Jump to content
 

GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

In this layout the goods loop, or whatever it is called, is the only way to shunt the kickback sidings and it needs headroom on the centre road, or an extension to a dead end siding, in order to do that most effectively,  without that headroom you can't readily shunt an arriving freight train.  This is where that layout plan diverges considerably from Fairford because the goods loop there wasn't essentially needed in order to shunt anything.

 

Thanks for the detailed response - am I right in thinking this paragraph refers to the first set of sketches I drew of Fairford (with derivations)?  I'm happy to acknowledge I hadn't really thought through the details of Freight operations vis-a-vis comparison with Fairford proper in my initial thinking - the conversation has helped me clarify my thinking and priorities.

 

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as the turntable is concerned there was one at Fairford because it was a legal requirement to provide at a relatively early stage in the history of the branch.  Of course providing one does not create a legal requirement to use it.  Interestingly from what little I can pick up for the Station Working Book at Oxford if a tank engine arrived chimney first from Fairford it would not necessarily have been 'the right way round' for its next job (which was not on the branch).  ewqually I doubt id f some crews were happy slogging to turn the table when they could have been in the cabin having a break or a cuppa.

  

I suppose the question with regards to my plans that omit the turntable is whether there was a date when it ceased to be a requirement.  I know I keep referring to Ashburton - but it was removed there at some point, so I guess my plans assume the same for Fairford?

 

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Now the new schemes.  Schemes 1 & 2 can't really handle three trains - too crowded.  But with a bit of train length compression Scheme 3 could just about handle three trains provide the trap point is immediately beyond the platform end - I think (without a close detail check and slightly different references to which line is which) that you can more or less follow the sequence I laid out previously starting the day with the two coaching sets on the centre road and the goods arriving on the platform line extension road  - headed towards the spur stop block, not towards the engine shed.  I'm not so sure an bout later moves but only because I haven't looked at them.

 

I agree Schemes 1 and 2 are not designed for three trains (Scheme 2 assumes one engine in steam really).  Scheme 1 can handle two passenger trains if the Bay Siding is a platform, or a passenger and goods perhaps crossing.

 

Thank you for the advice on where to place the trap point on Scheme 3 - in effect it is back where it was at Fairford.  Would it be marked with a signal or other marker, or would this not matter as it traps any rolling stock coming down the hill towards the platform, not trains arriving in the station?  I have tried to put forward a plan that can be operated more like Fairford really was in this new version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A couple of drawings to show how I think I might be able to operate this new version of Fairford per the prototype:

 

Firstly, overnight, with two x 2-coach Trains waiting for the morning:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

And then later in the day when it gets busy: the Goods Train Loco is on shed.

 

1968851920_EasyBuild6a.jpg.47a0d296d9b17fb3fcea050035ed85bd.jpg

 

The Goods Sidings beyond the Good Shed are assumed to be shunted through the Goods Shed - there needs to be sufficient wagons available to prevent the loco trying to enter the shed.

 

If fouling points is not permitted in the yard, then the second passenger set would need to be split: one carriage in the loop (where there is room for three) and one in the headshunt.

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

  • RMweb Premium

Incidentally, I'm sure I've read somewhere - either on RMWeb or elsewhere, that one of the two crossovers into the Goods Loop at Fairford was locked and effectively taken out of use at some point - but I can't remember where I read it or which one it was.  In the context of the discussion about how to shunt the station it would help if I could remember my source, or if anyone else knows of this (or if I've misremembered something else).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Thanks for the detailed response - am I right in thinking this paragraph refers to the first set of sketches I drew of Fairford (with derivations)?  I'm happy to acknowledge I hadn't really thought through the details of Freight operations vis-a-vis comparison with Fairford proper in my initial thinking - the conversation has helped me clarify my thinking and priorities.

Yes, basically it applies to any layout plan of 'Fairford' where the goods shed i has to be shunted by a kickback off the goods loop

7 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

  

I suppose the question with regards to my plans that omit the turntable is whether there was a date when it ceased to be a requirement.  I know I keep referring to Ashburton - but it was removed there at some point, so I guess my plans assume the same for Fairford?

