Jump to content
 

Planning a Western Region branchline in 4mm


Standby
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

I think you could have the platforms further round the curve to the left and still keep to 2' width baseboards - assuming that the larger squares are 1' in size.

The squares are metric, so 10cm for the smaller squares.

 

I'll take another look at Dulverton. 

 

Thanks,

Neil

Edited by Standby
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/06/2021 at 16:20, The Johnster said:

If anybody eventually condescends to producing a 120, a continual high scorer on wishlists, both the earlier and 1961 4-character headcode type are suitable. 

 

Erm yes please. 

 

Now that Bachmann and Dapol have the long frame Derby / Pressed Steel DMU in their back catalogue.  Although there are some variants / slides required I imagine the model to be potentially very popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 120s started their lives on the WR but were later used in the East Midlands and Scotland (where similar looking Swindon 'Inter City' units were already working).  There was a later order, '1961 version', with 4-character headcode panel below the cab window, which were allocated to the West of England and suitable for the Taunton-Barnstaple line.  There were 2-car 'power twin' sets allox Swansea for the Central Wales line, fitted with headlights as there are unfenced sections of this route in the mountains.  The headlights were Lucas car rallying headlights retrofitted to the sets and some 37s. 

 

I once worked one of these 2 car sets on the 23.05 Bristol T.M.-Cardiff Central, and the driver took the opportunity to switch on the headlight in the Severn Tunnel, which was interesting.  Not to mention scary when you saw the amount of river water that came in to the tunnel...

 

120s are smack bang in the middle of essential stock requirements for the very popular WR steam/diesel changeover modelling period, and suitable for blue/grey period WR and Midlands layouts.  With the underframe being the same as Bachmanns' 117, body prints from Recreation 21, Rue d'Etropal of this parish, are available for all the vehicles, including the 1961 variants and the buffet trailers, though, like most 3D prints, are not cheap.  Quality seems good, however.  A budget alternative would LIma 117s as underframe donors, these are 'not bad for the period' as 'layout models'. and can be made to run slowly well enough with replacement wheels, though the gearing is insanely high.

 

The other cross country type, the 119, would have been less likely on the Barnstaple route, but by no means impossible.  Representing this is more difficult than replacing the cabs from the Recreation 120s with the 'Derby' cabs from 108s or 117s, as while the layout of the coaches is very similar, the body and windows are a slightly profile, but it is worth maintaining an occasional check on Simon's website as he is producing new stuff all the time.  AFAIK these Gloucester RCW trains were built for the WR and never allocated elsewhere.  One Reading allocated set was strengthened with a Collett 'Sunshine' SO, given lined green livery for the purpose.

 

The other WR 'changeover period' dmus are the 123 4-car 'Inter City', a very distinctive type on B4 bogies (again, these are unlikely but not impossible on the Barnstaple route, but were widely distributed around the country in blue/grey times), and the 116 Derby high-density, concentrated on the South Wales Valleys, Bristol, and Tyseley, but allocated to other parts of the country as well, notably Scotland and Lea Valley ER services.  They were built in much larger numbers and allocated to a much wider geographical area than the 117s ever were, especially in their later lives, but RTR seems fixated on the 117s, both Lima and Bachmann having produced them.  One would have thought that the potential for sales was greater with the 116s.  Unlikely on the Barnstaple branch though.

 

That said, there are several variants of 116, with both TS and TC trailers and different arrangements of lighting and 2-character headcodes on the cabs, so to produce the full range in RTR would be problematic.  3D printing may be the answer here as well.

 

RTR is pretty comprehensive in terms of BR diesels and produces the majority of steam locos that were running on Western Region, but the provision of dmus is poor; for the early 1960s it's the Baccy 117 and the bubble cars and that's it.  The 116, 118, 119, 120, and 123 are missing completely, more than 75% of the types. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've changed the points on the sidings back from a 3 way, I think this looks better and keeps all the points to a large radius, which I'd prefer. I also moved 2 of the sidings closer together which I think works much better.

I tried playing around with the curve on the station again, but I'm happy with it how it is.

I guess a layout is never finalised until the track is laid!

Now to think about location, name, what passenger services and goods will be stopping or passing the station,  buildings, landscape, etc, etc.

