Jump to content
 

Wantstow at Zuiderzee


RvSwol
 Share

Recommended Posts

Latterly, those mail-bag conveyor systems were quite common at stations next to main sorting offices, but I think they were a late 1960s, or 1970s, innovation. East Croydon had such a system, plus a wonderful bay platform reached via a crossover, next to the post office. Many is the time I've watched an MLV shuffling a couple of vans in and out of there while waiting for my train home.

 

Even further off-topic, at the main sorting office places, there was an agreement, whether official or not I don't know, that BR staff could use the GPO canteen, paying only the staff rate that applied, which meant a very large breakfast, or a decent cooked lunch, for next to nothing!

 

Apologies Rupert ........ I hope this is "background colour", rather than totally irrelevant.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dear Nearholmer,
I find your contributions very worthwhile and such an atmospheric picture with some cultural background are often the spice in the model railroad, That picture is quite different when I was a little boy looking at the Dutch postal handling, indeed it was mainly manual loading and unloading.
I am from 1957 and by then the last steam train was already running. Apparently it was already common for the Dutch postal service to have its own electric motor carriages in 1928. The last one that ran for the postal service was used as a measuring coach from 1965 to 1995. 
These have disappeared from the tracks in 2008 and ended up in museums. 
I have added some pictures.  
I have found a photo of the water tower at Padstow, but it is not very clear. Water column must be a standard product. Found a photo on my last visit to England. 

Kind regards 
Rupert 

HUA-152044-Afbeelding_van_het_motorpostrijtuig_nr._9201_(mat._1924,__blokkendozen_)_op_het_emplacement_te_Haarlem.jpg

Motorpost_Spoorwegmuseum.jpg

Motorpost_3031_van_het_Spoorwegmuseum_in_Amersfoort_(14034252808).jpg

HUA-152053-Afbeelding_van_een_demonstratie_van_het_uitladen_van_post_bij_het_nieuwe_motorpostrijtuig_nr._3001_(Plan_mP)_van_de_P.T.T._op_het_N.S.-station_Arnhem_te_Arnhem.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hello,

 

I have taken and altered your latest plan with regard to turntable access. I believe it might be a viable alternative option in giving easier access from either back road so there is more space for stock on the one at the rear.

 

 

 

You could still add another spur off the table for more loco storage at the rear. It's just a thought.

Edited by Izzy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dear Izzy, thank you very much for your thoughts and for the adaptation.

I have entered your improvement proposal in Any Rail.  

It soon appeared that the length gain on both tracks 1 and 6 is only 26 cm.  

However, track 6A loses a lot of length.
Track 6a has the function of an overnight track for the Locomotive which takes the Atlantic Express to London the next day. 
The photo of this unfortunately demolished locomotive was made in or after 1931, judging by the revision date painted on it. It was built in 1895 by Beyer, Peacock and Company in Manchester. This Dutch locomotive  has been ordered and will be completed by the end of the year. ( without lighting ) 

 

Track 6 and 6a are non-existing tracks in the track plan of the former Padstow station. 
Track 6 should actually be much shorter than is shown now.

But it is nice to put the motor wagon class 122 on track 6 for a while and have enough length ( 45 cm ) left to change the direction of the steam locomotive . It remains puzzling on a plate of long 5.25 meter by 0.95 meter.

 

kind Regards

 

Rupert 

repositioning of the railway switch .JPG

repositioning of the railway switch II .JPG

Overnight stay .JPG

loc1466.jpg

loc1469-2.jpg

moore_7073.jpg

20090211_2346.jpg

dia1748_groot.jpg

Zandvoort-loc1504-7jan1928.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hello Rupert,

 

The gain is as much from an flexible operational aspect as increasing available siding space. The turntable could be accessed from either siding depending on the throw of the points to them, while the gain in length for 6 will be that of the point plus the loco, whatever those are, because of course it has to be clear of the point to get into 6A. As it stands 6 needs to be almost empty for a loco to access 6A and the turntable, and with no other loco 'on shed' in 6A. Generally quick and easy access to a turntable was preferable because often only turning the loco was required. It all depends on the timetable of course.  There is nothing to stop you having both arrangements together which I have crudley and quickly added below. Just to give you alternative aspects to consider. This planning lark can be good fun - but quite distracting!

