Not a GWR BLT

[Great Eastern Lady]

Hello everyone 

After many months of trying to decided wether to build a layout or not , I have finally decided to take the plunge.

I didn’t fancy doing a GWR layout as there are many out there , but one system that doesn’t seem to have that many is ex GER 

 

So after buying the book on it I have decided to roughly model Framlingham, Suffolk. I have omitted the long back siding and the granary and siding as they would have taken a lot of room and made it a lot wider than I would have wanted.

I have also made a few other little changes so I can run passenger trains while shunting the goods yard 

I will be using DC with a possibility of going to DCC in the future so I will be wiring the layout for DCC but with a few extra isolated sections thanks to @Izzy for sorting out the feeds and isolators

Loco I will be running will be

J15, D16/3 , B12 and ideally if I ever get them F5 and E4.  I have a V1 so using a bit of modellers imagination it got lost and ended up here lol. 
I know it all looks very straight but then so was the real station 

 

[mdvle]

Looks interesting, and if you want to keep it straight then by all means keep it straight - the layout needs first to make you happy.

 

But if you want you also could introduce some gentle curves in a couple of places, and change the arrangement so everything is parallel to the layout edge, and maybe find that you like the looks better.

[DCB]

Looks good if you have about 20 feet in 00.   The B12/3 is a bit unlikely to find its way to this backwater, and there isn't really any scope to do any meaningful shunting while the branch passenger is in residence but its different.  These branch termini have the annoying habit of being much longer than nominally larger urban stations. Curved platforms and platforms not parallel to the baseboard edge always look better to me than bog standard everything parallel versions.

[Harlequin]

Hi GELady,

It looks lovely. The next thing to do is to draw it to scale to find out how long it is.

It will probably be easier to do that in a computer program.

 

Which is the viewing side?

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Harlequin

[brossard]

Does look interesting.  A gently curving layout is pleasing to the eye.  I did to my already built boards by making 3" "pie pieces" and inserting between three boards.

 

 

A bit of a mess but you can see the slight curve.  It is 0 gauge in case you were wondering.

 

Mine is nominally Eastern Region but with Midland mixed in.

 

I'm a bit of a luddite so the turnout templates on Pecos website are useful for planning where things should go.

 

Have fun.

[Great Eastern Lady]

It is going to be roughly about 12ft long by 2ft 6in wide with the boards split in 3ft by 2ft 6in sections so it’s easier to handle and store . As for the fiddle yard I’m still undecided as to what design.

@DavidCBroad , B12,s did venture onto the branch line , usually with special excursions and weed killing trains , and very rarely a normal service 

viewing will be from the loco shed side .  It is only a rough drawing not exactly to scale , but it gives you an idea 

[Izzy]

Glad you found the wiring diagrams helpful. In respect to a fiddle board I have to say that in a range of scales 2mm/4mm/7mm I now consider the sector plate type to be perhaps the best all-round design for ease of construction and simplicity of use. Also cheap to do and economical with space. A sliding bolt from rod/tube either side of the rails - on the exit road side - to both align them and provide electrical current with all others thus being dead. A good safety feature with DCC so you don't drive the wrong loco/train off the wrong un-connected track......but useful with DC as well.

 

Izzy

[Great Eastern Lady]

@Izzy  I found them very helpful thank you 

 

As got the fiddle yard I’m torn between a sector plate and a lift out fiddle yard 

[brossard]

Agree with Izzy re sector plate.  Point ladders in fiddle yards take a lot of space.  I think a sector plate is more efficient.

 

John

[Harlequin]

Best to decide on the fiddle yard design at the same time as the scenic part because it can affect the position of the connecting track.

For either a sector plate or a traverser, locating the connecting track further from the wall (assuming there's a wall behind) allows the sector plate or traverser table to move further and so to have move storage tracks.

And the more storage tracks the better.

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Harlequin

[Jules]

Look forward to seeing this develop - I always thought it would make an interesting layout

[DCB]

It should compress down to 12 ft but some compromises will be inevitable. I did a doodle to get more realistic point lengths and angles and the points come out much longer than originally drawn, even 2ft radius are 7" long/ 14" per crossover which gobbles space.  The platforms and loops seem to even out to equal length which is good,  Another good feature is most of the shunting can be done on the layout, most BLTs need the main line as a shunting neck.  The 3 way at the buffer end won't work, you can't get the angle for the bottom siding so I showed it as two separate points likewise the top right siding is marginal, I think I have drawn it too tight despite easing it..   Bad feature is lack of mountains in Sweedie land to hide the FY.   Not sure about Traversers VS Cassettes. Most modern RTR doesn't like being handled.  I like to design so the FY can be shunted without handling the stock so you don't end up with broken or missing handrails etc,  so Cassettes are better on that score, until you drop the whole lot on the floor. A sector plate always seems to move more smoothly than conventional traversers and you should manage 6 or 7 roads.  You could always put a return loop in the next room or in the garden, just a thought.

