Jump to content

Lambstead - Adapting Hampton Malstead for Balders45


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Balders45,

 

Is this roughly right for the space you have available? Each grid square is 305mm * 305mm.

718299395_HMB451.png.ab6046af5e5991df29d662a1d568f940.png

The scenic length is 10ft and the fiddle yard arm at 90 degrees extends 2300mm from the back wall.

 

The task then is to connect the station track plan to the fiddle yard with some reasonable scenic break, to set out an efficient points fan in the FY and allow for 3 coach trains.

 

I suggest using loco lifts for "running around" in the FY.

 

Are you aiming for steam era GWR, the same as Hampton Malstead?

 

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

Scale is spot on, as we are all well aware we never  seem to have just enough space!!

I had this idea of perhaps a 3 way turnout in to the fiddle yard coming off a single line from the station. I also thought perhaps a further 3 way at the end of the FY to add a extra shunting movement with regards to running the loco round. Would ideally prefer not to handle locos off stage so to speak so wouldn't be averse to losing a section of FY if I could still have 3 coach trains fit. 

 

As for era, im thinking late to early BR as I don't want to be a slave to running correct locos from the correct region. I do like most of the BR locos,  i want to run an ivatt 2 tank engine for example because firstly I want to secondly I like them and thirdly I think they sort of look right. That said I wouldn't run a 7p with 3 coaches into a branchline terminus!!!

There looks like a 305mm square that's available for scenic? I might be able to increase slightly the loco run round by extending the base board but leaving the corner where the bottom line in the goods yard is and therefore dragging the track plans to the left however I appreciate it would shorten  a couple of the sidings.

The footprint is spot on and I feel it's enough to keep the wife off my back that said if coming wider by  say 150mm made a difference, I may just use my charm on her and convince her it's what we need to do to do the layout justice!!!

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Balders45 said:

Scale is spot on, as we are all well aware we never  seem to have just enough space!!

I had this idea of perhaps a 3 way turnout in to the fiddle yard coming off a single line from the station. I also thought perhaps a further 3 way at the end of the FY to add a extra shunting movement with regards to running the loco round. Would ideally prefer not to handle locos off stage so to speak so wouldn't be averse to losing a section of FY if I could still have 3 coach trains fit. 

The probnlem with a 3-way point at the top of the FY is that it will turn the outermost track in the opposite direction to the general curve so you'd get an ugly wiggle, a reverse curve, which could cause problems.

I'm worried about the space taken up at thebottom by any pointwork but I'll try it out and see.

Loco lifts are a really good space saving method of moving locos without handling them.

Quote

 

As for era, im thinking late to early BR as I don't want to be a slave to running correct locos from the correct region. I do like most of the BR locos,  i want to run an ivatt 2 tank engine for example because firstly I want to secondly I like them and thirdly I think they sort of look right. That said I wouldn't run a 7p with 3 coaches into a branchline terminus!!!

There looks like a 305mm square that's available for scenic? I might be able to increase slightly the loco run round by extending the base board but leaving the corner where the bottom line in the goods yard is and therefore dragging the track plans to the left however I appreciate it would shorten  a couple of the sidings.

The footprint is spot on and I feel it's enough to keep the wife off my back that said if coming wider by  say 150mm made a difference, I may just use my charm on her and convince her it's what we need to do to do the layout justice!!!

 

:smile_mini2:

 

54 minutes ago, Balders45 said:

Hi Harlequin, as a matter of interest what size turnouts has your plan allowed for?

Also I think the most  I can get in length is 3100mm. This is the maximum I could get, not sure if this helps form the link to the FY??

The turnouts were/are all large radius so that the design could be built using peco bullhead track. If you use standard Code 75 turnouts large radius would make the station trackwork look more open and flowing. But they could easily be changed for smaller radii if you want.

 

3100mm is only 50mm more than the current width so it probably won't make a difference but you never know - I'll bear it in mind, thanks!

