Yet another GWR BLT -But

[Junctionmad]

Yup, it’s the hackneyed cliche. 

 

But , heres the scenario. I’m planning a branch line extension for our late GWR main line O gauge exhibition line. So I need a small BLT , as space is constrained, it will be by nature compressed.  Now I looked at several ( many ) gwr BLTs plans , but generally most were “ one engine in steam “ or close to it.  ( for good prototype reasons ) Whereas this is an exhibition layout , so the branch line will see frequencies way way beyond any real life prototype.  I’ve studied  malmesbury , Cardingan , shipston-on-stour, , Moretonhamstead , bodmin , Circenester is nice but too big.  Fairford  is too long 

 

So so to start with I have the typical one platform arrangement with the usual run round .  The issue is then the goods shed , most small gwr BLTs seems to assume the incoming goods occupied the station platform , and presumably the engine ran round , drew back the goods onto the main line and shunted them into the goods shed 

 

however I need to depart from reality a bit , and a layout that allows goods run round , while a branch train  stands in the station , even providing a shunting spur ( though I’m tight on this ) 

 

a seperate single “ mileage” siding  and optional cattle/ end loading dock etc. , the area is on a left hand curve to boot 

 

I’ve read the issues around turntables and sheds , so as yet these have not been included as they take up a lot of space 

 

any ideas of how to “ bend “ a small BLT to my plans. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Junctionmad

[Harlequin]

There's one obvious answer that fits your hackneyed cliche scenario perfectly...

- A Bay platform where the branch train can stand aside while the goods train is being dealt with.

 

You might also get some inspiration from Kingsbridge, which was a GWR BLT on steroids - and all on a curve to boot... Apparently a very busy place in its heyday.

 

[Junctionmad]

Actually Lambourn looks like it might fit the bill , the GWR installed the second loop precisely for the reason I mentioned. 

[DCB]

I think Cinderford had the double run round you need,  Most GWR BLTs as you say used the platform for all arrivals.  one or two had bays, Minehead, can't think of any others.  Most had docks, like bays but with higher platforms (higher than the 3ft max for passenger stock )  for loading vans and often end loading facilities.  Bodmin General is good.  The goods did lurk in the sidings while the passenger came , ran round and departed down the other branch.

I don't find the fact the branch goods and branch passenger can't be at the terminus together to be a problem, it just adds an extra dimension to the operation, on the other hand I do like to run long trains longer than my run round sometimes and getting the outgoing wagons out, incoming ones in and the ones going nowhere back where they were is actually my idea of fun,

 

[Junctionmad]

Thanks for that 

[The Stationmaster]

Things changed quite a lot over the years in the way trains were worked.  Pre-war most of the smaller branches seem from the STTs to have either had the freight trip run in a gap in the far from frequent passenger service or on some freight traffic was handled mainly on Mixed Trains so it arrived at the terminus coupled to a passenger train.  Mixed Train working can provide considerable shunting 'entertainment' on a model railway especially if you are running a push-pull trains because they were authiised to shunt with the trailer still attached.

 

GWR Regulations for the working of single lines were slightly ambiguous when it came to the acceptance of a train but except where provision was made in the Signal Box Footnotes (and I suspect in such cases where the signals provided for it to be done in a different manner - e.g Abergwynfi)  basically a Signalman could only accept a train if it could run to the platform line.  This had the additional advantage, in most cases, of also offering the greatest length available at the terminus to run round a train.  Thus even if the freight was going to be stopped at the Home Signal and then turned into another line the platform still had to be clear to allow it to be accepted by the Signalman at the terminus

[Junctionmad]

I think this is one area where exhibition based model railways differ from the prototype. In our case we ate further hampered by manual three link couplings and hence lots of coupling /uncoupling activity is problematic. 
 

We all know in exhibitions there’s considerable pressure to “ keep trains running “ and as a result traffic frequency often beats absolutely no comparison with the prototype. Yet the track layout is often both simplified and compressed , adding to our woes. 
 

hence my desire to balance the opposing objectives of a small terminus with sufficient track to support more then one movement/train even if I’m stretching the prototype comparisons “ a bit “ 

 

in my case a rejigged ( mine curves the opposite hand )  Lambourn looks quite a reasonable fit. I can upgrade the signalling to support running goods trains into the second loop. ( applying special conditions ) .  The track design even supports an engine shed , even if the gwr knocked it down !  

the reasoning behind this is my dislike of seeing BLTs clearly designed for OES operation , acting like main line stations !! At exhibitions 

 

at least I’m trying to support the extra movements via an improved/enhanced  track plan 

we alternate the layout between late GWR steam and green early blue  BR ( W)  periods so at least with a dmu we can keep things simple !! 

