Jump to content
 

GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Rule of thirds is explained here. 

 

A simple interpretation of this rule - and imho - slightly missing the point is that the proposed train (loco and I think you said up to 3 coaches) should occupy roughly 1/3 of the scenic part of the layout. Hence the train appears on scene (first third), moves through the scene (second third), and finally comes to rest at the station (final third). 

 

I guess applied to static scenic elements a classic approach to using this rule is to divide the scene into thirds, and then thirds again....placing scenic elements at the intresections. 

 

Thank you.  A version I was thinking of was for short BLT-FY schemes: the train should ideally be no longer than 1/3rd the total length of the layout (including FY), so the end of a train has passed the point where the front of the train began, before the front of the train passes the point where the back of the train will end.

 

It guarantees at least some degree of travel, but in the worlds of micro-layouts and Minories it's often not possible.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One point I would see as firmly in favour of cassettes is that it solves the unboxing problem, especially if you can arrange some form of visually acceptable vertical storage, not even necessarily in daughter's bedroom.  For instance, if you wanted the option of running various periods, you could have one set of cassettes for 1930s GWR, another for 1950s BR(WR), another for the green diesel era etc, only bringing one set into the room at any time.  And of course cassettes can serve more than one layout .....

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Some helpful arithmetic as a variation on the “rule of thirds” (it’s probably obvious, but I only just spotted it):

 

If I place a 40” train on a circle of 20” radius track, then the circle will always be pi x the length of the train.

 

Which basically means a curve with an arc of 120 degrees (1/3 of the circle) will give a run of just over one train length.
 

Makes it very easy to work out an ideal minimum distance between (for example), a FY and the station, or two stations on a minimum space compact layout.

 

(I had a bit of waiting time at Liverpool Lime St. over lunchtime so was doing some pondering - my first thought was that there isn’t a full train length for the longer trains between the end of the platforms and the start of the tunnels there).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

...

 

(I had a bit of waiting time at Liverpool Lime St. over lunchtime so was doing some pondering - my first thought was that there isn’t a full train length for the longer trains between the end of the platforms and the start of the tunnels there).

 

200 ft by my reckoning. So they probably designed the gap with a 2 or 3 coach train with tank engine in mind to adhere to the rule.  :D

Edited by AndyB
  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 26/08/2020 at 16:40, Nearholmer said:

Have a look at Chesham on the Met.. Goods yard beyond the station, amazingly bucolic for a place so close to the centre of London, and a pretty busy service. It wasn't electrified until c1960 IIRC. Very pleasant station even now, with a good few "heritage features" still in-situ and well looked after by TfL.


I had a bit of time I’d not anticipated today so got a chance to find out a bit about Chesham - perfect for 3-rail!
 

Similar sequence of platform / goods yard to Fairford, but more developed.  Not sure something like this would compress into the space I have, but would definitely tick the box for something a bit different given the space.  Thanks for the prompt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 26/08/2020 at 17:20, The Stationmaster said:

Looe is another good one in that respect - with added 'water feature' to front off the layout.  


Per my response to Nearholmer, I had a bit of time I’d not expected today so had a quick look on t’internet at Looe as well.

 

I was aware of the right angled start to the branch at Liskeard, the line looping under the viaduct and the switchback at Coombe, but  I don’t recall seeing a plan of Looe itself before rationalisation.  Rather like Chesham, a good idea (this time with the quayside), but I think it would benefit from the space to stretch it out further to really do justice to the goods sidings and beyond.
 

One scheme that could be a bit different would be to model Looe on one side of a U, then loop round to Coombe (missing out the bits in between), where trains reverse to go back disappearing behind trees into a fiddle yard behind the Looe Terminus.

 

As Looe looks quite stretched out it wouldn’t be as far a reach as with the Deane Branch I drew as Idea 2 for a home layout.

