GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

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.

The 3-D idea refers to the fully coloured partly scenic coloured plan  (and the one immediately above ths post) .  Although as I said it does involve curving the end dock siding along the baseboard which brings it back towards the middle road rather than keeping parallel with it.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 07/09/2020 at 14:28, The Stationmaster said:

The 3-D idea refers to the fully coloured partly scenic coloured plan  (and the one immediately above ths post) .  Although as I said it does involve curving the end dock siding along the baseboard which brings it back towards the middle road rather than keeping parallel with it.

 

Kind of like this?

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Jeff Smith]

I see you are envisioning 4' and 20" base boards for the scenic section.  You might want to try dividing into 3 .  Just a suggestion here but my first layout had 2'x4' boards and they were really a two person lift!  The stairs will pose an extra problem.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 minute ago, Jeff Smith said:

I see you are envisioning 4' and 20" base boards for the scenic section.  You might want to try dividing into 3 .  Just a suggestion here but my first layout had 2'x4' boards and they were really a two person lift!  The stairs will pose an extra problem.

Thanks Jeff, both yourself and @Harlequin recommended 3’ boards at the start of the discussion.  I’d just need to work out where the joints would need to be to avoid points: you’re quite right - it is something I need to clarify in any detail drawings next.

[Chimer]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

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 couldn't resist ..... I think the track layout follows the latest authorised version ......

 

 

I don't know whether the loop, headshunt and siding lengths meet your requirements, but I think the extra radius through the platform, and the turnout almost of the platform, are worth quite a bit ..... (and I know I've not put the traps in )

 

Cheers, Chris

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks Chris: this saves me a job, and a lot of time.

 

On 07/09/2020 at 15:37, Chimer said:

 

I couldn't resist ..... I think the track layout follows the latest authorised version ......

 

 

I don't know whether the loop, headshunt and siding lengths meet your requirements, but I think the extra radius through the platform, and the turnout almost of the platform, are worth quite a bit ..... (and I know I've not put the traps in )

 

Cheers, Chris

 

 

 

This looks great - the position of the point at the end of your platform looks spot on for where the point into the Goods Yard was on the prototype (although it went towards the platform ramp, that's because I moved the platform across the lines: it was a right-hand point). 

 

I think your outer two loops may be a bit shorter than mine and perhaps a bit more curved, but they still look long enough (does Scarm tell you how long those tracks are for comparison?).  The big win is you've get the completely clear platform view in return, one of the key signature scenes at Fairford and which I've not quite got.

 

What I probably ought to try is building a cassette as a test piece to see how I get on - I should have enough spare plywood to have a bash.  I can then see how it feels turning one in the layout space (because of the 8" overhang it would be difficult in this instance to have separate cassettes for Engines and Rolling Stock).

 

Of course, I realise this very compressed tribute to Fairford won't be to everybody's taste.  I've spent a lot of time in the world of micro-layouts (see this page in: Carl Arendt's Micro-Layout Design Gallery - scroll down to the last design of the set), so even the idea of a 40" platform sounds generous, and if it's either this or no layout...

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

With apologies to @Chimer, who's faithfully copied my version from earlier today to add Cassettes, I had a quick look at some photos in my afternoon tea break and realised it might be possible to straighten the Yard section a bit more.  Fairford itself was almost straight:

 

 

The change in length of the outer two loop lines is negligible, but I like the visual addition of the slight reverse curve into the Goods Shed (this is where the kickback point was for the Loading Dock).

 

It looks unlikely that the track schematic on the Station side will change now, so I also had a first pass at putting the plan onto possible baseboards - taking on board @Jeff Smith's observation that my 4-board solution was going to prove cumbersome on the stairs.  I think Chimer's version could fit on the same boards.

 

I'd expect the Goods Shed to be removed during setdown, so it actually helps hide a joint.

 

I've converted my measurements to mm as wood is sold in metric sizes in the UK (or is it to imply spurious accuracy ).  I've actually lost about an inch in width on the layout at the moment, which I'd add back to the top of the layout to give a bit of room behind the Engine Shed and Signal Box.

 

...now I can pause.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

I couldn't resist ..... I think the track layout follows the latest authorised version ......

