Jump to content
 

A snippet of Victorian London


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you can build or your own track work you can squeeze a lot more in then with peco etc. Just see Buckingham above.

 

If you can't build your own but you can draw it out on Templot you can then ask someone else to build it for you, which is what I did. Pick the right person (as I did), and they will even tell you what won't work

 

Rovex

Link to post
Share on other sites

@rovex I really enjoy making trackwork, but a minimum radius is a minimum radius no matter how you slice it - anything less than a B6 strays below the recommended minimum radius (4'4") and an A4 turnout is under half that (1' 11")!

 

@Harlequin I think one would have to be a brave soul to suggest there is anything wanting in Mikkel's farthing micro layouts when it comes to a place to photograph models.

 

Wow @t-b-g - that's very generous of you. I've tried to draw out the passenger-only throat of the plan and ended up roughly like so:

 

image.png.fc15617a006bd2a56f201b0bf7170322.png

 

Omitting the extra line on the approach to the 'goods' headshunt doesn't actually save any space, since the three-way below is part of a four foot long heel-to-toe arrangement of pointwork.  I really like the combination of the diamond and the single slip.

 

It is worth remembering that this plan is in S-scale, so it demands approximately 1/5th more in length and width than EM, but with a minimum radius like a scaled-up P4. I'm sure with some judicious curving and staggering of the pointwork I could cut down from the seven feet implied above, but it does either way occupy a significantly larger space than what we have been hiterto discussing, mandating at least 12 or 13 feet by 2 feet.

 

This thread has highlighted two mutually exclusive points about an end-to-end station layout in 10' (in S-scale, or 8' in P4):

  • The desire to operate the layout without resorting to traversers and manual handling
  • The desire for authentic, interesting track layouts.

The former requires at minimum three feet of plain track either side of a scenic section, mandating the latter to a limit of four feet. The latter demands at least five if not six feet, precluding the former.

 

I feel there is some kind of universal truth to eek out of these discussions around mandatory values and parameters...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is (what I can roughly estimate!) to be Buckingham's passenger-only throat superimposed into my space without the loco pocket or the goods runaround, and rotated to fit into the orientation already described:

 

image.png.fed3af44841a13f05b4521afb9573edb.png

 

It doesn't really have the bufferstop/platform characteristics of Greenwich Park, but hopefully the location of the loco pocket/signalbox/exit bridge does.

 

The additional siding north of the station acts as a headshunt through the (now double) slip for Fairfield Yard located on the rear FY track. Fairfield Yard acted as a gravel pit and then an engineer's yard until it closed in the 1930's and was indeed accessed via a headshunt into the station area. I am taking into consideration the modern-era practise at Purley where gravel hoppers were shunted right there on the down slow platform roads - that may have been a factor of rationalisation but in a cramped spot such as this, certainly at least as permissable.

 

Rotated to a sligntly more aesthetic angle (which neccesitates flipping the loco pocket and allows a more explicitly tangential exit to Fairfield gives this:image.png.6b0b9539e782d6e3c252a5f55a73ecb7.png

 

Though some of it feels a little clunky still (particularly the layout of the platforms) it's really nice!  Buckhingham Park? Central Buckingham? :)

 

Last variant, with the platform roads gently curved and an angled 'bolt on' to the front for a line to what was on Buckingham a perishable goods depot, but for Central Croybuckwich Park would probably be coal staithes (see Bromley North in a similary suburban position):

image.png.93477e011240a801a66e9b7d551bc10e.png

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have to admit that I missed the bit in the OP about it being a possible excursion into S Scale. I had assumed 4mm of some variety.

 

Having said that, it makes it more difficult but not impossible.

 

Here is a view from above Buckingham with the obstructions removed and a scale rule (the one I use for photographing against buildings). The small graduations are 3" and the long one 12". So the main bulk of the pointwork is nearer 2ft than 3ft in length.

 

Even now, after having had the layout here for over 9 years, I still look at the track and struggle to work out which bit goes where. It is just so awkward to draw, especially from memory.

 

The single slip gives an exit from the goods reception road to the up main departure road. The arrangement of the scissors on a slight curve is a deliberate ploy. It reduces the amount of swing from side to side going through and minimises the risk of buffer locking. We do all the shunting of stock using the down main (arrival line) apart from shunting to P1, at the top of the picture. Propelling from the up main to P2,3 or 4 invariably gives buffer locking.