 

The Requirement varied a bit of over the years - it was originally laid down by an HMRI limit of teh distance over which an engine should be allowed to work a train tender first. thus in the 1892 edition the wording came out that enginees should not be allowed to work a passenger train tender first, i.e.  you therefore have to provide a turntable.    That ruling does not appear in the 1920s rewrite althoiugh I can only readily access a published draft of that edition but the 1950 edition specifically allows turntables not to be provided if all trains are worked by tank engines.  It was of course extremely easy for a railway to prove on paper that all trains would only be worked by tank engines so honour could be easily satisfied in writing if there was a query.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

I agree Schemes 1 and 2 are not designed for three trains (Scheme 2 assumes one engine in steam really).  Scheme 1 can handle two passenger trains if the Bay Siding is a platform, or a passenger and goods perhaps crossing.

 

Thank you for the advice on where to place the trap point on Scheme 3 - in effect it is back where it was at Fairford.  Would it be marked with a signal or other marker, or would this not matter as it traps any rolling stock coming down the hill towards the platform, not trains arriving in the station?  I have tried to put forward a plan that can be operated more like Fairford really was in this new version.

If you are going to model 'a homage to Fairford', or whatever, my advice would be to just carry on and copy that signalling oddity at Fairford (and then spend years dealing with the know-it-alls by saying 'if the GWR could get it wrong who am I to argue with that and I have simply copied what it did').

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

A couple of drawings to show how I think I might be able to operate this new version of Fairford per the prototype:

 

Firstly, overnight, with two x 2-coach Trains waiting for the morning:

 

1025118216_EasyBuild6b.jpg.ae0a797c29136b422266e706095aa0aa.jpg

 

And then later in the day when it gets busy: the Goods Train Loco is on shed.

 

67001958_EasyBuild6a.jpg.81d9cbde13c96460c7d3baafce26225f.jpg

 

The Goods Sidings beyond the Good Shed are assumed to be shunted through the Goods Shed - there needs to be sufficient wagons available to prevent the loco trying to enter the shed.

 

If fouling points is not permitted in the yard, then the second passenger set would need to be split: one carriage in the loop (where there is room for three) and one in the headshunt.

Let's kill - for the sake of  this thread if no other - what happened in respect of goods shed and steam engines.  In quite a number of places engines were not permitted to enter or pass through the goods shed building but there was no general prohibition on engines entering or passing the rough goods sheds.  Yes, ideally wit would have been avoided because of various risks, particularly of fire, but it was not generally prohibited.

 

Nothing wrong (subject to syuitable Local Instruction) with leaving passenger coaches foul of points when stabled overnight as nothing else was moving.  it certainly wasn't the ideal way of doing the job but on a cramped layout thetre , moght beno althernative.  You're probably better off having both the overnoght stabled coaching sets restrictred to no more than two vehicles

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Revised position for trap point on the running line.  There is a further 40" before the buffer stops so a max. length train could proceed past the trap point, technically clearing the running line.

 

2026499867_EasyBuild8.jpg.62a1f40fc54584f24a03b84d7ca41ee5.jpg

 

 

(Note: with multiple versions of this plan now on my laptop, this may not always be the one that appears - so I've posted it now in its own right). 

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

  • RMweb Gold

I have really enjoyed the gradual evolution of your layout.  It looks good and "fun".  But it doesn't quite work.  As the Stationmaster has said, locos do not (usually, often, as a rule...?) shunt THROUGH goods sheds - fear of sparks igniting things or smoke/exhaust polluting things.  So getting at your end loading dock is not ging to be easy - you'd need a set of wagons that could be pushed through the shed with the eld/cattle vans on the end of that.  Might I suggest that you put a point in the loop just where the second carriage is on your "pretty plan" (or a bit to the left) and a diamond beyond the goods shed - thus the eld line crosses to the right of the goods shed.  This gives a bit more shunting interest too, making sure that the crossing is clear of "parked" mileage vans as needed????  I prefer overall sheds myself as they have quite a "presence" in a station.  The only other way is to make the goods shed a shed at the side of the line with a platform in front for unloading.