 

For an exhibition layout (in a straight line) with a couple of operators it could be something quite entertaining and different.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 25/08/2020 at 21:21, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Hi Andy, I think I'd find a multi-level scheme quickly became too cumbersome (and the 3-D jigsaw too complicated), especially as the doorway is quite tight. 

 

A more permanent layout in this space could certainly use this kind of idea, but as I expect there'd need to be a gradient crossing several baseboard joints between the levels it might be too ambitious for me.

 

I think I have to assume a fair bit of exercise will be involved, certainly during construction, as the messy / heavy-duty work has to be done in the outhouse, and it will be my job to carry it up and down the stairs for that.

 

I forgot to mention that our house has 10’ high ceilings – so there are 18 steps on the dog-leg stair case between the ground floor and first floor (plus 6 more down to the outhouse / workshop because of the part-sunken cellar, or 16 to go up again to an attic room).

  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Continuous run or end-to-end?

 

The key thing to decide is whether to try and fit in a small continuous run layout (my usual preference) or if it is better to focus on end to end plans, for which some really good ideas have been suggested.

 

Zomboid raised some very relevant points about the amount of rolling stock I could use on the layout, compared with what I have:

 

On 26/08/2020 at 11:02, Zomboid said:

Limiting the amount of rolling stock you use in a running session will probably help. You don't need a huge amount to run a BLT.

 

On 26/08/2020 at 22:55, Zomboid said:

The operating fun is moving trains around on the layout using locomotives, not getting stuff out of boxes and putting it away again.

 

It was easy to manage with the original proposal for our shared home office:

 

2055866110_ContinuousRunRoomView1.jpg.ffc2879f1d658cb22424ff51d931a721.jpg

 

For this plan, @The Stationmaster  had mentioned the carriage siding marked as one place to use for swapping trains for alternatives, which would be used for the next iteration of the operating sequence.  With @Harlequin's plan for the same space, it would have been logical to rotate the layout through 180 degrees and use two Exchange Sidings on the inside of the Passing Station for swapping rolling stock.

 

However, looking at this layout space it’s nowhere near as straightforward:

 

586447548_ContinuousRunRoomView2.jpg.f67fe3f12fb9f984df3211e5f9cc904d.jpg

 

Although a plan view of the space suggests there should be room for a rolling stock box as well as an operator in the centre of the layout, when I stood in the room to imagine how things might actually look it was very clear how tight the space really is.  Even with this ultra-compact plan (my Idea1), I think the stock box would still be out on the landing, so rolling stock exchange during operating sessions is not easy.

 

If the box was in the operating well it would be difficult to avoid knocking either the layout or our daughter’s things stored under the baseboards while moving about.  I don’t think this would change if the operating well was a bit bigger than in Idea 1, or if cassettes were being used.  And whatever system is in place for rolling stock exchange, the narrow entrance to the room makes it difficult to get in and out.

 

It feels everything would be too cramped if I put a free-standing continuous run layout into the room.  It wouldn’t be at all easy to move around and that doesn’t sound like fun, so it’s not the way for me to go.


I think a very nice, compact continuous run shelf layout could be built to these dimensions in a small shed or workshop (as CJF apparently did with this particular plan).  Spare rolling stock might be stored on dedicated shelves, as suggested by Nearholmer:

 

On 26/08/2020 at 10:03, Nearholmer said:

I’m thinking of a set of shelf-brackets on the wall above the fiddle-table to hold them

 

That's not an option in this case.  So I’m satisfied this space is only really suitable for a compact end-end scheme after all, and I’ll go down that route.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Back to Layout Design…

 

As mentioned at the start of the thread, CJ Freezer’s “Plans for Small Locations” helped my initial ideas.  As @The Stationmaster noted, there is a degree of 'prototypicality' about them, which came from CJF’s knowledge of real railways.  But they have a certain style, which I think is visible in my Ideas 1 to 3.