 

Small squares are 10cm, area shown in 3.8 x 1.3m / 12'6" x 4'3"

1722289826_Wivelscombe6.jpg.92ee8fb89c8aed808ed7eefac4431384.jpg

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's my suggestion:

1466674532_Standby3.png.de82ed1b2cb7d7f411d94282db4c81ce.png

 

Sorry, you got the creative juices flowing and I couldn't resist. Some bits still need a bit of attention.

 

This would be done using Finetrax turnouts, not Peco. All bullhead rail.

 

Maximum reach to the curved backscene in the corners: About 1m.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Some bits still need a bit of attention.

 

Hi Phil,

 

Just an observation; wouldn't the SB be better situated at the other end of the loop where there is slightly more signalling activity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil, I'll have ponder over your suggestion.

I've come across various point kits but not Finetrax. What's the advantage of the these over the other brands? It looks like they might be easier to construct.

I know Peco is a bit of a compromise in some ways, I was going for the easy option on my first layout, although I was going to remove the spring and use latching motors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Hi Phil,

 

Just an observation; wouldn't the SB be better situated at the other end of the loop where there is slightly more signalling activity?

Hi,

Conventionally on track plans SB means Station Building.

SC would be Signal Cabin but I haven't said where that would be - there are a couple of good positions for it.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, Standby said:

Thanks Phil, I'll have ponder over your suggestion.

I've come across various point kits but not Finetrax. What's the advantage of the these over the other brands? It looks like they might be easier to construct.

I know Peco is a bit of a compromise in some ways, I was going for the easy option on my first layout, although I was going to remove the spring and use latching motors.

 

 

Finetrax are new to 4mm scale and the products look very exciting. There are a couple of threads in the handbuilt track subforum where you can see how they have been developed and the growing interest in them.

 

They look better than the Peco products, in some ways they are simpler to use and they can be curved (which is very useful in this design!). Obviously you can bodge a curve into a Peco turnout but these have been designed with that in mind from the start.

 

The first 4mm turnouts are longer than the Peco Large turnouts (!) but I think you have the room to use them. You might need some smaller turnouts in the goods yard, which Wayne from Finetrax says are on his TODO list. A double slip might also be needed if you actively wanted to use the rusty old disused line. This again is on the list for future products from Finetrax but that might be an even longer wait (probably not as long as we've waited for the Peco Bullhead double-slip though!!!)

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi,

Conventionally on track plans SB means Station Building.

SC would be Signal Cabin but I haven't said where that would be - there are a couple of god positions for it.

 

Ah, but whose track plans?   One reason why I always prefer to see a signal box identified on drawings by the correct symbol as that ensures there is absolutely no doubt about confusing the meanings of letters such as 'SB' or 'SC'..    And of course the (G)WR did not have 'signal cabins' - it had 'signal boxes';)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Ah, but whose track plans?   One reason why I always prefer to see a signal box identified on drawings by the correct symbol as that ensures there is absolutely no doubt about confusing the meanings of letters such as 'SB' or 'SC'..    And of course the (G)WR did not have 'signal cabins' - it had 'signal boxes';)

 

Why, CJF's of course! :smile_mini:

 

I think I'm right in saying that most of the magazines still follow that convention today, so that's why I stick to it (when I remember). If I was drawing a real world track plan or a signalling diagram I would use the correct symbol.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Why, CJF's of course! :smile_mini:

 

I think I'm right in saying that most of the magazines still follow that convention today, so that's why I stick to it (when I remember). If I was drawing a real world track plan or a signalling diagram I would use the correct symbol.

 

Ah - the expected answer ;)    However a little bit of research suggests that CJF carried on from where  Edward Beal had gone before him although the latter had also used a different symbol (a rectangle with a St Andrews cross between the corners)  at one time.   Presumably neither of them were interested in the GWR?   I have incidentally seen the other Beal symbol used elsewhere in model railway drawings but along while ago. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Standby said:

I've changed the points on the sidings back from a 3 way, I think this looks better and keeps all the points to a large radius, which I'd prefer. I also moved 2 of the sidings closer together which I think works much better.

I tried playing around with the curve on the station again, but I'm happy with it how it is.