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 05/09/2020 at 17:59, imt said:

I have really enjoyed the gradual evolution of your layout.  It looks good and "fun".  But it doesn't quite work.  As the Stationmaster has said, locos do not (usually, often, as a rule...?) shunt THROUGH goods sheds - fear of sparks igniting things or smoke/exhaust polluting things.  So getting at your end loading dock is not ging to be easy - you'd need a set of wagons that could be pushed through the shed with the eld/cattle vans on the end of that.  Might I suggest that you put a point in the loop just where the second carriage is on your "pretty plan" (or a bit to the left) and a diamond beyond the goods shed - thus the eld line crosses to the right of the goods shed.  This gives a bit more shunting interest too, making sure that the crossing is clear of "parked" mileage vans as needed????  I prefer overall sheds myself as they have quite a "presence" in a station.  The only other way is to make the goods shed a shed at the side of the line with a platform in front for unloading.


Thanks - it’s been quite a ride getting this far so quickly!
 

I agree with your analysis - I suppose my only question would be why Fairford (and Lechlade next down the line, which had an identical Goods Yard by the look of it) were built with such an awkward siding / loading dock entrance?
 

My guess would be that the Victorians either didn’t assume locos would always shunt it, or deliberately had it so close there would only need to be a couple of reach wagons available.  Either that or they did allow Locos in the Goods Shed (less likely, but not impossible, as discussed).

 

I’ve put the Siding as it is precisely because that is where the original was - to give me the same problem. I think it’ll be more fun than trying to shunt a kickback Siding, where the constant running round could become a bit too frustrating.  Here I have what some American layout designers call a ‘deliberate snarl’ where I can point to the photos as my justification.
 

I’ve got a 2nd hand copy of Stanley C. Jenkins book on the line on its way mail order - maybe I’ll learn more when that arrives (I must be serious  about the idea: I’ve spent some money on it).

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I agree with your analysis - I suppose my only question would be why Fairford (and Lechlade next down the line, which had an identical Goods Yard by the look of it) were built with such an awkward siding / loading dock entrance?

 

I think the answer is in @The Stationmaster's post:

 

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Let's kill - for the sake of  this thread if no other - what happened in respect of goods shed and steam engines.  In quite a number of places engines were not permitted to enter or pass through the goods shed building but there was no general prohibition on engines entering or passing the rough goods sheds.  Yes, ideally wit would have been avoided because of various risks, particularly of fire, but it was not generally prohibited.

 

Also, I know I'm wasting my time bringing up the goods loop again, but it really would be better with the right hand crossover reversed so everything could be shunted from the platform end. In that case, you could also ditch the Y in the runround which looks very model railway.

 

Also also, how long are your trains going to be?  It looks as though you could reduce the plan to an L and save a board.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think the answer is in @The Stationmaster's post:

 

 

Also, I know I'm wasting my time bringing up the goods loop again, but it really would be better with the right hand crossover reversed so everything could be shunted from the platform end. In that case, you could also ditch the Y in the runround which looks very model railway.

 

Also also, how long are your trains going to be?  It looks as though you could reduce the plan to an L and save a board.

 


Thanks - I think there’s just a difference of emphasis in how I’ve read @The Stationmaster’s post - I read it as ‘generally could be allowed but not actively encouraged’ which may be my misreading.  I’ve certainly not ruled it out.
 

Afraid I’m not quite getting it about the right hand crossover, sorry.  As I look at the plan everything is to be shunted from the platform end - I’ve tried to show the Goods Yard as close to the original as my space allows.  I may be missing something (looking again at my ‘overnight’ diagram it could be the wagon I’ve left at the end of the loop looks like it was reverse shunted via the kickback - that wasn’t my intention.  Apologies for any confusion).

