Layout advise please

[Harlequin]

Hi John,

 

I've got a suggestion for you. I hope you don't mind me posting a design in your thread but it's the simplest way to explain the ideas:

• It's quite linear and simple with long sidings - hopefully more realistic that way.
• There are some subtle curves (maybe too subtle!)
• Sort of like Ashburton but with the platform on the other side and the engine shed flipped to be behind the platform, where your bay was.
• The kickback turntable spur traps the engine shed from the running line and helps to keep things compact. (Princetown and Fairford turntables were on similar spurs off the shed lines so this is a realistic position.)
• The turntable is shown as a 25 footer but you could go larger, just model it as unused or remove it.
• Could all be done using Peco bullhead in the near future, when the slips are released.
• The double slip is a necessary evil to help with compression.
• Very simple long thin goods yard right at the front of the scene with wagons being parked up at different positions along its length to be unloaded, including coal.
• You could have fun simulating rope shunting!

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

Here’s a throw from me, inspired by the antique ones I’ve been looking at, and assuming that it had been provided with half-decent signalling and interlocking in the 1880s, but is otherwise not much modernised.

 

Notice that the runaround is outside the platform, which is a typical early feature, and that all the non-passenger activity leads off the non-passenger road. The big ‘wharf’ for goods is also typically early, and would be used for all sorts of things, in some places even coal.

 

The loco shed road crossing over the siding is either Woodstock or Abingdon, I can’t remember.

 

Key point is that it all looks quite unlike later practice that dated from new constructions and modernisations in the 1890s and 1900s. I imagine it to have been built by an independent local company, the town having been missed by the main line, so they want accommodation for engine and carriages under cover; the GWR took it over in 1875, but haven’t spent much on it yet.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Nearholmer

[sammyboy]

A nice plan you've come up with Harlequin. I can imagine this station as the terminus of a small fictional preserved railway.

 

Sam

[Happy Hippo]

Might I suggest that the OP goes to the SRS site and have a look at the many GWR signal box diagrams.  Especially the branch terminii.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwdiagrams.htm

 

They do tend to show how simple real stations were.

 

Especially the way that good yards were laid to  make shunting as easy as possible. 

[Nick Holliday]

Just a thought, if you want to make this layout slightly different from the average GWR BLT, I noticed, whilst looking through Volume 2 of  Paul Karau's book on GWR branch termini that of the five featured, two, Ashburton and Moretonhampstead, former broad gauge, retained the baulk road track until around 1910 and beyond, another pair, Abbotsbury (opened 1885) and Hemyock (opened 1876) were initially built using spiked Vignoles (flat bottomed) rail, which they retained until around 1910, whilst the fifth, Princetown, which was opened in 1883, seems to have had bullhead rail from opening (and its 23' 6" turntable).

[Anglian]

Harlequin's design looks very good to me but I'd be tempted to put it all on a curve, if possible. It'll make it look longer and possibly marginally more interesting.

I think it would be worth at least having a look at Helston – it might inspire you.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Anglian

[ejstubbs]

On 13/12/2019 at 18:12, Harlequin said:

Both MH and Ashburton were built as Broad Gauge lines and were initially operated by 0-6-0T and 2-4-0ST locos. (Possibly also Gooch 4-4-0STs?) The turntables date from those broad gauge days.

I think that these broad gauge tank engines preferred ro run "forwards" for some reason and so the ability to turn them was required. Hence the small turntables.

I guess that this need was still seen as important around the time of gauge conversion because the turntables were retained at that time but soon after that improved locos probably made them redundant. The MH turntable was removed between 1900 and 1913.

 

I've read on other RMWeb threads (sorry, can't remember which ones offhand) that the Board of Trade or whoever it was made the regulations back in those days had a general aversion to even tank engines being run "backwards".  Hence why turntables which, to a more modern eye, would appear both too small to be of any use (i.e. couldn't turn a tender loco) and superfluous anyway (i.e. the line was only served by tank engines) appear to be fairy common in the early track plans of terminus stations.

 

I can imagine that, once the requirement to please the relevant authorities had faded in to history, if a station was operationally satisfactory but didn't need significant investment e.g to handle increased traffic, or to comply with updated regulations or practises, then the turntable would sometimes be left in place long after any actual operational requirement for it had passed - especially if it was on a separate road that could simply be left unused.