 

@AndyB pointed me to Peco’s more recent Compendium of Track Plans, particularly for ideas on U-shaped plans (thank you).  I found it interesting how many of the newer Peco plans intentionally follow CJF’s lead.  This may well just be me, but when I compared those ideas to the ones in the 3 BRM Volumes of Layout Design, there seems to me to be a difference in style.  There’s nothing at all right or wrong about using different approaches of course.  My own modelling heritage, if you like, comes from the likes of CJF and, most especially for me, Kalmbach in America. My regular monthly reading and inspiration comes from BRM, which is the magazine I subscribe to.  Re-reading the BRM books as well has given my thinking a nudge.

 

My initial idea for a BLT-U-FY layout looked like this:

 

298419110_LayoutSchematic1.jpg.a428f84a07f7102e015fb002bcc64099.jpg

 

It’s not a bad idea, as Flying Pig noted: 

 

On 26/08/2020 at 15:12, Flying Pig said:

I think the universal BLT fits the bill perfectly :)

 

In terms of a prototype for inspiration, Ashburton, which I like apart from the kickback siding (which wasn’t loco shunted), could be used as a start point for a Generic BLT. It can be compressed into 8’  as it is more compact than many BLTs, most likely I presume because it did reach the town.  It has of course long been associated with CJF.  The Ashburton curve leaves the station and heads right not left, so that would have to be flipped, and I would also turn the Maltings Siding round.  I'm not planning to build it, as I already have two generic BLT's I like which I can develop for this particular idea. 

 

But how about the alternatives suggested?

 

If I start with the baseboard arrangement suggested by @Harlequin I calculate the available scenic space as about 126” (10’6”) long: 2 x 3’2” along one side, then 50” across the end (70” less 18” for the R2 curve and 2” for the edge).  With the gentler curve in the open space, I could use the whole of that space for a Terminus and have a lot more room: 10'6" doesn't sounds nearly as small.  I really like long points and already have pairs of curved and straight Peco long points – maybe I could do them justice and have something more spacious after all?

 

At this point, I realise I’m just catching-up with everybody else here (sorry, I’m not the quickest), but I now understand the rationale behind suggestions such as Looe, Chesham, Fairford and Hemyock

 

I’m not after prototype fidelity – but even an “inspired by” idea could be a massive leap forward for me.  Having looked at Looe and Chesham they’re great, but I’m afraid they’re not for me.  I’ve been lent Paul Karau’s Combined Branch Line Termini, which includes both Fairford and Hemyock:

 

I already like Fairford (it's a bit different, and there are lots of photos of Pannier Tanks). But when I tried squeezing it into 8’ previously it didn’t work.  Here though I could try this:

 

14212088_LayoutSchematic2.jpg.cb654c914c0ee9ac7aebadf3ecfb1e1d.jpg

 

I’ve moved the platform to the other side of the running line, so coaches hide the gap they create.  There is more space for the other features of the station (I’d probably omit the turntable, to be honest).  Operationally passenger trains enter the scene, stop and unload, then proceed on to the run-round loop before coming back to the station.  The journey to Oxford was 25 miles, so trains did more than just shuttle up and down.  On the downside, the “free run” has disappeared.

 

Harlequin has already looked at Hemyock, and here I've followed the same approach as his Rockfield:

 

1517364777_LayoutSchematic3.jpg.4e9935f77853f34453c9f06b1a1cc6cb.jpg

 

With Hemyock the loop doubles as something of a “free run” before the Station.  Passenger Trains have to set back to the Loop to run round, then back again into the Station.  Hemyock was dominated by a creamery operation, which I’m not sure I’d include myself.  The photos I’ve seen are almost all of 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 Tanks, not Panniers.  That’s OK: I can confess to three 14xx locos* as well, plus three Toad Brake Vans for the mixed trains that were seen run on the Branch too (*they should be 48xx for my time period, sorry).