 

Max. Train length is 40” (3 x 57’ coaches plus loco).  I wondered about an L-shape, as it could give a straighter Fiddle Yard (easier) and could look more sensible, but I’d like to see if I can fit in the slightly longer run.  Thanks for mentioning it though - for anyone looking at a small shelf-layout, this could work for a corner space in an L-shape.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Something a bit different as an aside:

 

(if this bit isn't your kind of thing, skip over it - it really owes more to my interest in micro-layouts and shunting puzzles)

 

The question of "puzzles" was raised yesterday by @Jeff Smith.  In my response I referred to the art of trying to create the illusion of space.  I've not tried doing it with a layout design based on a prototype before, but this is the 3-card trick I've tried in my compression:

 

Card 1 - the Goods Yard:

 

Schematically, the Goods Yard at Fairford (final design) and my compressed version could, I hope, be said to look a little similar:

 

1237127289_Puzzle1.jpg.8c255ee6ff627915c39c56c0a84dafe6.jpg

 

Card 2 - the End of the Line:

 

Visually, I'd hope that my version of the end of the line (another signature scene) and the real one look a little like mirror images of each other  - although I know my lines aren't really parallel:

 

2116183430_Puzzle2.jpg.3545dffde97501eb85171ea2b3874e21.jpg

 

The deception however comes when I overlap the two parts of my design to save space - the two places marked as in these diagrams are the same spot on the layout, whereas in reality they were entirely different.

 

Card 3 - pointwork by the Engine Shed

 

1838810037_Puzzle3.jpg.2bf7ba7417d269f49456708a2b98d70e.jpg

 

 

Although schematically it may look like I've just moved one of the crossovers, functionally there is no comparison.  It's all part of trying to trick my eyes into "seeing Fairford" when I look at the layout.

 

So far it is working for me - thought of course I understand there's no reason it'd work for anyone else.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

PS: Once again, I'm encouraged by the responses and observations, thank you.  As I'm now looking at the details more closely, my limited knowledge means I'm more likely to slip up, so it's all helpful.

 

One thing that is particularly encouraging is that it looks like I definitely have a Scheme to go for - and can take forwards, and is based on a favourite prototype.  I hadn't expected that.  I don't expect to be on RMweb again until Monday, but will try and catch up with anything further then if I can.  Thanks again, Keith.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Max. Train length is 40” (3 x 57’ coaches plus loco).

 

Ah - that's too long to fit a fiddle yard on just the bottom left board.  You could just about fit a 36" sector plate or traverser there without changing the scenic part of the layout. Just about.

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Afraid I’m not quite getting it about the right hand crossover, sorry.  

 

Easier explained visually I hope - just a rough idea as I think the general curve would need to be eased to give space in front of the siding.  Your latest musings seem similar.

 

Studio_20200905_194444.jpg.8eed6332dcbfd4d604bebee92937c58c.jpg

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

  • RMweb Gold

I think the design problem  and which points can go where etc is down the inevitable compression of having to fit what was really a 'long and thin' prototype track layout into a shorter and wider area on a model.  There is always going more than one way of skinning that particular cat when such compression becomes unavoidable and in the end I think it has to come down to what the putative layout builder is going to be satisfied with on his/her layout.

 

Going for right hand crossovers in the way Simon ('H Flying Pig' has done is 'more prototypical' in several respects but on the other hand completely misses the creation of the 'very Fairford' goods loop.  To do that would require two more points and realigning the dock siding.  That would result in an excessively 'busy appearance of that part of the layout which would become more points that anything else and would not, in my opinion, look as good as Keith's compromise with the use of a Y point.

 

The real root of the problem is all too easy to identify but far from easy to resolve in the space available and that is the re-siting of the dock from the platform end to the goods yard and I can't really see how that could be solved in the space Keith has available so he has adopted a compromise.  In turn that compromise inevitably sits rather uneasily with the layout beyond the goods shed.  Here I will immediately admit to an appearance prejudice of my own in that end docks at most small stations tended to be part of the passenger station platform structure because that was, as much as any other factor, the cheapest and most convenient way of building them (Witney - new - was an exception on the Fairford branch).  Additionally in the early days of railways I would think that by far the highest proportion of vehicles loaded/unloaded at end docks was passenger rated traffic rather than goods rated although in most respects that hardly mattered at a small station like Fairford.   To be honest if it was me I would leave the end dock out completely but this is Keith's layout, not mine, so the design has to do what Keith wants it to do and feature the things he wants to include.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 05/09/2020 at 19:52, Flying Pig said:

Easier explained visually I hope - just a rough idea as I think the general curve would need to be eased to give space in front of the siding.  Your latest musings seem similar.