 

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Izzy,
what a carpenter's eye you have.
I fully agree with your view.

This gives much more dynamics,  and space also in the timetable.

The Lenz double slip switch what I have placed over the turntable,  is to help maintain the rail geometry from Lenz which is at 11.5 degrees.

The turntable from Lenz is also designed on the double slip switch which has a length of 58.6 cm.

The 65 ft turntable from Kitwood hill is a bit shorter 44 cm, which is more than enough to accommodate the tender locomotive  ( Main Line ) with a length of 39 .8 cm.

Your brilliant idea stays in this plan , mm_643.jpg.dfaabb7ff6dd6bd31b9a893ddea42821.jpgas it does not detract too much from the LSWR feeling. 

thank you very much

 

question 
What is the class of this locomotive?  

 

Kind regards,
Rupert. 

negligible loss of length .JPG

It suits .JPG

post-14122-0-84033400-1491610532_thumb-02.jpeg.5ecfa00a4b3647ed76c082a934384014.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for your contributions, the catch point is known to me, but I did not think of it. Since the turnout which leads to track 6 is then put in the straight position when track 6 b is driven. But I from the shipping . There I learned , If you think safety is expensive , try an accident . Pecco has a catch point in the program , I was planning anyway to provide the tracks to the Kitwood hill turntable with Peco code 124 , there it is present .
But thanks for your attention . It's in there now . 

Use of the Switch .JPG

catch point .JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 0-4-2 is an A12 class loco, I think.

 

The 0-6-0 looks suspiciously Midland, but I may be missing a trick. Is it a model of a 3F? 

 

The question of timetabling and how many engines you need to cater for simultaneously depends a lot on how Padstowish you want the feel of this to be. I don’t think locos were stabled there overnight.

 

To me, it’s beginning to get a bit too busy/crowded again, but if you want to operate an intense service, that may be a price you have to pay.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dear Nearholmer,
Thank you for your information and views.

 

I was first charmed by the possibility of having a little more playing opportunity.

Then a correct comment about the "catchpoint" which is a vital part in England.

At least I had something to look up and read again on wikipedia.

 

I made another adjustment to avoid a catchpoint, as track number 6 is used as a siding/ waiting track.

But in the simulation software,  tracks 6a and 6b and the extra switch gives hardly any profit in the time schedule.

Next it becomes again,  how many rails and turnouts can I mount per square decimeter on the board.
It becomes too full, i go back to the old plan. 

 

kind regards 

Rupert 

 

Avoid Catch point .JPG

before .JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Today I moved a bit with the rail on the construction table.

It soon became apparent that there was little room for senery on the north side of track 6.

The turntable was also too tight in the corners.
By removing a switch,  and adding it to track 2 I lose 45 cm in length.

By putting the rails a bit closer together, I could also create suffice room to put in a so-called cathpoint.

So the main track line is now secured.

Also the connecting pieces from track 5 and 6 and from 3B to the double slip are now equipped with a catch point. 
I hope that I now meet the minimum safety requirements. 

 

I found it very instructive, but now I will really start building. 
I want to thank you all for the advice,
I'll be back later with the progress made. Unfortunately my orders which I made at Hattons last week  are already 4 days in the clearance depot of the Dutch Post.

Everything has been paid for, taxes, VAT, handling fees, import documents, etc.

This kind of bullying by a non-democratic European government has to stop. It annoys me to no end.

kind regards 

Rupert 

Final plan.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Rupert,

 

You're probably fed up of everyone suggesting changes to your station but here's another one! :wink_mini:

 

As you might have gathered from earlier in the conversation I don't like the Bay platform. I also feel the trackwork has become too dense in the recent revisions. So here's a suggestion that simplifies things and creates more space by getting rid of the bay:

2061613923_rup1.png.851be54b49871a651b04c19d5b04b6bd.png

 

  • The line behind the platform is not for passengers, hence the fence along the back of the platform. The buffer end could be used for end-loading of vans and wagons.
  • Note that the platform is wider and longer.
  • The station buildings are low-relief and form part of the backscene.
  • The turntable is in exactly the same place as your last design.
  • There's a bit of room opened up between the goods sidings and the run round loop. Dusty weedy ground with semi-discarded rubbish on it like old rails, crates, fish boxes, car tyres... Whatever you like.
  • There's room now in front of the goods shed for lots of harbour related ephemera. And more room for you to extend the harbour wall if you wanted.