 

Wallingford is another Terminus Karau covers with the platform beyond the loop (and the strangest kickback siding I know of).  I think I’ve also seen Harlequin compress this to 10’.  So that’s 3 of the 10 Prototype Termini Karau covered – 4 if I include Ashburton still - in a space I’ve just said is too small for a simple oval) .

 

As for other ideas, St. Ives might fit my space with slightly different baseboards:

 

1056464640_LayoutSchematic4.jpg.c784ed0b3026b4d2269dbf2c8aefc8b8.jpg

 

St. Ives was recently covered by Andy York in BRM in 8’ x 6’ and (after checking with him), I also put a variation in the BRM Forum: July 2020 BRM.  Some further compression would be needed to fit here – the Goods Sidings and Engine Shed might need to be swapped over, for example?

 

So, I'm getting there.  I realise I've just been playing catch-up, but now I’m hopefully up with the rest of the class, what I'll do over the next few days is try and sketch out some of these ideas, for which I’ll use Anyrail.  I’ll see what catches my eye.   Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Keith.

Just to throw an idea into the melting pot....

The thing you seem to want is a bit of a run for the trains to stretch their legs. 

Given that the layout is a BLT to FY, the scenic area that delivers this bit of running is actually quite small.  That's not to say it won't be beautifully modelled.  

 

However, to make the scenic running section larger can I point you to this thread....

"A scenic fiddle yard for a blt".

That bit of real estate labelled FY could be a continuation of the scenic run. So that when you look at the overall layout you get the sense of a much bigger layout, and your trains would effectively run through a scenic area for double tbe proposed length?

 

And as an addendum this thread is really interesting and making me re-think the terminus on "A return to Nantford Spinney". Thanks for starting it and inviting contributions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, AndyB said:

Morning Keith.

Just to throw an idea into the melting pot....

The thing you seem to want is a bit of a run for the trains to stretch their legs. 

Given that the layout is a BLT to FY, the scenic area that delivers this bit of running is actually quite small.  That's not to say it won't be beautifully modelled.  

 

However, to make the scenic running section larger can I point you to this thread....

"A scenic fiddle yard for a blt".

That bit of real estate labelled FY could be a continuation of the scenic run. So that when you look at the overall layout you get the sense of a much bigger layout, and your trains would effectively run through a scenic area for double tbe proposed length?

 

And as an addendum this thread is really interesting and making me re-think the terminus on "A return to Nantford Spinney". Thanks for starting it and inviting contributions.

 

Thanks Andy - I'd seen your thread about a Scenic Fiddle Yard a while back but not made the connection.  On my micro-layout the Fiddle Yard tracks (both of them) are fully ballasted and had the sleeper spacing widened as with the Station board, for exactly the reason you give.

 

I don't know how well this would work visually here though, as the Fiddle Yard is likely to be the start of the "free run" and one option is to begin with a tight R2 curve (see the posts below for my "Inspired by Fairford" - it's easier to explain what I mean with a diagram).

 

Another option might be a scenic area in front of the Fiddle Yard to complete the U - if I go for the Cassette option the Fiddle Yard itself doesn't need to be very wide.

 

Good idea, thanks.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Today is my day off, so with a bit of time either side of lunch I've been able to look at the first of the suggestions, to see if it might actually fit.  It appears it has, so I'm sharing it to show one approach that could be taken.  I'll also have a look at the other ideas - but there may be things I've missed or could change here anyway to improve this design.  I'd call it a contender for sure.

 

Inspired by…

 

1.  Fairford

 

1183439645_Fairford1.jpg.85094f54424fef1e91e9b7d9d3b24f73.jpg

(Available Photo shows road bridge in revised position proposed by The Stationmaster below)

 

Notes:

 

Although Cassettes have been recommended for the Fiddle Yard solution for this project, I’m drawing in conventional Fiddle Yards to begin with, so I’d have something to get started – I have a couple of Y points I can use.  At this stage I’m not yet worrying about points across suggested baseboard joints: there are 2.

