Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Mind wanderings and the DJLC had me pondering working on something smaller than my previous layout. I'd had ideas about a next layout and a change of plans regardless and had been looking at the B&HR and B&HER. I'd tried to fit something of interest into a baseboard that could be joined by others later but there is always the temptation to make it larger and then the energy is lost faster than it can be transferred into the project with time available, which ultimately results in stagnation. A smaller layout could fit onto a workbench in the workshop in it's entirety. I could've liked to purchase a layout rather than build but then it has to fit your space, interest and budget. Meeth, originally started by @bcnPete, caught my attention from the first blog post (previous story here) and was simple enough that it seemed potentially adaptable to any interest. I approached Pete and went to visit him towards the end of 2019. Meeth is scenically a little less complete than I thought it was from the pictures but the beginnings of a layout are certainly there: baseboards, fiddle yards, some track and very basic scenic. Pete and I - okay mostly me - played with his O gauge sound fitted O8 for the afternoon whilst enjoying good conversation and company. Being a through layout with FY-FY arrangement really appealed and I came home with Meeth and the fiddle yard boards enveloped in protective wrap. I won't be finishing this as Meeth and I didn't know exactly what I was going to do with the layout at that time. I also came home completely convinced about sound chips but that is another story. This thread is about the layout that was Meeth; a thread rather than a blog because I think that more people will see, read and contribute to a thread. At least that is my hope. Once Meeth has a new name I will change the title.

 

 

Edited by richbrummitt
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few posts to fill in the gap between November and April.

 

As I mentioned in the last post I had no firm plans only an idea that I wanted a small layout. I took some pictures to help get the layout into my head with the desire that this generate some ideas on how to proceed. Clearly Pete had intended MUs or some other relatively modern traction to run on Meeth. The closest things I have are 2nd generation DMUs so here's a picture of a 150 in regional railways Sprinter livery as I recall from my early railway journeys.

 

20191124_160547.jpg.7a0b93a99f6289ac61e568eff35c5495.jpg

 

A layout for these ought to happen at some point in the future and maybe this will be the one, but I can't imagine anyone else being interested in a cavalcade of 150/1, 150/2, 156 and 142s across 2 feet of open land. 

 

I'd acquired some orange 009 engines too.

 

20191124_161501.jpg.b4f14cc4e8e20e7fe06dc35e145162ac.jpg

 

I've no intention of this happening and it wouldn't meet the DJLC criteria if I was going to fill in the forms. Closer up you can see that the ground cover needs further work and not so apparent is that there is some remedial work required to the rails. This is especially so at the board edges where the rails had deliberately been left a little long and subsequently been knocked/caught during storage and/or transport.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I can't imagine anyone else being interested in a cavalcade of 150/1, 150/2, 156 and 142s across 2 feet of open land. 

 

Oh I can imagine that being rather good!

Especially with the addition of a very small short halt to give them somewhere to stop.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

 

 I can't imagine anyone else being interested in a cavalcade of 150/1, 150/2, 156 and 142s across 2 feet of open land. 

 

Oh I can imagine that being rather good!

Especially with the addition of a very small short halt to give them somewhere to stop.

 

I have the image in your profile framed for a wall. 

 

Thank you for taking an interest. Maybe you will still be interested after a few more posts. Maybe I will adjust my thinking again...

Edited by richbrummitt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The layout has sat on my workshop floor (half of Littlemore has been occupying the workbench) since then, whilst I considered plans for it. I liked the idea of having a second running line. I also liked the idea of a second siding, or moving the existing siding closer to the running line. If only one siding I was definitely going to move the connection to the running line further into the layout so that there is more plain track visible on scene in front of the toe. The major issue with the first of these options is that the turnout is no longer trailing if I add a second running line on the none turnout (obvious) side so it would be starting over with the track. 

 

At Basingstoke 2020 show I purchased David Bartholomew's The Midland & South Western Junction Railway vol.1 for no other reason than it was inexpensive and had views of Savernake in it that I had not seen before. (One of the ruminating ideas in my head for a future layout on the B&HER is the section from the overbridge at Savernake west with the junction to Marlborough and the end of Bruce tunnel. It's got a lot of interest problems to me and for a small layout the junction simply does not fit but I bought the book anyway). It's been an interesting read over the last month. Most interesting to me is that many of the trains featured have horseboxes or cattle wagons attached, or both! 

 

With the DJLC postponed due to this current international situation there is a whole year until the big day and I was back into full fast forward thinking about this layout mode - hence the thread being started now. I am still undecided on entering, especially since June is always a busy time with three family birthdays and other engagements attending might be difficult.