 

Studio_20200905_194444.jpg.8eed6332dcbfd4d604bebee92937c58c.jpg

 

Thanks - a quieter than Sunday afternoon than I expected has given me time for a tea break.  I think I get it now.  This makes sense and it does look more like the final version of the track layout at Fairford.  It would give me a proper carriage siding too, so the end of the line would look more like it should.

 

In my case, as the period I'm aiming to model is across a broad interpretation of the pre-nationalisation era, my thinking is that I'd really like to have a representation of the far end of the loop, as Mike mentions:

 

On 06/09/2020 at 10:32, The Stationmaster said:

Going for right hand crossovers in the way Simon ('H Flying Pig' has done is 'more prototypical' in several respects but on the other hand completely misses the creation of the 'very Fairford' goods loop.  To do that would require two more points and realigning the dock siding.  That would result in an excessively 'busy appearance of that part of the layout which would become more points that anything else and would not, in my opinion, look as good as Keith's compromise with the use of a Y point.

 

I've quickly re-drawn my "puzzle" sketch to show how I'm trying to get round this without adding more points, which I agree would detract from the feel of the design in this very limited space:

 

Taking an extract from the layout as it would have been in 1945 (I think), the Goods Yard as I understand it sort of looked like this: first sketch - 

 

491112088_Puzzle4.jpg.ad9d9b1f5f4481eca961b8771921f436.jpg

 

My version looks like the lower sketch, and the selective compression I've done is to use my Y-point C to represent both real points A and B at the same time - I wanted it to look like A (which is the end of the loop curving to a left-hand point), yet operate like the crossover through B (second access to the Goods Siding via a right-hand point).

 

Hence why Y... (..."why, Delilah").

 

The Setrack Y does look a bit tight on the drawing, but I think the 33.5" radius doesn't look too bad in practice.

 

On 06/09/2020 at 10:32, The Stationmaster said:

The real root of the problem is all too easy to identify but far from easy to resolve in the space available and that is the re-siting of the dock from the platform end to the goods yard and I can't really see how that could be solved in the space Keith has available so he has adopted a compromise.  In turn that compromise inevitably sits rather uneasily with the layout beyond the goods shed.  Here I will immediately admit to an appearance prejudice of my own in that end docks at most small stations tended to be part of the passenger station platform structure because that was, as much as any other factor, the cheapest and most convenient way of building them (Witney - new - was an exception on the Fairford branch).  Additionally in the early days of railways I would think that by far the highest proportion of vehicles loaded/unloaded at end docks was passenger rated traffic rather than goods rated although in most respects that hardly mattered at a small station like Fairford.   To be honest if it was me I would leave the end dock out completely but this is Keith's layout, not mine, so the design has to do what Keith wants it to do and feature the things he wants to include.

 

Fair point - well explained, thank you.  The platform end loading dock you suggested was the key that unlocked my original proposal for a GW Branch Line Layout, and opened up a number of traffic possibilities, so I was keen to have it here.  I played with the idea of having it to the left of the Goods Shed - but it began to impede the "open platform" look in front of the station.  I agree it looks a bit 'lost' where it is at the moment, but I'm not sure I'd want to put it as a stand-alone kickback behind the platform end either.

 

One solution could be to ditch it - although photos I've seen show milk churns stacked up by the loading dock, there was also a ramp down to the platform on the other side of the Station Building so they could be platform loaded too, I guess?  My siding would then become a mileage siding like the wartime addition.

 

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

23 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

A couple of drawings to show how I think I might be able to operate this new version of Fairford per the prototype:

 

Firstly, overnight, with two x 2-coach Trains waiting for the morning:

 

1025118216_EasyBuild6b.jpg.ae0a797c29136b422266e706095aa0aa.jpg

 

And then later in the day when it gets busy: the Goods Train Loco is on shed.