I guess a layout is never finalised until the track is laid!

Now to think about location, name, what passenger services and goods will be stopping or passing the station,  buildings, landscape, etc, etc.

 

Small squares are 10cm, area shown in 3.8 x 1.3m / 12'6" x 4'3"

1722289826_Wivelscombe6.jpg.92ee8fb89c8aed808ed7eefac4431384.jpg

 

 

That does look rather good.

 

Sticking with the Devon and Somerset Railway theme, the books I have do mention some other traffic on that route that will give more variety.

In 1953 there was a booked working for a Southern loco over the route Monday to Friday, usually an N class mogul, but T9s also worked the line. Earlier in the 1930s there had been a spell where there was a booked auto train from Taunton to Wiveliscombe and return on Thursdays and Saturdays.

I am not sure of the freight traffic over the route, but it is quite possible to have a freight each way than runs the whole route, and an additional short service that terminates at your station, and after shunting the yard returns the way it came. This happened elsewhere such as Christow on the Teign Valley line, and Watchet on the Minehead branch

 

cheers

Edited by Rivercider
Additional info
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Here's my suggestion:

2142108964_Standby3.png.f26d9f67d0980992329939b77b2f157a.png

 

Sorry, you got the creative juices flowing and I couldn't resist. Some bits still need a bit of attention.

 

This would be done using Finetrax turnouts, not Peco. All bullhead rail.

 

Maximum reach to the curved backscene in the corners: About 1m.

 

 

I like the way you have replicated the prototype goods yard, which is a little different from most modeller-designed yards both in layout and facilities.  It's actually quite difficult to 'make up' a convincing set of sidings, as I think @Standby is finding out ;) One thing that does strike me about this station is the amount of high level access provided for what appears to be mileage traffic, something modellers would not generally think to include (which does raise the question of what the separate loading bank was actually for).

 

It would be worth adding the platforms to the drawing to get a better feel for how the visual balance of station to open country looks.  The loop appears very long at first glace, but that is partly dictated by the rather sprawling throat of the goods yard which I think is quite important to the character of the station.

 

How close to this could you get with rtr points?  Committing to hand-built point for a first layout is a big step.

 

 

2 hours ago, Standby said:

I've changed the points on the sidings back from a 3 way, I think this looks better and keeps all the points to a large radius, which I'd prefer. I also moved 2 of the sidings closer together which I think works much better.

 

Completely agree!  While the Peco symmetric three-way is not entirely unprototypical, it is quite uncommon and nearly always produces ugly formations IMO. Unfortunately it's also one of those useful pieces that people often reach for to save space. It's also code 100 only, BTW.

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

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I like the way you have replicated the prototype goods yard, which is a little different from most modeller-designed yards both in layout and facilities.  It's actually quite difficult to 'make up' a convincing set of sidings, as I think @Standby is finding out ;) One thing that does strike me about this station is the amount of high level access provided for what appears to be mileage traffic, something modellers would not generally think to include (which does raise the question of what the separate loading bank was actually for).

 

It would be worth adding the platforms to the drawing to get a better feel for how the visual balance of station to open country looks.  The loop appears very long at first glace, but that is partly dictated by the rather sprawling throat of the goods yard which I think is quite important to the character of the station.

 

How close to this could you get with rtr points?  Committing to hand-built point for a first layout is a big step.

 

 

Finetrax turnouts are kits that take about half an hour to assemble, I gather. Not really hand-building, thank goodness! :smile_mini:

 

I guess Peco turnouts could be used to get something that's quite close to the plan but it will inevitably have "lumps" in it because the radii needed in some key places are larger than even a Streamline large Y can achieve.

 

I'll get the contour tool out and fit the platforms later.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I like the way you have replicated the prototype goods yard, which is a little different from most modeller-designed yards both in layout and facilities.  It's actually quite difficult to 'make up' a convincing set of sidings, as I think @Standby is finding out ;) One thing that does strike me about this station is the amount of high level access provided for what appears to be mileage traffic, something modellers would not generally think to include (which does raise the question of what the separate loading bank was actually for).

There was rabbit traffic for 6 months  year until the mid 1950s, enough to justify a special working comprising a couple of vans. Might a van be loaded in the dock and picked up by the rabbit special?