 

 

I don't know whether the loop, headshunt and siding lengths meet your requirements, but I think the extra radius through the platform, and the turnout almost of the platform, are worth quite a bit ..... (and I know I've not put the traps in )

 

Cheers, Chris

 

 

 

Would it be too difficult to make cassettes that incorporated some of the curve??? Or were even a flat S shape to be reversible?

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I think your outer two loops may be a bit shorter than mine and perhaps a bit more curved, but they still look long enough (does Scarm tell you how long those tracks are for comparison?).  The big win is you've get the completely clear platform view in return, one of the key signature scenes at Fairford and which I've not quite got.

 

From the top, 35, 22 and 19 inches of track between the innermost turnouts.  An extra 12 inches on the bottom one if you include the straighter leg of the curved right and the 4" of straight between it and the last short right.  It's XTrackCad not Scarm btw ...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

33 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Would it be too difficult to make cassettes that incorporated some of the curve??? Or were even a flat S shape to be reversible?

I suppose there are two answers:

 

1.  In theory it should be perfectly possible - as no (un) coupling is needed, why not?  Stacking them could be a challenge.

 

2.  For me: definitely too difficult - although you could place good money on my straight ones coming out S- shaped anyway.

 

The hockey stock traverser was mentioned early on - I think you’d need to pull the curve to the right to make it work, but that would be another solution for the carpentry-minded.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

13 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

From the top, 35, 22 and 19 inches of track between the innermost turnouts.  An extra 12 inches on the bottom one if you include the straighter leg of the curved right and the 4" of straight between it and the last short right.  It's XTrackCad not Scarm btw ...

Hi Chris. My apologies - I really should know you’re on XTrackCad by now.
 

There’s not much difference in loop length (comparing them with my like-for-like curved version):

 

Outer loop: 36” - basically the same: I have a luxury Long left point for the Loco Release, so while the frogs are at about the same 18” marker in from the end, the toe of my Engine Shed point is pushed past the 30” marker.

 

Middle Loop: 27” - not quite sure why mine comes out at 5” longer, though I don’t have the fillers after the Y point which gives me a bit I suppose.

 

Goods Loop: 16” (my right hand point is deliberately next to the Goods Shed: I can add 17” like for like).
 

So with cassettes you can have the longer free platform, per the prototype.  Thanks for this - useful.

[The Stationmaster]

Don't overlook the fact that there will be trap points on all three of the loops - which could be single rail dummy traps so no need to allow for the Peco version.  But even if only approximately correctly sited they are still going to have an adverse impact on available standage length on each loop.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

54 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't overlook the fact that there will be trap points on all three of the loops - which could be single rail dummy traps so no need to allow for the Peco version.  But even if only approximately correctly sited they are still going to have an adverse impact on available standage length on each loop.

 

Agreed - One advantage of properly functioning trap points over dummy ones is it's less tempting to leave a vehicle fouling the trap point.  I'm in two minds - based on price really (I don't make my own track - which would be the other option: it'd be fun to try, but might not help the layout get built).  Thanks, Keith.

[Chimer]

With space at such a premium, omitting the traps would be a compromise I'd happily make for the sake of operational capability.  Ducks for cover .....

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 08/09/2020 at 13:23, Chimer said:

With space at such a premium, omitting the traps would be a compromise I'd happily make for the sake of operational capability.  Ducks for cover .....

I think you‘ve just walked right into one...

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[AndyB]

Keith, as Mike said, an enjoyable design thread.

Are you going to continue the format for the build phase? 

[Jeff Smith]

The design phase has certainly been a very collaborative effort.....for the build phase you are on your own Keith!  Of course if you have problems you only have to ask!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 08/09/2020 at 19:05, AndyB said:

Keith, as Mike said, an enjoyable design thread.

Are you going to continue the format for the build phase? 

 

I was afraid someone might ask that...

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Zomboid]

So this is of no use to you now, but thinking back to your first thread, which was about an 8x4 if I remember rightly, I wondered how well it would work....

 

So for your amusement, I hereby present "Eight-by-Fourford"

 

I had to resort to R2 towards the bottom and the turntable was a no-hoper, but I don't think anyone would mistake this for anything other than Fairford in an 8x4.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

With the conversation turning towards a build, I think perhaps it’s time to wrap up the design phase.  Two posts: some final thoughts and amendments first, and then a separate post with a conclusion.