 

Concerning the plan:

 

1.  Platform length is determined by a 40” chord end-to-end – so should exceed train length.

2.  I’ve essentially flipped the plan top to bottom to give a mirror image of Fairford to fit the space.  Other key changes are omitting the Turntable, moving the Good Shed to a separate Siding (it was on the Goods Loop), and omitting the first crossover into the Goods Loop that was before the Run-round Loop began.  Originally, there was a water crane between the Engine Shed siding and the running line, and plans show a Water Tank as I've shown.  Later photos show a typical Water Tower instead by the running line.

3.  As I understand it, everything beyond the Platform End was treated as a Yard, with a Trap-point on the running line before the Run-round loop.  With the start of my Run-Round Loop overlapping the end of the Platform, my guess is that I’d need two Trap points – one on the Run-round Loop and one on the Main Running Line just after the Goods Loop point.  I think the Goods Sidings might be protected by their points?  I could be totally wrong on this.  The Signal Box was on the Platform, but in a similar position to where I have it.

4.  The justification for what is effectively a kickback Goods Yard is that Fairford wasn’t intended to be a Terminus (as can be seen by comparison with Lechlade, the penultimate Station on the Line).  The road bridge is, conveniently, prototypical.

 

Sadly for me, I've spent ages building a Ratio Station Awning Kit to go with the Station Building I'm now putting together - and I wouldn't need it here: there was never an awning at Fairford, so I don't really need the awning attached to the Station which I've included either, although there was one at Witney further down the line.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 26/08/2020 at 14:21, AndyB said:

We often think of BLTs as having the platform at the most distal point from the FY.

 

Would it be interesting to do something a little different? My mind is turning to Fairford on a curved site.

 

Perhaps with a curved platform in the bottom right-hand corner. 

Keith you are correct re the trap points although in the real world it might be done a slightly different way (but to the same end result in terms of what is trapped)

 

One thing which might be worth a look is exrending the scenic area a bit further on to the tight ci urve buy moving the road bridge ab nd arranging its angle to the track to mislead the eye about the radius of the curve.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

On 29/08/2020 at 15:38, The Stationmaster said:

Keith you are correct re the trap points although in the real world it might be done a slightly different way (but to the same end result in terms of what is trapped)

 

One thing which might be worth a look is exrending the scenic area a bit further on to the tight ci urve buy moving the road bridge ab nd arranging its angle to the track to mislead the eye about the radius of the curve.

 

Thanks for the advice on trap points.  As for the road bridge - a bit like this perhaps?

 

1993580261_Fairford1.jpg.6e5bb9c792f464c2bb41512d8ee4dbfa.jpg

 

 

 

It's just a very quick sketch - it might be the sort of thing to check by eye with a full-scale mock up when the time came, I guess.  I may have gone too far - ironically, this might be further from the platform than the prototype!

 

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose one question with a Fairford-ish layout is how was it actually operated? Passenger trains obviously called at the platform, but did freight get the free run into the yard, or should they also stop at the platform? Does that compromise the "free run" concept?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Keith Addenbrooke the plans is really starting to come together. I like your idea of a scenic area in front of your FY. 

 

Whilst inspired by Fairford I think you might get some additional play value by including the lowest of your FY tracks with the scenic area. This might usefully have been some kind of private siding. Perhaps something associated with Witney's blanket production?

 

Operationally a freight train (or wagon attached to a passenger train) would depart from the FY and draw into the station. Thereafter the wagon would be propelled back into the private siding. And vice versa.

 

You've moved your bridge into a good place to help disguise the fan of points on the FY. But I'd maybe look at placing a building or group of trees to help further with view blocking. 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Keith,

This looks really interesting!

Personally I wouldn't put any scenery in front of the FY because I think it would just be awkward to reach over it when you need to fiddle.

Don't worry about the station building awning - do whatever you like! It's your station and you can find many other prototypical examples of straight awning on curved platforms if you need justification.

