never perform identically 2 days in a row even with the same crew.  If you'd agreed before you set out that the train would be running at exactly 70mph at the usual release point, and that speed was not exactly matched, then the potential for stopping short or having to brake harder is obvious.  The slip guard would also have to take wind resistance into account, and a westerly gale might have a serious impact on how far the coach rolls.  

 

At the moment of release, the slip coupling hook drops away to release the screw coupling link of the preceeding coach, which then falls away.  At this point, the train. lightened by about 35 tons of slip coach or more if it's a slip section, accelerates slightly and the gap increases until the vacuum hoses part, at which point the brakes are momentarily applied on the slip until it's vacuum automatically seals, ensuring that the slip is quickly clear of the train

 

This is why slips have reservoir vacuum tanks, to give the guard a fighting chance to blow the brakes off if necessary.  The ideal was to roll into the platform at about 15 mph and make a gentle brake application, the coach actually coming to a stand on a 'rising brake' as you blow it off to achieve a smooth stop; don't forget some of your passengers are on their feet getting bags off the racks and don't want to be thrown about!  This sort of stopping takes skill and practice and there must have been a good few roughish stops!

 

You do realise, don't you, that if you adopt your proposed crossbow slip coach firing device, you're going to have to change your username to Wilhelm Tell...

Edited August 1, 2019 by The Johnster

[Harlequin]

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Phil I presume the cassette arrangement is deliberate in that it will only cater for westbound 'main line' (i.e. via Lavington) trains or Devizes branch trains in either direction?

 

As far as the slip(pery) coach is concerned it only needs to come to a stand in the Down Main platform and be picked up from there by an engine off the branch or perhaps even be picked up by the Westbury motor (push-pull) train and worked forward to Westbury by that. (Although vehicles slipped for Westbury were normally slipped at Heywood Rad Jcn and collected from there by the Westbury Pilot).  

Hi Mike,

 

Cassettes for Eastbound trains would be inserted in the Connection loop with the loco facing to the left, would reverse to the right, around the reversing loop, then pull forward into one of the West storage roads before appearing on scene when ready.

 

It's a bit awkward but I can't see a way for a train to head directly Eastbound off a cassette - there's no room for the necessary crossover.

 

Re. The slip coaches: Oh dear, I'm either not understanding, or I'm missing the humour when people are joking or I'm getting conflicting advice! I think @Flyingpig specifically said the slip coach would not stop at HP. No matter - I can make the layout do the right thing, whatever that turns out to be!

 

[Zomboid]

If the slip coach doesn't stop then you can just motorise it and not muck about with a catapult. You'd need a second unpowered model to represent it being collected by an up train.

 

Or if it does stop and then need to be picked up by a loco you could motorise it, and then have some kind of DCC servo thingy to mechanically disengage the motor/ worm gear so a loco can haul it away. Would be an interesting project...