 

Nothing on the MSWJR line quite fits the baseboard and my operational interests but I've got a lot of inspiration from various images within it. Hilly backdrops, valleys, cramped yards due to geography and necessary features seem to lend themselves to squishing a might have been together from some of the locations. Geographically Chedworth has a lot going for it when looking to fit a small space with little width but only a short lived siding. Chilseldon is also in a valley and has cramped yards. Ogbourne doesn't really work geographically for scenic breaks, but the location is of great interest with the racehorse traffic nearby. It also has a two siding yard as per my previous imaginings.

 

The output of a very late back of an envelope (a 2mm magazine one, no less) planning session:

 

20200419_193519.jpg.63383e11f71f8ef2c094937d8639896b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What remains clear is that the 600x240mm is (deliberately) limiting. This needs planning and for reasons I cannot remember exactly - but would certainly have something to do with purchasing a printer for home after muddling through the 6 years since the previous one gave up - I've investigated Templot to the point of downloading it and having a go. There's some things still to work out in Templot and on this plan. Edward (nor Isaac) was much help this morning when I was sticking together.

 

IMG-20200418-WA0000.jpg.4294d0f2ae008eec2b9be3e213d162e9.jpg

 

That is the second effort. Here is the first, very similar one, in full squished onto the baseboard. This would mean starting over on track and landscape. There's more space in certain areas on the newer one but the siding lengths have come out similar lengths despite my best attempts to improve them. I think it may be possible to use the backscene. 

 

IMG-20200416-WA0000.jpeg.2b48f59c12c9f810da7a346cc1fef1f5.jpeg

 

The S curve is just that, and a mechanism to create width at the right hand side. The exit on this side will be hidden by a station building. Along the back there will be an embankment much like at Chedworth, but all the way along. The left exit could be an over bridge or maybe just a copse on the near side of the line. The short siding is a loading dock. The other longer short siding is the yard. I fear there is insufficient room in the yard turnout to fit the catch points in and there is not really space for a loading gauge, or a crane, or...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I learnt when talking to Pete was there is value in planning full size with stock. Here we are with somewhat suitable stock showing the yard full up and stand in part finished buildings: 20200418_171808.jpg.c7ddc2f6c3bf94cb7e2de4d8b7945aeb.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 20/04/2020 at 00:12, richbrummitt said:

I fear there is insufficient room in the yard turnout to fit the catch points in and there is not really space for a loading gauge, or a crane, or...

 

 

Hi,

 

Both of those turnouts need to be changed to curviform type V-crossings. This will improve the line of the curves and make more space. You might find that you could then use shorter turnouts.

 

To change the V-crossings, click the green R indicator so that it changes to C :

 

2_200116_490000000.png

 

You can see that in a regular V-crossing the part of the turnout marked in yellow is curving in the same direction as the main road. Changing to curviform causes that part of the turnout to curve away from the main road, creating more space between the tracks if the tracks are diverging.

 

Changing to a curviform V-crossing also eases the diverging radius, in many cases allowing a shorter turnout to be used.

 

Generally where there is contraflexure in a turnout (negative curving radius), use a regular V-crossing in crossovers between double track. Use a curviform V-crossing in yards and sidings.

 

Video about all this here:

 

 https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=pu2F-wveux5-EWGYuqPd3g2

 

More information about types of V-crossings here:

 

 http://templot.com/companion/real_track.php

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
video link added
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Something that I learnt when talking to Pete was there is value in planning full size with stock. Here we are with somewhat suitable stock showing the yard full up and stand in part finished buildings: 20200418_171808.jpg.c7ddc2f6c3bf94cb7e2de4d8b7945aeb.jpg


Hi Rich,

 

Many thanks for the shout out - I too enjoyed our afternoon and take full responsibility for any sound chip related incidents - It always starts with someone who changes your mind on these matters and for me it was Nick B of this parish ;) 

 

Great to see the project emerging and I do like what you have produced. Looking at some of the initial back of the envelope sketches I could see that some would be a struggle as the size is so tight. But for me, and the beauty of 2mm is nothing beats a full size mock up to gauge if an idea is a runner or not. The ability to literally shuffle stock around check clearances and photograph different views allows one going too far before building track.

This plan looks great and with Martin’s turnout templot tweak above may flow even better. Certainly a lot more operating potential then the original! 

I look forward to read more about it and with the DJLC postponed for a year you can use it as a milestone and if you decide not to enter you will still have a layout out of it. Win!

 

Staying tuned for more... :good:
 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

Both of those turnouts need to be changed to curviform type V-crossings. This will improve the line of the curves and make more space. You might find that you could then use shorter turnouts.

 

Changing to a curviform V-crossing also eases the diverging radius, in many cases allowing a shorter turnout to be used.

 

Generally where there is contraflexure in a turnout (negative curving radius), use a regular V-crossing in crossovers between double track. Use a curviform V-crossing in yards and sidings.