One advantage of the cassette table FY is that it could remove the need for another set of rail-crossing-baseboard joins. Just allow the cassettes to reach across the baseboard join in the top right.

Some of the elements get very close to the backdrop at the bottom.

Is the run round loop long enough? Will 3 coaches fit with enough clearance?

To help with the length of the run round loop:

  1. Do you need three tracks there? The cattle pens could stand against one side of a simple loop - it's just means that you couldn't leave any vans standing there when you need to run round but that's a typical small station compromise. (In fact reducing to a simple run round loops would make the trapping simpler, too!)
  2. Could you lengthen the station boards to cantilever further over the bed? It should be fine if the support is strong enough there's sufficient weight on the other side of the bearing point to hold it up - so long as no-one leans on it!

 

P.S. I've been vaguely thinking of DIY store "work trestles" as the basic supports - like these: https://www.diy.com/departments/340kg-foldable-saw-horse-pack-of-2/1510279_BQ.prd (They are exactly what I use for my little test layout.)

Then some sort of I-beams across them - all connected together with hinges to keep them upright and to allow them to fold away when not in use.

Then the actual baseboards on top of the I beams.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
55 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

This looks really interesting!

Personally I wouldn't put any scenery in front of the FY because I think it would just be awkward to reach over it when you need to fiddle.

Don't worry about the station building awning - do whatever you like! It's your station and you can find many other prototypical examples of straight awning on curved platforms if you need justification.

One advantage of the cassette table FY is that it could remove the need for another set of rail-crossing-baseboard joins. Just allow the cassettes to reach across the baseboard join in the top right.

Some of the elements get very close to the backdrop at the bottom.

Is the run round loop long enough? Will 3 coaches fit with enough clearance?

To help with the length of the run round loop:

  1. Do you need three tracks there? The cattle pens could stand against one side of a simple loop - it's just means that you couldn't leave any vans standing there when you need to run round but that's a typical small station compromise. (In fact reducing to a simple run round loops would make the trapping simpler, too!)
  2. Could you lengthen the station boards to cantilever further over the bed? If the support is strong enough there's sufficient weight on the other side of the bearing point to hold it up - so long as no-one leans on it!

 

Hi Phil, thanks for this, some good pointers on scenery.  I'm just sketching things out at the moment, but you're right I've not left myself much room for error either top or bottom here, so I will need to watch that.

 

I may be worrying unnecessarily about the awning - it just looks a bit odd to me next to a plain single track line as here.  I'm sure there are examples - I just need to find some photos to be reassured I guess.

 

I agree the run-round loop looks tight: I've drawn it as a run-round loop not a passing loop so it is shorter - the two pieces of flextrack making up the loop add up to 39.67", and three of my 57' coaches measure 30".  The WTT shows Fairford could be a passing place however - I'm not sure how that would work, but it's possible I've missed a trick compressing the loops below train length of course.  

 

One of the things I like about Fairford is the "three track" arrangement - it's a feature I like in typical European Stations which is rarer in the UK, so I really wanted to keep it, but I agree it does make things more complicated.  I didn't mention the carriage siding but it could be added on the inside of the run-round loop.

 

The thing I’ve got out of place is the entrance to the Engine Shed sidings, which should come off the running line.  Having moved the Goods Shed I thought I’d be OK, but you’re right: putting the Cattle Dock where it should be gives me a problem.  I could move that too, or get rid of it (I think it was removed at some point).

 

I've been wondering about a longer cantilever over the bed - as there's no need to incorporate an unsupported "right turn" with your baseboard arrangement it should be possible (maybe make Board 1 a bit longer, so there's more of a counterweight where it is supported?).  My thinking at this point is to leave the dimensions as they are for now to give me some wiggle room later.

___________________
 

Thanks for the pointer on trestles - the website says they’re currently out of stock at my local B&Q but I’ll keep an eye out next time I’m there (it is my nearest D-I-Y store so I often call in).  Could work well.