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harlequin,

If the difference between getting it to work was sacrificing long radius turnouts for medium on say the loco run round for a start, would that help? Again if I had to sacrifice bull head for code 75 or even 100 if it meant it all "worked" then it would be a compromise I could live with. 

If we increased the width of the baseboard  could the platform be curved slightly pushing the exit from the station  further up, would that give room for a 2nd radius curve to join the outer most road in the FY? From there maybe a row of turnouts to form the further 3 roads? Again they would diminish in length though. 

There has to be a way of making this work!! If you can sort this then I suggest you then have a crack at brexit:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the main  problem joining station tracks to fiddle yard or the scenic  break? For me as long as the tracks meet  I'm sure with help from others and with other threads I've read I could sort something out. That said all ideas welcome as to producing a believable break

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Hi Balders,

 

The large radius turnouts work fine in some places but not others, especially the FY and the entry curve, so I suggest you use Code 75 throughout.

 

I've assumed a minimum radius of 610mm - I'm trying to avoid anything as sharp as a 2nd radius (438mm) curve! The main baseboard could be wider, and that might be worth doing to make the goods yard more generous.

 

Here's attempt number 1:

764617614_HMB452.png.16fc2b460fda30d3899f7c8fd290fbcf.png

 

Starting at bottom right:

  • Fiddle yard sidings 1-4 with a kick-back siding 5 for storing and re-railing locos. 60mm spacing between track centres.
  • Sidings 2-4 can store 3 coach trains (2 is a bit tight). Two small radius turnouts (red) are used in the FY to save space.
  • Curved turnouts (green) start to turn the track before it leaves the FY board, giving a radius of ~712mm at this point.
  • The final FY turnout is partly on the scenic board hidden by the scenic break. I'm assuming the boards are securely joined and there's no problem laying a turnout across the join.
  • The scenic break is a road overbridge which is low enough not to obscure too much behind it. Only the further parapet wall is modelled.
  • The track curves at 610mm radius into the curved turnout for the bay then a bit further to the run round crossover. This directs the platform line away from the bay and creates a gently curved platform.
  • The platform can easily accomodate 3 coach trains even with large radius turnouts (purple) in the loco release crossover.
  • A double slip creates the trap to protect the passenger line and the feeds to the goods yard sidings. This saves a lot of space!
  • The two kick back sidings, to the gas works and engine shed, could be moved, swapped over, re-purposed, or whatever you like.

There isn't much of a scenic run into the station, I'm afraid. You could make it more scenic if you abandoned the engine shed kickback and move the shed elsewhere.

 

I haven't shown the third goods siding from Hampton Malstead because I feel it cramps the goods yard. There is room between the double slip and the goods sidings turnout for another turnout (or even another slip crossing) to take lines off either to the left (maybe a short stub siding for end loading) or right (maybe alternative engine shed position) or both. But it wouldn't be wise to make the trackwork too dense...! Or maybe just use that space to make the goods sidings longer?

 

I have shown a dashed 3-way turnout in the FY and you can see that it would seriously compromise the usable lengths of the sidings so I don't think it's practical. I think loco-lifts are the best way to turn locos and run round trains in the space available.

 

What do you think? Don't worry about being critical - it's only a drawing and it can all be changed!

 

P.S. I'll send you a PDF when you're happy so that you can zoom in and/or print real size, if you need to.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harlequin,

First impressions are it ticks all boxes however in my heart of hearts I feel I would prefer more running line from scenic break in to the station, would reducing the turn out in the run round loop and possibly shortening the platform help? I don't think I like the fact that any shunting  may take the wagons out under the bridge as that would be the head shunt,

I suspect I'm asking too much of the space??? I do love the sweeping curves though, just feels if I had another few feet in length it would feel more open.

Totally see your meaning of a 3 way in the FY.  FY and the exit is bob on. 

It feels like there is a solution, just hope I'm not wasting your time.

Your original plan, to me was perfect for what wanted.

Do you think there are other possibilities or am I going to have to make compromises?