 

Just below the wooden ruler is P1, then the loco spur, P2, P3 and P4 going off the edge of the photo in that order. The bottom two tracks going off the LH side re from the goods reception road/headshunt. 

 

I hope there is something of use to you there.

 

Tony 

 

Buckingham_Station_throat.JPG.9dc7cf5ea8ed9ba66cfa652165bfb807.JPG

 

 

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, lovely track work!

 

Here's another view that's a little more authentic to Buckingham but where in order to fit the single slip into the length, I've had to split the platforms differently. The pointwork spans about 4'6 as it stands - again, I'm sure I could adjust this if drawing it in Templot:

AMliPVv.png

 

I would imagine the next step would be to use the image above as a background to a templot plan, but if I'm honest I quite like the middle  plan in my previous post - the throat of Buckingham (almost) with scenic cues from Greenwich Park. I'm undecided  but I think in the bottom plan of that post, the goods siding takes away more than it adds...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Gosh, lovely track work!

 

Here's another view that's a little more authentic to Buckingham but where in order to fit the single slip into the length, I've had to split the platforms differently. The pointwork spans about 4'6 as it stands - again, I'm sure I could adjust this if drawing it in Templot:

AMliPVv.png

 

I would imagine the next step would be to use the image above as a background to a templot plan, but if I'm honest I quite like the middle  plan in my previous post - the throat of Buckingham (almost) with scenic cues from Greenwich Park. I'm undecided  but I think in the bottom plan of that post, the goods siding takes away more than it adds...

 

I quite like that but I wonder if it would be better if you did away with the kick back siding. Without a run round loop of some sort, it would be very difficult to shunt and if the bottom siding was just a plain siding with a trap point, it would be a great place for a horse and carriage loading dock or to be used for general tail load traffic or a train of vans. As it is, you would need to empty it every time you wanted to access the reversed siding.

 

I liked you second plan from the earlier post too and would suggest that the kick back element of the bottom siding could go on that one too, unless you make it something like a loco coaling/watering siding, so don't need to shunt it much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while I like the middle plan the platforms were annoying me - an island platform with two bays either side just felt a bit strange, especially given that both bays were operationally isolated. I've reworked the throat to bring the two platform roads into alignment with Buckingham's - Platform roads (2 and 3) are brought together into a central pair, and P1 added back in - all three have direct access to both the up and down mainlines. Platform 4 is a siding for vans/short trains and access to the pilot siding.

 

The slip itself isn't valid in this configuration, the blades are over the top of the diamond crossing - but I've got some flexibility in Templot that doesn't exist in xTrkCAD so I'm not worried:

 

image.png.577c4db82c94125abf50da26987cb94e.png

 

Each platform road can contain my longest train (the B1 and four six-wheelers shown above) with breathing room and the scissors is now on-layout. The loco pocket matches other examples I've seen at London Bridge and Norwood Junction, and the signal box and exit are evocative of Greenwich Park I can also probably fit Central Croydon's sawtooth canopy and station buildings into this layout without too much trouble.

 

In a true 'kill your darlings' process, this design has no provision for freight at all. I'm sure it could be forced in, with a bolt-on wedge adjacent the P4 (bottom) road and attendent headshunt aisle-side to the signal box, but at this stage I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

 

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

So, while I like the middle plan the platforms were annoying me - an island platform with two bays either side just felt a bit strange, especially given that both bays were operationally isolated. I've reworked the throat to bring the two platform roads into alignment with Buckingham's - Platform roads (2 and 3) are brought together into a central pair, and P1 added back in - all three have direct access to both the up and down mainlines. Platform 4 is a siding for vans/short trains and access to the pilot siding.

 

The slip itself isn't valid in this configuration, the blades are over the top of the diamond crossing - but I've got some flexibility in Templot that doesn't exist in xTrkCAD so I'm not worried:

 

image.png.577c4db82c94125abf50da26987cb94e.png

 

Each platform road can contain my longest train (the B1 and four six-wheelers shown above) with breathing room and the scissors is now on-layout. The loco pocket matches other examples I've seen at London Bridge and Norwood Junction, and the signal box and exit are evocative of Greenwich Park I can also probably fit Central Croydon's sawtooth canopy and station buildings into this layout without too much trouble.