 

67001958_EasyBuild6a.jpg.81d9cbde13c96460c7d3baafce26225f.jpg

 

The Goods Sidings beyond the Good Shed are assumed to be shunted through the Goods Shed - there needs to be sufficient wagons available to prevent the loco trying to enter the shed.

 

If fouling points is not permitted in the yard, then the second passenger set would need to be split: one carriage in the loop (where there is room for three) and one in the headshunt.

This does look a very interesting scheme to me.  The only detraction for me is the tight radius of the platform and exit line, however, unfortunately unavoidable in this size layout.

 

Before finalizing I would hope that you have experimented with clearances in loops etc.  It is surprising how far back from a point vehicles have to be to clear!  What looks like a long loop may in practice not be as long as you might think.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One quick point - yes you would find milk churns near the loading dock at a passenger platform because milk was passenger rated traffic that was moved in either passenger or milk trains and at busier - for milk - stations could well be stand loaded to a van in the dock siding.    (With some tripping in freights of milk tank cars once they became the main/usual way of shifting it.).   What would be rather odd would be finding milk churns in a goods yard unless it happened (unusually) to be a facility shared with passenger working.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With a bit of spare time this evening, I'm thinking ahead to next steps so I can finalise a plan:

 

On building “A Tribute to Fairford.”

 

It’s clear I’m taking forward the idea of a layout inspired by Fairford.  As I have no background or experience at all in prototype-based modelling, this is a new and exciting development for me.  Now I’m looking at details, I thought it’d be good to think through what it means for me: I like @The Stationmaster's description of a layout that pays "homage” to the prototype, but that won’t mean the same for everyone.

 

I found it helpful to read through a conversation started by @jools1959 in the "Modelling Real Locations" Sub-Forum: How close to accurate do you need to be? .  I also re-read @Harlequin's thread: Little Fairford GWR BLT , which I’d highly recommend for anyone interested in Fairford.

 

Reading through these threads helped me frame four questions which will explain my thinking going forwards.  For me – and these need not apply to anyone else, of course – the things I’m looking at are:

 

1.  Operation

 

Can I operate the layout to a reasonable approximation of an actual Service Timetable?  My top priority for a layout is to have something that could be part of the wider transportation system, and I think the designs I’ve been looking at will allow me to do this, at least to my satisfaction. 

 

In terms of operating the station, I think putting the Goods Shed back onto the loop means I can more or less shunt in accordance with the prototype too, albeit with reduced siding capacity.  There are a few details to iron out (ie: the loading dock), but the biggest deviation from reality in my latest Scheme is – ironically for a GW BLT – the absence of the turntable.

 

2.  Inspiration

 

Could someone compare a photo of the real place to my layout and at least see where I got my ideas from, for the track and Station layout and the trains that will run?  Again, I think I can satisfy that test.

 

3.  Accuracy

 

Will the design and placement of the buildings match those of the prototype at a certain point in time, and will the trains that run have the types of locomotives and carriages that were seen in reality?  No, I'm not aiming to pass this test.  There will hopefully be some resemblance – but more in line with “inspiration” than “accuracy.”

 

On this basis, I hope that describing my layout idea as “inspired by Fairford” or perhaps even “a tribute to Fairford” seems reasonable.  As a modeller with only very limited experience it means anything I can include to make the layout more authentic is a plus or a step forward.

 

4.  Will I keep the name?

 

I do rather like the name “Fairford” – it sounds nice.  However, although it may seem generic, I also think it is unique.  At one time it seems some modellers might have used the name of a favourite station to help locate a model that would otherwise bear little resemblance to the prototype.  Today the convention is more often to use a name only when a model can pass what I’m calling the accuracy test.

 

So I’m thinking I’ll give my layout a different name (to be decided), but I will probably keep “Fairford” on the station name board so I can still use real timetables without having to rewrite them (my top priority), and I won't have to redraw the maps.

 

I think this gives me the parameters within which to complete the design process. 

 

Keith.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

Series 3, Episode 4: "The loading Dock"

 

Before doing a full review of the layout elements and a redraw to check it all fits at a more detailed level, the anomaly I wanted to look at again was the Loading Dock.  Although Fairford was spread out, this particular element was very squashed in at the yard end of the platform - so much so that the rear wall of the adjacent Signal Cabin was angled to give vehicle access.  Having moved my station across the tracks from the Goods Loop, I can't easily replicate this feature: as agreed over the weekend, my initial placement at the end of the mileage siding doesn't work for the kind of traffic it would serve.