Thanks again, really appreciate your time and effort 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The overbridge and its embankment are unnecessary as suitably placed gasworks buildings will hide the exit from the operator's viewpoint.

 

1 hour ago, Balders45 said:

First impressions are it ticks all boxes however in my heart of hearts I feel I would prefer more running line from scenic break in to the station, would reducing the turn out in the run round loop and possibly shortening the platform help? I don't think I like the fact that any shunting  may take the wagons out under the bridge as that would be the head shunt,

I suspect I'm asking too much of the space??? I do love the sweeping curves though, just feels if I had another few feet in length it would feel more open.

 

There's 4 feet clear in the runround, which is longer than most of the fiddle yard roads so you could shorten the loop without compromising operation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I see getting a vehicle or vehicles into and out of the gasworks siding as quite convoluted, if such vehicles have arrived in a mixed freight train. 

 

No doubt someone will tell me it's easy. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I see getting a vehicle or vehicles into and out of the gasworks siding as quite convoluted, if such vehicles have arrived in a mixed freight train. 

 

No doubt someone will tell me it's easy. 

:smile_mini2:

You're dead right! It's convoluted and difficult - but that's deliberate to make life more interesting for the operator...

 

(See Wallngford - which was even sillier in real life!)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

The overbridge and its embankment are unnecessary as suitably placed gasworks buildings will hide the exit from the operator's viewpoint.

I'm happy to use buildings, trees or anything to disguise exits sideways but since this exit is more torwards the operator I felt it needed to pass through a definite portal of some sort to mark the boundary between on and off stage.

 

Balders might not want a gasworks at the suggested location because it would rather obscure the running line. We need to tie things down a bit more.

 

 

Quote

 

 

There's 4 feet clear in the runround, which is longer than most of the fiddle yard roads so you could shorten the loop without compromising operation.

Yes, absolutely. That should open things up on the right and I might lenghten the loco release headshunt a bit and move it away from the backscene on the left.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, absolutely. That should open things up on the right and I might lenghten the local release headshunt a bit and move it away from the backscene on the left.

 

 

On the other hand, platforms and runarounds far longer than a typical train were prototypically common. Would the long runaround here give an impression of scale and space? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I’m not against shortening the loop. 

 

Regarding the gas works (or alternative private industry), might it be served by a trip working rather than the pick-up goods?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Harlequin

I have absolutely no idea what, how I may do or not do!! My sole aim at the moment is to find a interesting to operate track plan that although may not be totally prototypical still looks fairly realistic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

A variation of Lambourne would fit that area and orientation  very nicely - with different curvature.

I think I may have that saved as a screen shot , how can I attach that image? So i can see if we are on the same page, it does seem to lens itself to the size i have and It's one that I personally don't mind but I do like Harlequin's and I find his more interesting to operate. I'm putting my faith in Harlequin to find the solution!!!!

1911-Lambourn-track-plan.jpg

Edited by Balders45
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm happy to use buildings, trees or anything to disguise exits sideways but since this exit is more torwards the operator I felt it needed to pass through a definite portal of some sort to mark the boundary between on and off stage.

 

Balders might not want a gasworks at the suggested location because it would rather obscure the running line. We need to tie things down a bit more.

 

 

Yes, absolutely. That should open things up on the right and I might lenghten the loco release headshunt a bit and move it away from the backscene on the left.

 

That's sounds interesting, are you thinking of shortening the platform then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I see getting a vehicle or vehicles into and out of the gasworks siding as quite convoluted, if such vehicles have arrived in a mixed freight train. 

 

No doubt someone will tell me it's easy. 