 

More information about types of V-crossings here:

 

 http://templot.com/companion/real_track.php

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Thank you Martin, 

 

I tried one (the right hand yard one) as curviform and then changed it back because it seemed to make the connection longer. I understand their use properly now and will be reviewing,  especially the divergence from the main line. That's currently 1:7 with GWR straight cut switch. Extra divergence here will really help the flow. The yard is sharper; 1:6 or 1:6.5. 

 

I can see myself signing up to the Templot forum for other questions I have about functionality or how to do type questions. David Smith's book is also going to be getting a re-read for some details. So far it's been going okay and well enough to get an idea out onto paper full size. It's certainly a very powerful software tool that is worth investing time in to get the best out of. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LBRJ said:

 

 I can't imagine anyone else being interested in a cavalcade of 150/1, 150/2, 156 and 142s across 2 feet of open land. 

 

Oh I can imagine that being rather good!

Especially with the addition of a very small short halt to give them somewhere to stop.

And don't forget that siding, it will require the insertion of a class 37 between the cavalcade of units.

 

In between in between the cavalcade the 37 could trundle back and forth with some old mineral wagons too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Something that I learnt when talking to Pete was there is value in planning full size with stock. Here we are with somewhat suitable stock showing the yard full up and stand in part finished buildings: 20200418_171808.jpg.c7ddc2f6c3bf94cb7e2de4d8b7945aeb.jpg

Bizarrely when looking at this image, I actually saw the track down, I had somehow in my minds eye merged the earlier scenic images with the new plan and imagined the completed model - I was about to comment how quickly you'd laid the track when I realised, it was still but a plan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

What remains clear is that the 600x240mm is (deliberately) limiting. This needs planning ... The left exit could be an over bridge ... I fear there is insufficient room in the yard turnout to fit the catch points in and there is not really space for a loading gauge, or a crane, or...

 

 

What about moving your yard entry point partially off scene, and having just the common crossing on the plan, something that I believe that Mr Rice is a fan of in one of his books. I Imagine that it depends on how simple you are intending your fiddleyard on being, but cassettes may be the only practical way to do this. See the below - also scribbled on the back of a 2mm envelope.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Chris. 

IMG_20200420_114012(2).jpg.5683f362dba574071142462b3a9b898e.jpg

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

What about moving your yard entry point partially off scene, and having just the common crossing on the plan, something that I believe that Mr Rice is a fan of in one of his books. I Imagine that it depends on how simple you are intending your fiddleyard on being, but cassettes may be the only practical way to do this. See the below - also scribbled on the back of a 2mm envelope.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Chris. 

IMG_20200420_114012(2).jpg.5683f362dba574071142462b3a9b898e.jpg

 

 

I have the same idea playing on repeat. I was imagining an over bridge at the left hand side but it could be changed. The picture of Rheneas shows how well placed trees of a decent size can disguise the hole in the sky. The fiddle yards are traversers, which potentially makes this complicated.  In the latter case of trees rather than a bridge to disguise the exit it becomes a little easier: A dodge might be to make the switch blades fixed apart and have two closely spaced tracks leaving the scene onto the traverser on a dedicated yard shunting track. I could, equally and perhaps more sensibly, complete the toe off scene before the traverser with a small trackpad extension to the existing board construction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, richbrummitt said:

I was imagining an over bridge at the left hand side but it could be changed.

 

Why does a half point preclude an over bridge? Just make the span a bit wider to cover it... I guess that depends on how much of the point you would stick under it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 20/04/2020 at 15:26, MinerChris said:

 

Why does a half point preclude an over bridge? Just make the span a bit wider to cover it... I guess that depends on how much of the point you would stick under it though.

 

Quite. 

 

Ideally the shunting engine (and the portion of train being moved) would remain visible. Whilst that's not possible here I'd like it to be as visible as possible. What compromise? I'll try some options with pictures. 

Edited by richbrummitt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bcnPete said:


 ...Certainly a lot more operating potential then the original! 

I look forward to read more about it and with the DJLC postponed for a year you can use it as a milestone and if you decide not to enter you will still have a layout out of it. Win!

 

Staying tuned for more... :good:
 

 

 

 

There's the plan(s): more operational potential, though still optional since trains cam just run through; and something to aim for within a short but hopefully realistic timescale.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

And don't forget that siding, it will require the insertion of a class 37 between the cavalcade of units.

 

In between in between the cavalcade the 37 could trundle back and forth with some old mineral wagons too.

 

I don't have (or have plans to obtain) such item(s), unless pre-grouping counts as old for mineral wagons. I suspect they would count as too old!

 

In such a world the single turnout would be the bifurcation of the single line into a passing loop station. I disregarded this simpler idea for operating potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a couple of lower level views taken during yesterday's planning. For whatever reason they would not upload last night.