 

On a different note: I don't know common they were but I do find that turntables on kick-back roads from the the engine shed look operationally very clumsy.  If one assumes that part of the reason for providing one was so that the engine could be turned as part of the run-round process, it would seem very awkward to design quite so much to-ing and fro-ing into the the track layout.  (Though, of course, sometimes other factors such as available space would come in to play.)

Edited December 14, 2019 by ejstubbs

[John Hubbard]

@Nearholmer  Thank you for those thoughts, I feel some more research coming on.

[Nearholmer]

I've just been reading those very BoT requirements (1885 as modified in 1902 version), and they do indeed require turntables at termini and junctions, with exceptions, the main exception being if the branch is a relatively short one. My guess is that the requirement existed to ensure that engine-men didn't loose attentiveness to signals etc while driving engines backwards in foul weather, peering round a bit of canvas sheeting, or maybe early  engines were not very stable in reverse.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

On a different note: I don't know common they were but I do find that turntables on kick-back roads from the the engine shed look operationally very clumsy.  If one assumes that part of the reason for providing one was so that the engine could be turned as part of the run-round process, it would seem very awkward to design quite so much to-ing and fro-ing into the the track layout.  (Though, of course, sometimes other factors such as available space would come in to play.)

 

Yes, I agree it's a bit awkward but we know that it was done where necessary and it goes back to what I was saying above about deliberately not rationalising everything so that track plans have a bit more personality.

 

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

I

On a different note: I don't know common they were but I do find that turntables on kick-back roads from the the engine shed look operationally very clumsy.  If one assumes that part of the reason for providing one was so that the engine could be turned as part of the run-round process, it would seem very awkward to design quite so much to-ing and fro-ing into the the track layout.  (Though, of course, sometimes other factors such as available space would come in to play.)

 

Then maybe have the loco shed on a kick back off the turntable road instead, as the loco shed would likely only be used at the start and end of each day, whereas the turntable would be used every time a train arrived.

[John Hubbard]

Thank you all for your advice.

I thought I would update you with my conclusion.  Based on the advice I think something with a mix of Ashburton and Moretonhampstead will work.

The track diagram will be similar to my first one, with the Ashburton style cross over, with a curve designed in to make it more 'flowing' and not parallel to the board edge.  In all other respects it will be Morton style buildings etc. 

In terms of unique selling points I love the idea of baulk road track bed, so will implement this, but I'll now need to get lots of diagrams and detail of this type of track (trip to Didcot to be scheduled ), and more low volume manufacturing I suspect.

I'll also need to design and build a circa ~24' turntable in front of the engine shed along with the original maintenance pit and ash drop, and ensure all buildings show their broad gauge heritage, i.e. leaving the wider track bed with old ballast and wide train, good and engine shed openings.

Once again, thank you for your advice, and I will post occasional updates as I progress.

The name... probably not that original but "Ash-hampstead" should cover it, at least until something more appropriate comes to mind.

Once again, thank you all for your kind thoughts.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by John Hubbard

[RJS1977]

Moretonburton?

[DCB]

 

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Moretonburton?

 

Ashton -Hampstead?

 

On 14/12/2019 at 18:37, ejstubbs said:

 

On a different note: I don't know common they were but I do find that turntables on kick-back roads from the the engine shed look operationally very clumsy.  If one assumes that part of the reason for providing one was so that the engine could be turned as part of the run-round process, it would seem very awkward to design quite so much to-ing and fro-ing into the the track layout.  (Though, of course, sometimes other factors such as available space would come in to play.)

 

Loco shed and other kick backs were provided so you could run a loco up to the buffers, give it some welly, get the driving wheels spinning and pump some water into the boiler.  Early locos had boiler feed pumps driven by the driving wheels, the last I know of was a LBSCR Trrier on the WCP which was still around during WW2 so I'm guessing 1870/80 before injectors became common and the kick backs and their massive buffer stops became redundant.  One at Kemble survived until recently.

 

Pre 1930s GWR modelling can be complicated by the lack of the common Branch Line  locos RTR.   Hornby do the 27XX which in its era was a heavy Pannier, most modern on the system until he 57XX, Oxford the Dean, Bachmann the post 1923 long frame 45XX  but other wise you are kit building, scratch building or bodging.  Great Fun but very time consuming.  My K's 44XX has been under construction for nearly 50 years now, Ok an extreme case, Usually I lose interest and sell them on on eBay, but do you get my drift?

[Rivercider]

23 hours ago, John Hubbard said:

 

Once again, thank you for your advice, and I will post occasional updates as I progress.