 

1.  Platform Length: Here’s an unusual one for a model railway: I’ve been drawing the platform too long!  Looking more closely at the map and plans available, at scale length it should be about 41½”:

 

 

With platform length amended, I wondered if I could fit the Loading Dock at the end of the platform after all, but it still didn’t look right.  My current thinking is to have that end of the platform as the place where milk churns would be brought by road for loading onto trains waiting in the platform, so at least the road side of the operation can be in the same place.  This leads me to my second thought:

 

2.  A Name for the Station

 

“Fairfield” has grown on me as a suggestion.  Three things have influenced my thinking:

 

i)  Not being able to fit in the Loading Dock.  It’s not the biggest feature, but it keeps reminding me of the gap between my design and a more authentic model of Fairford.  As I noted before, at one time I don’t think this would have been an issue – keeping a name covered other compromises - but convention has changed.

 

ii) The second is buildings.  I already have the three key buildings I need, but they’re not based on Fairford.  I’ve learned there is an Arch Laser kit for Fairford Goods Shed, but as I’ve already got a Ratio GW Goods Shed in stock (and no budget for another), it’s a second reminder of the gap.  Maybe one day I’ll upgrade my buildings, but a name change gives me more freedom in this area.

 

iii) The third was finding the wonderful model of  Tetbury on RMweb by @Captainalbino the other day.  I can’t aim to get anywhere near that standard (it’s not just about space), so a different name is one way to acknowledge those who give us so much pleasure with great models of real locations.

 

As suggested by @The Stationmaster, “Fairfield” has a similar ring to it to "Fairford."  It’ll mean re-typing timetables, which I wanted to avoid, but if putting abbreviations into Service Timetables is allowed then FAIRF’D can work for me.

 

3.  Thank you

 

I’ve appreciated the collaborative effort on this design: thank you to all who have contributed. I’m responsible for the plan and for making it happen of course.  It will take some time and it’s not my only project, but it’ll be worth it.

 

We don’t have a separate Forum for baseboard questions on RMweb, so I’d like to acknowledge @Harlequin's solutions for the sub-frame and supports and the U-shape for the baseboards that solved that part of the puzzle.

 

I’ve referenced several threads as part of this study, and this is my chance to say thank you to everyone.  I hope it’s clear that where I quote other sources on RMweb it is out of admiration and respect – I’m not suggesting my ideas or modelling will match up to any of those I’ve mentioned. 

 

For anyone interested in a really good plan for Fairford, I've mentioned before that @Harlequin's Little Fairford - GWR BLT is the place to look: I’d love to go for that one day, but there’s really no comparison here.  Re-reading that thread, it is amusing to note who suggested a tight hidden curve into a Fiddle Yard there.

 

Which brings me to:

 

4.  A note on Fiddle Yards

 

There is a very good case for a Cassette Fiddle Yard for this layout.  As @Harlequin showed for the first iteration of this layout space, and @Chimer for the revised version, they will give more room for a generous open curve through the station before the Yard begins.  I’ve had a go at moving a train-length piece of foam piping around in the layout space to see how easy it was, but I’m afraid I was a bit too clumsy to be confident.  As I’m equally unsure about my carpentry skills I think I’m going to stick with a conventional Fiddle Yard to get this layout up and running more quickly.

 

I’m conscious my time is limited, and I’ve never built a scenic layout despite years of interest in railway modelling, so I think it’s wise to tread cautiously with this project – show I can do a good job here and get something running, then a future rebuild could be more ambitious.  After all, I have the ideas on file already.

 

I would still recommend Cassettes for the benefits they offer, and can see me returning to the idea.  If there was room for a longer Fiddle Yard so that separate Cassettes for Engines and Rolling Stock could rest on the baseboard (without an overhang) – or if my trains were shorter - Cassettes would work very well in this compact space.