 

20200418_171833.jpg.0be90d7d13ae8c44b1fff406ec6c1e0a.jpg

 

20200418_172219.jpg.cf59cf3cd604159c278f972e8b1d9c78.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

I fear there is insufficient room in the yard turnout to fit the catch points in and there is not really space for a loading gauge, or a crane, or...

 

 

Catch points can be integral with the point at the throat of the yard. The centre road carriage sidings at Penzance pre-1938 had a point like this which threw stock off to both sides. Swanage also had one, but both blades threw stock off to the same side away from the running line.

 

Here's a pic of the St Ruth version. I couldn't find a suitable Swanage photo without copyright complications.

P1020030.JPG

 

Regards, Andy

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D869 said:

Catch points can be integral with the point at the throat of the yard.

There was a similar arrangement at Peebles (CR) which I replicated on Kirkallanmuir on the turnout dividing the two up sidings,the toe of which is very close to the crossing of the turnout off the up main.

1571326194_Trappointsin2FS.jpg.a2f4e03d6a13d6a81b47c7b586630f86.jpg

 

I also recall seeing a photo in MRJ which showed one with pairs of switches, i.e. one on each rail.

 

Jim

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, D869 said:

 

Catch points can be integral with the point at the throat of the yard.

 

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

There was a similar arrangement at Peebles (CR) which I replicated on Kirkallanmuir on the turnout dividing the two up sidings,the toe of which is very close...

 

I also recall seeing a photo in MRJ which showed one with pairs of switches, i.e. one on each rail.

 

That's exactly the kind of thing I remembered. There's many examples including the one in chapter 6of GWR Switch and Crossing Practice of the arrangement at Brent. This is similar to the picture from @Caley Jim but with proper timbers. 

 

Both rails would not be necessary for my yard. The speed would be low and the separation is such that clearance with the running line of 6'6" ought to be maintained by any errant vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another evening and another prod at Templot taking in suggestions from @martin_wynne. Both turnouts are curviform now. This saved me a little - maybe 2' or so in length once other adjustments were made. I was reluctant to do it but have increased the main line connection angle to 1:6.5 (from 7) and the yard to 1:5.25 (from 6) to get the extra space between the two sidings to have a yard, albeit at with compression in length: An obvious outcome. The progression of the planning is shown in the picture below. The first effort at the top and the latest at the bottom. The middle one has some outlines for structures - platforms, building ideas - drawn in. 

 

20200421_220958.jpg.5f3beb85df05560e625b3d942a3a6c41.jpg

 

After consultation with the GWSG publication GWR Switch and Crossing Practice I can see there is space to get switches in this short connection so am happy with my choices, except for the radius in the 1:5.25 which the software appears to tell me goes below the 600mm minimum I was hoping to maintain. The whole plan seems more balanced too. 

 

For the sake of curiosity I pulled a map of Ogbourne into Templot to see whether I had compressed the plan in width at all when compared to surveys of this location on the line. The trackplan is probably closest to this location overall. After some cropping and rotating and a final crop I'd quickly put a background of the 25" OS map behind the drawn rails. I was seriously impressed by how well this worked out. The early version of my plan would match pretty closely to this OS map, which shows the original yard with two shorter sidings and a kick back to the South. It seems the width from the running lines and the access road is roughly where I have it on my plan so I'm taking that as a good sign. I've resisted putting an image up since the maps are Copyright National Library of Scotland with a personal non-commercial use limitation and this forum is owned by a commercial entity and I do not wish to cause problems. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here should be a link to the map without my Templot plan on it: 

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=51.46834&lon=-1.71079&layers=168&b=1

 

It can be seen why the left hand end does not suit an 'exit stage left' as alluded to in one my postings in the initial flurry - the ground falls away where the railway passes over the road into the village.

 

I also ought to have explained in the last post that the latest output is cut deliberately long and slightly wide. I'm giving further consideration to the suggestion from @MinerChris of moving some of the switch, up to 30mm should not notice, off the scenic area. There's a second transition line shown on the Southbound (bottom on the plan) running line, which is another experiment to reduce the width a little to allow a transition to backscene. This also appears to be a success in my mind and maintains the platform width from the passenger face to the loading dock face of 10' scale. I think this should look sufficiently wide to not appear squashed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Liking the progress Rich.

 

Probably worth pointing out that when I originally started it as Meeth I was always conscious of the 1/3 scenic to 2/3 non scenic ratio so the two traverser’s you kindly took as part of the package were designed to be transparent to show the viewer more of the not normally seen areas. This was a development from my transparent traverser on Kyle which seems to have been received well at shows.

 

So perhaps the idea to shift part of the turnout off the scenic area am sure could be made to work with some trial quick n dirty paper templates...

 

70A24E35-F73E-4355-9869-2A2C84237EBD.jpeg.e7eed6c3c55af9ef1a07f18b7a7355b7.jpeg

Edited by bcnPete
Pesky autocorrect...
  • Like 2

Share this post


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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.