Edited January 5, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Great Eastern Lady]

@DavidCBroad  I’m looking at the baseboards being 3ft x 2ft 6in just for ease of storage and transport, the points are medium radius for the main line and run round loop and small radius for the goods yard . I think you are right about the three way , I was a bit in too minds whether to or not 

The layout sketch is only rough and I’ll probably amend a few bits here and there 

 

[Great Eastern Lady]

After @DavidCBroad had planted a seed in changed the three way for two normal points I went back to the drawing and made another couple of changes. by getting rid of the double slip and amending the goods loop and goods sidings.

 

I think it looks better and more workable 

[Harlequin]

Hi GE Lady,

 

I've been looking at the original Framlingham station and it has some very interesting features:

The run round loop shared by both passenger and goods is not against the platform face and crucially for a model that could save some space because you wouldn't need a loco release crossover at the buffer end. It also means that passenger operations are much more interesting than your typical BLT!

 

The long back siding and the kickback off it were essential for the concentrated goods traffic the station handled and without them you haven't really got anywhere to store idle wagons. (The goods sidings in your current plans are all very short and have specific purposes.)

 

The way the goods line crossed the passenger line via a single slip just at the tip of the platform to reach the loading docks on the other side is distinctive and it's a shame not to have it in the model.

 

I've knocked up a possible plan that's a more direct representation of Framlingham using Peco Streamline turnouts. Would you be interested in me posting it here? I don't want to tread on your toes!

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Harlequin

[gobbler]

What is a BLT?

thanks

 

Scott

[Adrian Stevenson]

BLT = Branch Line Terminus

 

But if it is a Sandwich it is Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato 

 

Cheers, Ade.

[Nile]

10 minutes ago, gobbler said:

What is a BLT?

thanks

 

Scott

You asked that elsewhere on Monday, here is the reply you must have missed (or forgotten):

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/150413-nellies-new-railway-lswr-blt/&do=findComment&comment=3790537

 

[Great Eastern Lady]

@Harlequin  I have the book on the Framlingham branch and I am fully aware of the track plan 

The layout I am going to build is roughly like it 

by removing the the long back siding and a few others and adding an extra loop I hope to make it a bit more interesting for me 

if it was as per prototype I would be running one engine in steam , and I don’t think anyone at a exhibition would enjoy that too such 

besides to try and get it one hundred percent as per prototype is beyond me and would take up too much room 

[Harlequin]

9 hours ago, Great Eastern Lady said:

@Harlequin  I have the book on the Framlingham branch and I am fully aware of the track plan 

The layout I am going to build is roughly like it 

by removing the the long back siding and a few others and adding an extra loop I hope to make it a bit more interesting for me 

if it was as per prototype I would be running one engine in steam , and I don’t think anyone at a exhibition would enjoy that too such 

besides to try and get it one hundred percent as per prototype is beyond me and would take up too much room 

Well, for the record, I don’t think you need to radically change the track plan to allow more than one engine in steam. Rather, It’s a matter of operating procedure, signalling and maybe special regulations.

 

It is possible to fit a reasonably faithful compressed version of the prototype track plan into your space. So not 100% as per prototype but recognisable and workable.

[Izzy]

I like both the original Framlingham track design, and the plan GE lady has devised. As I see it the disadvantage of the original is the length needed, which it is difficult to compress since both the platform road and the run-round loop need equal length to make it viable. With the revised plan the goods loop/ shed sidings can be reduced down to just a few wagon lengths if required to fit it in without loosing the basic operating concept, although I am not sure if it is any more amenable to more than one engine at a time. Operating procedure is not a strong point for me, (if anything is!). With only the one arrival line I presume calling on arms/ procedure would be used. But I have no real idea, just these vague thoughts. As always, it’s good fun trying to work it all out............

 

Izzy

[Great Eastern Lady]

The thing is , you can go as per prototype but that would be open to much criticism as in this isn’t right and that isn’t right 

Also it would involve much scratch building and I will be honest it is far far beyond me , also even though I have the book there is very little detail and photographs on the back siding and buildings

So using a bit of model railway license Im keeping the bits I like and changing a few bits and then leaving out the bits I don’t need

Any way off out over the weekend looking for base board materials 

 

 

[Harlequin]

While I was looking for info I found this rather wonderful gallery of images:

http://framlinghamarchive.org.uk/all-images/

 

There are some useful photos of the station (although not of the back sidings, unfortunately) including the station building from the road side.

 

This is my favourite (link to the site so no copyright problem):

http://framlinghamarchive.org.uk/wp-content/gallery/transport/34-Engine-shed-29-March-1937-Album-3.jpg

 

From what's been said above I realise this may not be of interest but this is what I came up with (someone might find it useful):

The platform is to scale (although the crossovers might need pushing out a bit) and the remainder is compressed. All Peco Streamline turnouts and crossings. The spur at the end of the run round has been lengthened to be a more usable headshunt so that shunting can take place while the mainline is in use.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Harlequin

[Great Eastern Lady]

@Harlequin  I have to say , I do like what you have done , I might even use it((wink))

 

Are they three 4ft x 2ft 6in boards 

[t-b-g]

A friend of mine is building Framlingham in O Gauge as a first layout in that scale. It does look an interesting prototype. It does make a nice change to see a branch terminus hat isn't GWR!