 

cheers

 

Edited by Rivercider
clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Rivercider said:

There was rabbit traffic for 6 months  year until the mid 1950s, enough to justify a special working comprising a couple of vans. Might a van be loaded in the dock and picked up by the rabbit special?

 

cheers

 

 

Possibly, but why not just load them at the platform in the yard? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's my suggestion:

2142108964_Standby3.png.f26d9f67d0980992329939b77b2f157a.png

 

 

 

I'm wondering if this too much station for me. My initial idea in my head was a goods yard layout with diesel locos, that developed in to a station with a goods yard and I'll run a few DMUs. Then I thought that could be in the 60's so I can run a small steam loco with a few carriages as well. 

 

It certainly possible to run much longer passenger trains on your layout but I'm not sure I'll want to, that's not really my thing. I have to balance what interests me (shunting and goods yard) against what would have been. I have to think about the cost as well. Would I be tempted to spend a few hundred pounds on a DMU with sound - yes. And a steam loco with a rake of coaches... not so much. 

 

More to consider. I've printed out both layouts so I can compare them and mull it over. 

 

Then I start thinking should I plan a different layout altogether.... Ok, maybe not right now, but it is fun.

 

I'll keep an open mind and I'm always open to suggestions...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Standby said:

I'm wondering if this too much station for me

 

It may be less than you think.  As I noted above, it looks bigger than it is due to the length of the loop, but the platforms are considerably shorter than the loop and it is really only a small country station on a secondary line.  It would be quite happy with two or three coach passenger trains behind small engines and short goods trains but with the advantage of a prototypically spacious feel.  A couple of D63xx and a suitable DMU (if you can find one) would be fine to work it. In the absence of a cross-country DMU rtr, maybe a tired 3MT if you can stomach that much steam.

 

If you wanted to simplify to save on pointwork, you could drop the loading bank and the third siding from the top in the goods yard without losing any of the character.  That leaves you with a five-point layout which is pretty economical (ok plus fiddle yard).

 

Or close the station to passengers, model the platforms derelict, and save yourself the DMU...

 

23 minutes ago, Standby said:

Would I be tempted to spend a few hundred pounds on a DMU with sound - yes.

 

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that there is no correlation between track plan and the ability ti resist temptation ;)

 

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Finetrax turnouts are kits that take about half an hour to assemble, I gather. Not really hand-building, thank goodness! :smile_mini:

 

Sorry - I hadn't read the whole of the very long thread and they do appear to be very simple to assemble (this post describes a beginner's experience of building one).  A considerable advance on even the N range and deserve to do very well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Much improved in my view.  Here's what I'd be asking myself:

 

1) Do I really need that kickback and engine shed?  Does it add operations value to the layout?  Without the kickback, points for sidings could be moved to the right, and the siding through the goods shed could be longer.  It would also put more siding within easy reach.

 

2) Why not extend the siding through the goods shed and stub end it at the station building, like the prototype?

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Standby said:

 

I'm wondering if this too much station for me. My initial idea in my head was a goods yard layout with diesel locos, that developed in to a station with a goods yard and I'll run a few DMUs. Then I thought that could be in the 60's so I can run a small steam loco with a few carriages as well. 

 

It certainly possible to run much longer passenger trains on your layout but I'm not sure I'll want to, that's not really my thing. I have to balance what interests me (shunting and goods yard) against what would have been. I have to think about the cost as well. Would I be tempted to spend a few hundred pounds on a DMU with sound - yes. And a steam loco with a rake of coaches... not so much. 

 

More to consider. I've printed out both layouts so I can compare them and mull it over. 

 

Then I start thinking should I plan a different layout altogether.... Ok, maybe not right now, but it is fun.

 

I'll keep an open mind and I'm always open to suggestions...

 

 

 

These two designs are basically the same in terms of cost and complexity. They both give you a run round loop and an array of sidings, which you can "scenick" however you like. You wanted passenger trains and goods shunting, diesels and steam and not to be too ambitious and you chose Wiveliscombe as something that fitted the bill - and it does!

 

If you've changed your mind about what you want, fair enough, but it's a shame because these designs have a lot of promise, IMHO.

 

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...