The name... probably not that original but "Ash-hampstead" should cover it, at least until something more appropriate comes to mind.

Once again, thank you all for your kind thoughts.

 

 

You could choose a name from another town in the locality.

In that part of the country Chagford was a town for which a railway was proposed, but never built (it made do with a connecting bus).

Dunsford would have been an intermediate station on the Chagford branch.

Ashton was for a number of years the terminus of the Teign Valley line before it was extended to Exeter,

 

cheers

Edited December 18, 2019 by Rivercider
spelling (Ashton)

[DCB]

On 14/12/2019 at 11:35, Harlequin said:

Hi John,

 

I've got a suggestion for you. I hope you don't mind me posting a design in your thread but it's the simplest way to explain the ideas:

 

On every GW BLT prototype trackplan I can remember the first point at the country end leads to the run round loop, often several wagon lengths before the next point to sidings or dock.  I have been trying to do a virtual shunt of this yard and can't shunt the incoming wagons in to the bottom kick back unless I leave the whole incoming train on the mainline off scene to the right.  Not a oroblem in 303 mm/ ft but RTR stock does not have brakes!

 

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

On every GW BLT prototype trackplan I can remember the first point at the country end leads to the run round loop, often several wagon lengths before the next point to sidings or dock.  I have been trying to do a virtual shunt of this yard and can't shunt the incoming wagons in to the bottom kick back unless I leave the whole incoming train on the mainline off scene to the right.  Not a oroblem in 303 mm/ ft but RTR stock does not have brakes!

 

I don't think I understand the problem that you see here, David, but I'm no shunting expert so very willing to learn!

 

Setting aside rope shunting for the moment (or is that what you meant?) here's how I see it being done:

 

Goods train pulls into platform line. Say, one target wagon in the middle of the train needs to be deposited in the kickback. So the Loco does this:

1. Optionally pick off the guards van and propel it into the loop siding beyond the loco release crossover where it is out of the way before crossing back into the loco release headshunt.
2. Propel the train back until the target wagon is past the yard shunt clearance point.
3. Uncouple, leaving the target wagon and the tail of the train standing on the main line while the remainder of the train is drawn back into the platform line.
4. Cross over again, run round and couple up to the target wagon standing on the main line.
5. Uncouple the target wagon from the tail.
6. Draw the target wagon into the goods shed line.
7. Propel it into the kickback.

(Assuming no gradients and that wagons will stand where you leave them, even without brakes.)

 

What do you think, @DavidCBroad?

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

Isn't this The Ashburton Conundrum?

 

CJF drew loads of track-plans including kick-backs like that, because the real Ashburton contained one, and because it makes good use of baseboard space, but the real thing was shunted by horse or rope. 

 

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Isn't this The Ashburton Conundrum?

 

CJF drew loads of track-plans including kick-backs like that, because the real Ashburton contained one, and because it makes good use of baseboard space, but the real thing was shunted by horse or rope. 

 

 

Exactly. (I thought that perhaps David had spotted a subtle difference between this plan and Ashburton that changed the operation significantly.)

 

Notice that the goods yard in my suggested plan is right at the front of the scene with only the dusty yard/lane in front of it (in my imagination). So you can reasonably easily reach in to connect and disconnect a rope and actually perform rope shunting...!

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Harlequin

[John Hubbard]

As the quote goes... "the best laid plans etc", apparently boards need to be max 2' x 4' to fit the racking in the van

I can't see a way to make the track plan fit an eight foot board so I've added an extra board, so now I have a longer narrower platform to work from.

Given the extra length I can now fit the Mortenhampstead track plan, however, due to the more narrow boards and to add interest I've set it on a curve, and with a bit of jiggling I should be able to fit an extra siding, 

With regard too...

1. Shunting - I really can't see a way to get reliable horse and rope shunting working so I've stayed with the layout of MH.
2. Lack of rolling stock - for me this is part of the attraction, and not needing a massive stable to operate will allow me time to get rolling stock built (some is ready just waiting paint).
3. Track type - I'm still going to try the baulk road approach to drive home the turn of the century look and feel.
4. Turntable - a small one required which I'll need to scratch build, but necessary for time and location.
5. Name - I don't want to be tied to a specific location so the name will be something like Ash-Hampstead although I'm considering the local stations mentioned by @Rivercider.
6. As for the loading area, I like your suggestion @Harlequin of a dusty loading area, and again I will probably steal this idea as one of the cameo areas if you don't mind.

Once again, many thanks all.