 

In a true 'kill your darlings' process, this design has no provision for freight at all. I'm sure it could be forced in, with a bolt-on wedge adjacent the P4 (bottom) road and attendent headshunt aisle-side to the signal box, but at this stage I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

 

 

 

 

That is really beginning to look good but I might suggest one more change. How does it look if you flip the whole plan top to bottom, so the pilot siding and van/dock siding are at the top rather than the bottom? It would make your 3 way a trailing point rather than a facing one, which were not too common and it would make the access to the dock/loco spur off trailing points rather than facing. All the facing points would give direct access to platforms rather than sidings.

 

I could see many a happy hour spent operating that. You have several different choices for each train that arrives. You can simply put another loco on the back and take it out. You can shunt the stock to another platform. You can draw the stock out, release the train loco (perhaps to go off scene to turn it) and put the carriages back in the same platform or you can take the stock off scene to the "carriage sidings". Add in a fitted van train, perhaps perishables for the local market or a newspaper train, plus lots of horse boxes, open carriage trucks etc. Maybe even a gas tank at a platform end for filling the tanks.

 

There could be all sorts of interesting workings even without an actual goods yard or siding. You could have goods coming in simply to reverse for a connection to a line that faces the wrong way for direct access. So you need to get the brake van and loco swapped around and then it goes off scene again.

 

Very much my sort of layout!  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Flipping the layout works, but it puts the loco pocket and bay platform off of the up main line - one could make the argument that there could be a draw-ahead (?) signal to permit these movements but it doesn't feel as clean as the unflipped version:

 

 (flipped)

image.png.9552b2071ad201294275313b3d9f73cd.png

 

Either way I think it's starting to resolve into something very much doable - so thank you!

 

Operationally I imagine there will be morning perishables (Surrey St. Market was a stone's throw from the terminus) and newspapers/parcels , gravel and engineering material from Fairfield yard (reversed out onto the up main). Urban four wheelers and Terriers at the extremity of service, fast six wheelers pulled by D-classes and Gladstones, and a visiting trains from the GER, LNWR and LCDR.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Flipping the layout works, but it puts the loco pocket and bay platform off of the up main line - one could make the argument that there could be a draw-ahead (?) signal to permit these movements but it doesn't feel as clean as the unflipped version:

 

 (flipped)

image.png.9552b2071ad201294275313b3d9f73cd.png

 

Either way I think it's starting to resolve into something very much doable - so thank you!

 

Operationally I imagine there will be morning perishables (Surrey St. Market was a stone's throw from the terminus) and newspapers/parcels , gravel and engineering material from Fairfield yard (reversed out onto the up main). Urban four wheelers and Terriers at the extremity of service, fast six wheelers pulled by D-classes and Gladstones, and a visiting trains from the GER, LNWR and LCDR.

 

 

 

I often spend a while doing exactly this sort of exercise. Tinkering with a plan or a concept, altering a point or a siding here or there. Sometimes the hardest part is knowing when you need to stop.

 

If this was my layout, I would be stopping now. The siding and loco spur off the up main just feels more likely than being two facing sidings.

 

In fact, I like it so much I might nick it for my forthcoming O gauge GCR terminus, to fit 16ft down one wall of my garage. I have been trying to do a "mini" Buckingham and was getting nowhere fast but I think you have done the hard part for me.

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

  • RMweb Gold

I really liked the look of Greenwich Park and it got me thinking so, for what it's worth (and I realise it may not be of immediate interest), here's what I came up with:

1798978558_LCGreenwichPark6.png.b861f8ba6bfd9c5f51cd27ffd9a4f7e1.png

 

It pulls together some of the things I was suggesting. The pointwork is a freehand representation with no technical details so it would probably need to be fettled to make it work but there's a pleasing flow and symmetry to it.

53872345_LCGreenwichPark6detail.png.3843e4fb3d57d536237127145371f73b.png

Scale is 4mm, BTW. Each grid square 305 * 305mm.

 

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's the pointwork whipped up quickly in Templot - this time in 4mm / OO-SF.  B6 pointwork except the loco/departure route of the threeway, which is a 1:5 irregular turnout.

 

image.png.aa9e6a4c5494c7668fe2aab2dd6a3c03.png

 

Not too shabby to fit into a shade over two feet!

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 4
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...