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
(was checking stock levels on trestles at my local store)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose one question with a Fairford-ish layout is how was it actually operated? Passenger trains obviously called at the platform, but did freight get the free run into the yard, or should they also stop at the platform? Does that compromise the "free run" concept?

 

Good point.  I don't know, sorry.  As per my comment above, the WTT shows Fairford as a passing place, so I wonder how that worked too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I expect to come back to Fairford - it looks promising and I like it.  Moving on though, I think the next one is really interesting:

 

Inspired by…

 

2. Hemyock

 

“The Culm Valley Light Railway Company was a local enterprise…”  It says it all!  The more I looked at the different track layouts at Hemyock over the years, the more they reminded me of backwoods North American Short Line Railroads from the early 1900s. It’s certainly different.

 

@Harlequin's Rockfield, previously referenced, is a really interesting take on the basic concept at Hemyock, which I’d imagine could be quite easily translated into this space.

 

I’ve therefore had a go at sketching out Hemyock itself to see how it looks first.  According to Karau’s plans, the track layout was remodelled around 1930, and a number of significant changes were made.

 

166436156_Hemyock1.jpg.c5b999edb0187d110ee63f0000f46f9f.jpg

 

Notes:

 

I’ve incorporated key elements from both before and after the remodelling.  I’ve not included the large dairy, which would be off to the left of my plan and had access from the continuation of the Goods Shed Siding and an extension of the Cattle Dock Siding. 

 

Concerning the plan:

 

1.  The longer run-round loop is from the later plan (according to the plan, and photos, there was only a trap point at the far end of the loop).

2.  I’ve kept the original Goods Shed and Engine Shed.  I’ve also kept the kickback siding below the Engine Shed, which was for a Carriage Shed (which I’ve not shown).  Note that, prior to the remodelling, there was just one short run-round loop, below the running line, and the Engine Shed Siding came off that original loop.   

3.  The Engine Shed and Carriage Shed, and their sidings, were both removed in the remodelling.  The Goods Shed was also removed and a trackside one put on the site of the former Engine Shed, being served by the new second loop (which was roughly where I have it - it was a bit longer, to reach the new Goods Shed).

4.  My platform is only just 40” long, but is longer than the original (proportionate to the rest of the layout).  The siding behind the Station building was close to it, as here – though the building itself was smaller.  The Station I’ve drawn will accommodate the trains I want to run – but I think might well look out of place – this was not a line served by three coach trains or heavier locomotives.  As at Fairford, there was no station awning.

5.  There was an occupation crossing by the Ground Frame in the top right – this might be upgraded to a road overbridge for a scenic divide?

 

Hemyock is fascinating, and has inspired some fine layouts.  I’d want to be confident my passenger trains and locomotives wouldn’t look out place on this light railway.

 

I'll not be on RMweb during the day tomorrow, but thanks once again for the contributions and responses, which are all helpful.  Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hemyock isn't the only place with that arrangement of course. Wallingford also had the platform beyond the run round, and Uxbridge Vine Street too. Plus probably others from other railways. So I don't think your 3 carriage trains would necessarily be out of place in such a station.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Hemyock isn't the only place with that arrangement of course. Wallingford also had the platform beyond the run round, and Uxbridge Vine Street too. Plus probably others from other railways. So I don't think your 3 carriage trains would necessarily be out of place in such a station.


Thanks - Wallingford will be next up when I get some time.  I’d not seen Vine St before this thread but I think it’s a double track approach, so not for me.  But, as you say, there are other examples.  Keith.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Sadly for me, I've spent ages building a Ratio Station Awning Kit to go with the Station Building I'm now putting together - and I wouldn't need it here: there was never an awning at Fairford, so I don't really need the awning attached to the Station which I've included either, although there was one at Witney further down the line.

But it's not really Fairford is it? Keep the awning is my vote. If it bothers you call the station Fairney or Witford...