 

[Nearholmer]

Maurice Deane built a very good version of this in coarse 0 gauge as a garden railway several decades ago, and he solved the naming problem by building it as a mirror image and calling Hampstead Moreton IIRC.

 

See Railway Modeller August 1970.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Rivercider]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Maurice Deane built a very good version of this in coarse 0 gauge as a garden railway several decades ago, and he solved the naming problem by building it as a mirror image and calling Hampstead Morton IIRC.

About 1970/71 one of the very first RMs I ever bought!

 

cheers

[Nearholmer]

Its remembering things like that that causes my good lady to claim that my head is full of useless stuff, with no space for important things.

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, John Hubbard said:

As the quote goes... "the best laid plans etc", apparently boards need to be max 2' x 4' to fit the racking in the van

I can't see a way to make the track plan fit an eight foot board so I've added an extra board, so now I have a longer narrower platform to work from.

Given the extra length I can now fit the Mortenhampstead track plan, however, due to the more narrow boards and to add interest I've set it on a curve, and with a bit of jiggling I should be able to fit an extra siding, 

With regard too...

1. Shunting - I really can't see a way to get reliable horse and rope shunting working so I've stayed with the layout of MH.
2. Lack of rolling stock - for me this is part of the attraction, and not needing a massive stable to operate will allow me time to get rolling stock built (some is ready just waiting paint).
3. Track type - I'm still going to try the baulk road approach to drive home the turn of the century look and feel.
4. Turntable - a small one required which I'll need to scratch build, but necessary for time and location.
5. Name - I don't want to be tied to a specific location so the name will be something like Ash-Hampstead although I'm considering the local stations mentioned by @Rivercider.
6. As for the loading area, I like your suggestion @Harlequin of a dusty loading area, and again I will probably steal this idea as one of the cameo areas if you don't mind.

Once again, many thanks all.

 

 

 

Now, this is getting interesting because you are heading from Ashburton to Moretonhampstead (sort of) while I am heading from Moretonhampstead to Ashburton...

 

Let me explain. You might like to have a look at my topic "Hampton Malstead". The early ideas were inspired by Moretonhampstead but were compromised by space (and lack of experience) into a rather generic trackplan. The much more open and curvaceous, flowing plan at the end of the topic is a huge improvement but I'm still not entirely happy with it because there's still not much room for non-railway scenery around the station. When I worked up the Ashburton-like sketch for you I realised that a linear station on wide baseboards doesn't suffer from that problem and the more I think about it, the more attractive it seems!

Hence, I’m potentially heading in the opposite direction to you - wider boards and simpler, thinner, straighter trackplan.

 

So I hope you won't be upset or surprised if you see me do something like my Ashburton-like suggestion above. And I too am already thinking about spreading over three boards making up 12ft scenic length.

 

(Feel free to have a dusty loading area - I'm not going to claim copyright on it ;-)

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Harlequin

[DCB]

12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I don't think I understand the problem that you see here, David, but I'm no shunting expert so very willing to learn!

 

Setting aside rope shunting for the moment (or is that what you meant?) here's how I see it being done:

 

Goods train pulls into platform line. Say, one target wagon in the middle of the train needs to be deposited in the kickback. So the Loco does this:

1. Optionally pick off the guards van and propel it into the loop siding beyond the loco release crossover where it is out of the way before crossing back into the loco release headshunt.
2. Propel the train back until the target wagon is past the yard shunt clearance point.
3. Uncouple, leaving the target wagon and the tail of the train standing on the main line while the remainder of the train is drawn back into the platform line.
4. Cross over again, run round and couple up to the target wagon standing on the main line.
5. Uncouple the target wagon from the tail.
6. Draw the target wagon into the goods shed line.
7. Propel it into the kickback.

(Assuming no gradients and that wagons will stand where you leave them, even without brakes.)

 

What do you think, @DavidCBroad?

 

 

Again it means leaving a big chunk of train on the main line, I don't have a problem with running the loco round and shunting with the loco at the country end of the station or much of a problem with the brake van at the country end. However there is also the need to shift enough wagons out of the goods shed road to allow the kick back to be shunted and then (8) pull empty out of kickback propel towards main line, 9 push wagon into kickback then push outgoing wagon back in to train, before sorting the wagons in the goods yard road.    Its do able but has to be done in a set sequence and means tying up the main line with wagons while shunting.   Most popular GW BLTs had a steep gradient down towards the junction so leaving wagons on the grade would have been frowned upon!