 

anyway CAD never refused a mouse movement !!! 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Junctionmad

[mdvle]

23 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

Actually Lambourn looks like it might fit the bill , the GWR installed the second loop precisely for the reason I mentioned. 

 

At which point it is worth pointing out that the talented Harlequin has done a "inspired by Lambourn" layout design in OO here on RMweb that he named Lambstead that might provide some inspiration - there was also some Lambourn information posted in the thread, and various other variations on the layout design.

 

ere

[Junctionmad]

thanks < I already read through that thread 

[Junctionmad]

Quote

 

GWR Regulations for the working of single lines were slightly ambiguous when it came to the acceptance of a train but except where provision was made in the Signal Box Footnotes (and I suspect in such cases where the signals provided for it to be done in a different manner - e.g Abergwynfi)  basically a Signalman could only accept a train if it could run to the platform line.  This had the additional advantage, in most cases, of also offering the greatest length available at the terminus to run round a train.  Thus even if the freight was going to be stopped at the Home Signal and then turned into another line the platform still had to be clear to allow it to be accepted by the Signalman at the terminus

I had already anticipated that, by assuming the need for splitting home in my re-realised Lambourn ( I have to think up a name ) as was provided for in Abergwynfi, so as to direct goods traffic into teh second loop.  Equally having a full running signal on the same said exit to the mainline . A little;e over the top , but hey you cant have too many signals on a layout !!

[Danemouth]

Harlequin also provide invaluable help with my BR(W) BLT Danemouth

The plan:

How it looks now:

 

Regards

 

Dave

 

 

 

[DCB]

On 05/01/2020 at 12:39, The Stationmaster said:

GWR Regulations for the working of single lines were slightly ambiguous when it came to the acceptance of a train but except where provision was made in the Signal Box Footnotes (and I suspect in such cases where the signals provided for it to be done in a different manner - e.g Abergwynfi)  basically a Signalman could only accept a train if it could run to the platform line.  This had the additional advantage, in most cases, of also offering the greatest length available at the terminus to run round a train.  Thus even if the freight was going to be stopped at the Home Signal and then turned into another line the platform still had to be clear to allow it to be accepted by the Signalman at the terminus

 This doesn't necessarily mean the goods can't run into the station while the passenger is there, just that the passenger stock can't be at the platform when the goods arrives. Passenger stock could be parked in a siding, carriage shed, or loading dock between trips.  The loco might even park the coaches out of the way and take the goods to the junction and return before the next passenger turn. The passengers didn't exactly run on an hourly basis, let alone every five minutes like at exhibitions.

Obviously to keep something moving at exhibitions can be a bit tiring where 3 link couplings are concerned but that's why Auto trains and rail motors were invented.     Realistic shunting should be easy with 3 links as you can uncouple anywhere on the layout, and realistic shunting with a station crammed with wagons some incoming some outgoing, some remaining and some just along for the ride because the intermediate station can only be shunted in one direction can be very absorbing.   The branches were about goods traffic, most retained goods years after the passenger service finished and coal traffic was the staple of the goods service often being run after the other goods services were withdrawn.  

Edited January 17, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Stubby47]

St Ives, Cornwall, is on a curve and in its heyday could hold a passenger train in the main platform whilst another train used the platform run round.

 

But it might be too long for your space.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Stubby47

[Junctionmad]

Thanks 

 

I have created a version of lambourn that suits our needs 

[DCB]

5 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

Thanks 

 

I have created a version of lambourn that suits our needs 

You can't stop a thread that easily, they take on a life of their own and continue zombie like until the end of the Interweb, sometimes re surfacing 10 years after the last post..

On 17/01/2020 at 06:21, Stubby47 said:

St Ives, Cornwall, is on a curve and in its heyday could hold a passenger train in the main platform whilst another train used the platform run round.

 

But it might be too long for your space.

St Ives was very weird, the front loco came off the train at the loco shed so the second one could pull the up to 12 coach rain into the platform to save length.

I believe the train in the loop was not an arrival but  was simply shunted into the loop to clear the platform while the locos went back to St Erth for a later arrival.  There doesn't appear to be any signal allowing direct access to the loop on the signal box diagram I googled.

[Junctionmad]

I 

Quote

You can't stop a thread that easily, they take on a life of their own and continue zombie like until the end of the Interweb, sometimes re surfacing 10 years after the last post..

I’m not trying to stop a thread , merely thanking contributors and explaining what Ive done