 

5.  AOB

 

Point Locks - I mentioned a few pages back something I thought I’d read about one of the Goods Shed Crossovers not being used in later years.  I’d misremembered a post about Point Locks by @Pacific231G in @Nearholmer's Design Your Own BLT thread.  What was being referenced was a photo in Karau’s book (F1, I think).  It shows a Pannier at the end of the platform fouling the first point, which was fitted with Facing Point Locks.  I think the s-r-s diagram, linked earlier in this thread, shows this was the only one with a lock, as it is before the Trap Point and on the running line.

 

The A417 Bridge - I’ve checked, the A417 is a bus route :

 

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Conclusion

 

I’m still awaiting delivery of the book I’ve ordered, but it’s unlikely to result in any major changes: I tried a few more things (to try and fit in the Loading Dock) but none really worked.  So I’ll conclude.

 

Have I managed to capture the essence of Fairford I’d like?  There are some wonderful panoramic photos of Fairford, some taken from the A417 bridge, others from the platform.  This design won’t compare with them.  But with no space round the outside of the layout, those views aren’t available.  Within the very constrained space I have, what I think I have managed to achieve is the maximum spacing between the three main buildings, particularly from a side-on viewing position:

 

 

With the exception of the Loading Dock, I can operate this Tribute to Fairford largely in accordance with the prototype, I don’t think I’m being too ambitious for the space and the only track I need to sort out is 3 Trap points.  So I think this is it:

 

 

Thanks, Keith.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Agreed - One advantage of properly functioning trap points over dummy ones is it's less tempting to leave a vehicle fouling the trap point.  I'm in two minds - based on price really (I don't make my own track - which would be the other option: it'd be fun to try, but might not help the layout get built).  Thanks, Keith.

Making your own single tongue GWR trap points isn't too difficult.  all you need to do is a little bit of sleeper slicing to make room for a short piece of rail filed down at one end to make a short point switch rail.  And this gives you a good idea of what they look like -  (except you don't bother with a working model but just have the short piece of diverging rail.-

 

[St Enodoc]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Making your own single tongue GWR trap points isn't too difficult.  all you need to do is a little bit of sleeper slicing to make room for a short piece of rail filed down at one end to make a short point switch rail.  And this gives you a good idea of what they look like -  (except you don't bother with a working model but just have the short piece of diverging rail.-

 

Here's one I made earlier...

 

The dummy switch rail is soldered to the OUTSIDE of the running rail of course. The running rail is continuous through the point. The blue pin marks where the ground signal will go when I've built it.

 

Mike @The Stationmaster knows where this is - I hope the finally-selected position meets with his approval!

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

 

5.  AOB

 

Point Locks - I mentioned a few pages back something I thought I’d read about one of the Goods Shed Crossovers not being used in later years.  I’d misremembered a post about Point Locks by @Pacific231G in @Nearholmer's Design Your Own BLT thread.  What was being referenced was a photo in Karau’s book (F1, I think).  It shows a Pannier at the end of the platform fouling the first point, which was fitted with Facing Point Locks.  I think the s-r-s diagram, linked earlier in this thread, shows this was the only one with a lock, as it is before the Trap Point and on the running line.

 

The A417 Bridge - I’ve checked, the A417 is a bus route :

 

Signalling wise you are in a rather different situation from the real Fairford because you have moved the goods shed turnout back to the middle of the platform.  This makes it slightly awkward to signal in exactly teh same manner as Fairford but there is - as far as I can see - a fairly simple way round it which we can look at when you get to the stage of thinking about signals.  One thing which is also relevant here is taht when it comes to shunting you will have to shunt, and at one time if not more, place a complete train beyond teh road bridge towards the fiddkle yard or whatever you have there and that train, or shunt, will have to come back into the station or towards the sidings. 

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

 

I would still recommend Cassettes for the benefits they offer, and can see me returning to the idea.  If there was room for a longer Fiddle Yard so that separate Cassettes for Engines and Rolling Stock could rest on the baseboard (without an overhang) – or if my trains were shorter - Cassettes would work very well in this compact space.

 

 

 

Well, I really don't want to stop you getting on with the build but - it would be possible to place a Peco loco lift on the end of the receiving cassette (i.e. sitting on top of the cassette track, not beyond it), remove the loco and roll the rest of the train up to the end by hand - so the longest cassette would only need to be the length of the longest train minus the loco, other cassettes could be shorter.  For departures you would run the loco off the loco lift onto the curve, then add the cassette behind it.