 

Here are the four options I think I have, sketched out quickly first thing this morning:

 

1.  Dispense with the loading dock

 

1599102314_EasyBuild20.jpg.57927ff37ce01b63922c2bc37e0d4570.jpg

 

As mentioned yesterday, there was a separate ramp down to the platform on the other side of the Station building for milk churns, so I could imagine them being loaded there instead.  The mileage siding is then left as an open siding and can be extended slightly, as wagons would be unloaded from the sides.  Possible.

 

2.  A Kickback from the Goods Shed

 

1223392626_EasyBuild20a.jpg.f93eabfd22231a46d6eb52cccbc98fbf.jpg

 

The track schematic for the Loading Dock is closer to the prototype, but the vehicle access clutters up the open view of the platform.  I've taken out the extra Mileage Siding, as the Goods Loop was being reduced to a series of points, but I don't think this option works visually.  Ruled out.

 

3.  Platform End - I

 

840467584_EasyBuild20b.jpg.7b728a41e0c742ea4433f6aa26b2af0b.jpg

 

This moves the Loading Dock to the end of the platform, but the kickback from the running line is not per the original.  The platform needs to be shortened to fit it in - as it was only just longer than max. train length when I drew up this New Scheme 3 (ie: 43" v 40"), so the visual impact would be noticeable.  Not convinced.

 

4.  Platform End - II

 

1338912933_EasyBuild20d.jpg.a6c166c087e59c5dcf0d628d216aa198.jpg

 

This is a further iteration of option 3 which restores the mileage siding (and makes it longer, at the expense of the loop).  The placement of the point for the mileage siding next to the Goods Shed is - as discussed previously - per the prototype.  Still not convinced.

 

To be honest, I'm not entirely taken with any of these options: all of them highlight the problem of moving the platform to the far side of the running line, and the very high degree of compression involved to fit my space. 

 

There's a risk of over-thinking the design in Anyrail, taking me further from - not close to - the original.  A good time to have another look at the photos.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Worth looking at all those options Keith but none of them offer any real advance on what you have already planned and several are a very distinct step in the wrong direction as you noted.   The only potential alternative I can offer is that you omit the loading dock as so far drawn and have a 3-D version of it on that same siding as it has occupied so far but extend the siding to the back scene and 3-D version although this would unavoidably get a bit 'crowded towards the back scene.

 

As to your tests I think you pass them all, with some minor provisos.

1. Operation - you will inevitably have to compromise/compress train length - especially freight - in order to run the everyday real Fairford 1948 service.  But you can have three trains there at once and deal with them absolutely prototypically in that early morning part of the service which I looked at in some depth.  Not many layouts can necessarily claim that when they have had to be heavily compressed to fit a small site.

And you can almost signal it like Fairford which is quite a plus point for a model railway.   

BTW have you ever bothered to count what percentage of GWR branch termini actually had a turntable especially one that survived into the second half of the 20th century?   Giving a pretty brief thought to that one I can only immediately think of two -  along with a big list of those that didn't have one.  (I don't count Kingswear because for many years it was very much part of the main line  in operating terms.)

 

2. Inspiration - while I don't have any books specifically devoted to this branch odd photos appear in some I do have and there are plenty on the 'net plus maps and the signal box diagram.  In that respect I think you have caught the operational possibilities of Fairford (in my view that is as important as capturing the aspects modellers more often think about) because you can, subject to the compression caveat, work it almost like Fairford would have been  worked.

 

3. Accuracy - well it's workable impression and in the space available couldn't really be much else.  But the big thing is that it is workable and in scenic terms you can still obviously capty ure various aspects of teh real place.  very much a tribute or homage to Fairford.