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


Thanks - Wallingford will be next up when I get some time.  I’d not seen Vine St before this thread but I think it’s a double track approach, so not for me.  But, as you say, there are other examples.  

Keith.

 

Vine St was a double track approach although Uxbridge High street was at the end of a sinl gle line but it did have a loop adjacent to the platform.

 

18 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose one question with a Fairford-ish layout is how was it actually operated? Passenger trains obviously called at the platform, but did freight get the free run into the yard, or should they also stop at the platform? Does that compromise the "free run" concept?

 

14 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Good point.  I don't know, sorry.  As per my comment above, the WTT shows Fairford as a passing place, so I wonder how that worked too?

The arrangement at Fairford was really a betrayal of its proposed origins as a through station.  So, strangely, it had a running signal with a full size arm reading into the yard area beyond the platform towards a line with a facing hand point once you were past the trap point, technically rather naughty.   I have a feeling that any arriving fright would merely slow (officially 10 mph) to hand over the train staff and would keep going - especially as the branch ended in a steep rising gradient (I in 115!!).  Regrettably a former neighbour who fired over the branch for many years is alas long gone so I can't ask him if I've got that right but I doubt I'm far off.

 

Trains could only cross in the sidings at Fairford so effectively what 'cross' meant there was that a train could arrive, clear the single line, and then another train could come out of the yard onto the single line ready to depart.  Thus it was possible to have two trains, and even an engine in the shed (= a third train), at Fairford at any one time.  Wallingford was very different because with no block telegraph the line was worked on the  One Engine In Steam method.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Narrowing the Options (Part 1): 

 

I was surprised how quickly I was able to put together initial sketches inspired by Fairford and Hemyock.  It made we wonder if there might be lots more places I might consider in addition to those mentioned.  The space I have scales up to just over 1/8th of a mile.  If I assume a GW BLT might typically spread over ¼ mile, then any station that can be selectively compressed by around 50% could be a start point.

 

How about Princetown, for example?  I’d overlooked it (because it’s straight), but there are photos of three-coach trains there and, even high up on the wilds of Dartmoor there is a road overbridge across the station throat well placed to be a scenic divide... 

 

So, last weekend I didn't have a space for a layout - now I need to start narrowing my options!

 

Although it was fun to draw, I'm going to rule out Hemyock: the rolling stock and building kits I want to use aren’t really suitable for a Light Railway design. [I may come back to @Harlequin's Rockfield and look at that, as a plan with the Station beyond the Run-round Loop and Sidings could be arranged so as not to have lots of uncoupling and shunting at the far end of baseboard, over the bed]

 

I'm also going to apply the same thinking and rule out my second idea for a Generic BLT, another one I liked, but which is also more suited for a Light Branch Line with smaller engines, as noted:

 

On 26/08/2020 at 14:00, Flying Pig said:

 

I like this - if you can live with terminus to fiddle yard and small engines, it might well be all you need. You can up the challenge by using some sort of wagon operating system if that's the sort of thing you like.  

 

 A small point, but flip the kickback siding so it can be shunted from the main line and extend it to make a  nice long mileage siding.  Yes it's conventional, but there's a reason for that.

 

As suggested, I redrew it with the Coal Siding arranged more conventionally to see how it looked:

 

797299116_LayoutIdea5a2.jpg.94d6574da10e2f6f4f72cb7c7a01c8a1.jpg

 

I think having the Coal Siding like this makes the track layout look a little bit like Roy Link’s well-known RM Oct ’78 Plan of the Month, “The Art of Compromise.”  It’s an idea I’ve had on file for many years, even though the loco release, as published, was very short.  The published version has a Fairford-type arrangement for the platform, before the Sidings, and although I like the design, it’s a BLT plan I don't think would work for this project.

 

Incidentally, "The Art of Compromise" is currently being built to a very high standard by @col.stephens as a Southern Railway branch line: Farleigh, in case you've not seen it.  

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 3
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...