Good tough fellas with a pinch bar could work wonders moving wagons,  as could a horse or road tractor.   The biggest problem, depending in a gradient, was not so much getting wagons moving but stopping them ;)    The problem of course comes with imitating them in 4mm scale (although using the tractor type of approach has been done in 2mm scale and some people have done some very good modelling of capstan working).  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I saw some first-rate capstan working at Railex 2013, utterly convincing stuff. But simply getting the wagon up to the siding with the engine on the further end will be a pain here. However, it is not lost on me, as Cyril Freezer put it many years ago, that the typical train sequence on a model railway approaches that of Clapham Junction in the rush hour. So making the operator earn his corn, given that passenger services will be hours apart, seems fair, as Harlequin suggested.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Balders45 said:

That's sounds interesting, are you thinking of shortening the platform then?

Yes. To try to make the run in longer and more room to shunt up the main line.

 

Titanius is right about a train looking good against a longer platform but we have to accept that things are going to be a bit compressed in the 10ft available.

 

Re. Lambourn: How wide can the scenic board be???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Yes. To try to make the run in longer and more room to shunt up the main line.

 

Titanius is right about a train looking good against a longer platform but we have to accept that things are going to be a bit compressed in the 10ft available.

 

Re. Lambourn: How wide can the scenic board be???

 

Not sure tbh, ive shown the wife it's a 2' board 10' long, she seemed ok with that. I suppose i could go to 3'?But perhaps taper the board as the single line leaves the station. 

With going wider I may have ro shorten the length due to there being wardrobe doors to the left of the base board. With a 2 ' board it only marginally affected 1 door, going wider may obstruct 2 and cause a family domestic!!!

It would be nice to see a revised plan with the amendments if you wouldn't mind. And your thoughts on Lambourn. 

 

 

If we take Lambourn, would it be sacrilege to alter the track plan?? Are there any obvious changes to make?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Good tough fellas with a pinch bar could work wonders moving wagons,  as could a horse or road tractor.   The biggest problem, depending in a gradient, was not so much getting wagons moving but stopping them ;)    The problem of course comes with imitating them in 4mm scale (although using the tractor type of approach has been done in 2mm scale and some people have done some very good modelling of capstan working).  

 

There are a couple of chaps in the Dapol railway workers set that could be used to prod wagons along manually if fitted with a suitable wire handle. Arguably as realistic as manual coupling of three links and better than improbable locomotive moves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Balders45 said:

 

If we take Lambourn, would it be sacrilege to alter the track plan?? Are there any obvious changes to make?

 

 

That spur behind the signal box could be extended to your gas works (or creamery). Have it coming off the run round loop and crossing the main line via a diamond, (and then you could shunt it whilst the passenger train occupies te platform) perhaps? It will fill the empty corner.

 

I'm rather hoping that Mr Harlequin will produce something spendid!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I saw some first-rate capstan working at Railex 2013, utterly convincing stuff. But simply getting the wagon up to the siding with the engine on the further end will be a pain here. However, it is not lost on me, as Cyril Freezer put it many years ago, that the typical train sequence on a model railway approaches that of Clapham Junction in the rush hour. So making the operator earn his corn, given that passenger services will be hours apart, seems fair, as Harlequin suggested.

The question of shunting interests me especially when modellers have to do things on a model with a loco which in the real world never involved such luxury.  Also the whole matter of train formation is a fascinating area - I was at a show recently looking at a rather nice (and well known) GWR BLT where I'm acquainted with the builder/owner/operator and the freight trip arrived having been set up by his other operators who had just popped off for a bite to eat.  The comment as the train arrived was that the coal wagons were on the wrong end (of the train), 'just the sort of trick they enjoy' or words to that effect.

 

But of course the perceived problem really only meant doing the shunting in a different order and as you say at the average branch terminus there would in any case have been all the time in the world to do that.  The same applies with this layout when you think about it and the only problem would be if there is insufficient siding space to allow room to shunt.  Plus of course the problem in the smaller model railway scales where loose/double shunting is extremely difficult, if not impossible.   And you can completely forget fly shunting although most model railways don't have right sort of track layout for that anyway.   Except, oddly, that gas works siding although there isn't really enough length on the Back Siding to get up sufficient speed for a fly shunt even if some suitable means of uncoupling could be devised.

  • Like 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
×
×
  • Create New...