 

4, Name - the choice is yours but I wouldn't call it Fairford, I think that's going a bit too far.  But nothing wrong with the 'Fair' bit and as the terminus sat in a field when newly built I'd be tempted by Fairfield and, like Fairford, the second syllable also derives from old English so it has a similar feel to it.   If course you might not like a name associated with a large engineering and shipbuilding concern? ;)

 

One thing I have really enjoyed about this thread has been the thought, and sensible contributions from many folk, which have thus far gone into developing the layout plan,  Really nice to see something like that compared with soem of the far less thoughtful approaches to the subject we all too often see on RMweb (and elsewhere) 

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

For what is worth, I think we're well into diminishing returns in terms of getting a representation of Fairford into this space. And it's an awful lot better than I'd have imagined back on page 1.

 

I'm developing a bit of an affinity with the line too - possibly partly because I now live in Yarnton and bought my wife her engagement ring in Lechlade. As a firm believer in there being two ways of doing things: the Great Western way and the right way, this is making me feel a bit unclean... (Though seeing the several photos of panniers at Fairford, I can definitely understand the appeal of them).

 

I probably wouldn't actually call it Fairford personally. There are plenty of nicely named other settlements in the area, Meysey Hampton is probably my favourite, and might even have got a halt if the connection to the MSWJR had ever been built.

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

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only potential alternative I can offer is that you omit the loading dock as so far drawn and have a 3-D version of it on that same siding as it has occupied so far but extend the siding to the back scene and 3-D version although this would unavoidably get a bit 'crowded towards the back scene.

 

Hi Mike, thank you for the response - helpful as always.  I agree that the contributions to the thread have been encouraging and helpful throughout - when I get a break I'm re-reading the thread from the beginning to see what I've missed (or forgotten) and it is enjoyable re-reading the contributions.

 

Could I just ask which of my options the 3-D suggestion refers to? (I'm being a bit slow - or reading a bit too quickly, or both).  Is it one of the 4 options I added today or the full design I started with?

 

I've been advised that my book on the line has been despatched - hopefully it'll arrive soon.  I want to make sure i don't overcomplicate things now I feel it's getting close.  Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Name - the choice is yours but I wouldn't call it Fairford, I think that's going a bit too far.  But nothing wrong with the 'Fair' bit and as the terminus sat in a field when newly built I'd be tempted by Fairfield and, like Fairford, the second syllable also derives from old English so it has a similar feel to it.   If course you might not like a name associated with a large engineering and shipbuilding concern?

Fairfield sounds good (it's a suburb of Sydney too, as it happens) but imagine that the local denizens got fed up with getting wet feet. Then it might have become Fairbridge...

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

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Fairfield sounds good (it's a suburb of Sydney too, as it happens) but imagine that the local denizens got fed up with getting wet feet. Then it might have become Fairbridge...

 

Or Unfairford ?

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 07/09/2020 at 11:50, Zomboid said:

For what is worth, I think we're well into diminishing returns in terms of getting a representation of Fairford into this space. And it's an awful lot better than I'd have imagined back on page 1.

 

Thanks - I'd not realised you were local there.  I agree that further iterations on my part may be counter-productive (time and outcome).  I've not improved the design, and agree it's turned out better than I expected.

 

I've not yet tried a version for the revised space with Cassettes, which @Chimer showed will fit, and could allow the re-introduction of @Harlequin's space-saving R2 curve.  My only issue with Cassettes is if I can build them!

 

I've had more time than I expected over the past couple of days, and some further helpful contributions, so I think the thing to do now is to pause again, wait for the book I've ordered to arrive and allow space for any reflections or observations - all are welcome of course.  This is where I think I'm at:

 

1976324140_EasyBuild21.jpg.cd4cdba8d354468821c276e390e496d3.jpg

 

The curve into the Engine Shed to give a parallel line looks tight, but is 25.4" radius.  I've extended the Mileage Siding to dispense with the Loading Dock - the Siding is now 20" long (track length, not capacity), and I've experimented with a compound curve, as the R4 section (45 degrees) has a radius 67mm wider than R3, and the R2 piece would be under the bridge.

 

Finally for now, in terms of a name, I think I'd like to refer to the project overall as "A Tribute to Fairford" - I think we've got close enough for that to be OK. 

 

Keith. 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
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...