I realise this idea might not suit you but anyway, you can see what I was trying to do and it might give you some new ideas.

 

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thank you very much Phil for your view.
Really much better and what a length and that  with only 3.5 degrees rotation.
Now lots of room to add obsolete and discarded track.

I immediately took my discarded wagon off the module track to put on the home track. See Photo .

I will sharpen up tomorrow. This was just a quick and dirty picture.

Kind regards,
Rupert 

3.5 degrees.JPG

IMG_1197.JPG

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 13/08/2021 at 18:16, Harlequin said:

Hi Rupert,

 

You're probably fed up of everyone suggesting changes to your station but here's another one! :wink_mini:

 

As you might have gathered from earlier in the conversation I don't like the Bay platform. I also feel the trackwork has become too dense in the recent revisions. So here's a suggestion that simplifies things and creates more space by getting rid of the bay:

2061613923_rup1.png.851be54b49871a651b04c19d5b04b6bd.png

 

  • The line behind the platform is not for passengers, hence the fence along the back of the platform. The buffer end could be used for end-loading of vans and wagons.
  • Note that the platform is wider and longer.
  • The station buildings are low-relief and form part of the backscene.
  • The turntable is in exactly the same place as your last design.
  • There's a bit of room opened up between the goods sidings and the run round loop. Dusty weedy ground with semi-discarded rubbish on it like old rails, crates, fish boxes, car tyres... Whatever you like.
  • There's room now in front of the goods shed for lots of harbour related ephemera. And more room for you to extend the harbour wall if you wanted.

I realise this idea might not suit you but anyway, you can see what I was trying to do and it might give you some new ideas.

 

Great improvement almost all round Phil but to make it even better I would spread the two yard sidings so that the one furthest from the baseboard edge is parallel with the runround loop .  To me the goods yard bit looks far too crowded with the sidings closely together as they have been through all the plans so far.  It would also look better - although not essential, if there was a bit more siding length beyond the goods shed towards the stop block.

 

BTW I don't think there;'s any official need for a fence along the back edge of the platform - it was done in some places but not in others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dear Mike, I think every contribution and comment should be taken seriously.

This topic will eventually lead to a track plan that will never be to everyone's satisfaction.

But for me it is "The Best of Brittain".

 

I have been puzzling with the space and have tried to stick as much as possible to Phil's view.

But your comment to show more track length behind the shed, I thought was worthwhile.

Next to that you advised to put the freight track 4 , parallel to track 3 .

Considering the Lenz track geometri and the length of the switches 45 cm,  this would reduce the free space between track ( 3 ) and track 4 considerably.

And Phil wanted to show this space as wild, with some discarded stuff.

The minimum distances between the centre lines of the rail bed of track 3 and track 4 , can not get any smaller, the parralel distance is 11.43 cm. 

 

Good Shed and platform 

Trucks drive on a goods platform.

I copied the contours of a truck,  to determine if there is enough room to make a turn and/ or turn around.

This is the reason why many trucks are shown.

The Harbour has disappeared and track 3b is now a shunting track without transhipment function.

I'm playing with the idea of putting a scrap processing plant on the inside of the bend ,wWith a crane.

This give a transhipment function  to track 3b.

 

Attached are the three study variants.

look forward to the reaction of the forum members

Kind Regards 

Rupert 1746674763_Goodshed3.JPG.c8e75a603385f7e0428ce2c7e90f820e.JPG1355134569_GoodShed2.JPG.f8376d5a132bb6758081f500fb986aa1.JPG199477505_Goodshed1.JPG.e1e93a92171f186d7992c07503b06bc9.JPG1909153821_PlanHarlequin.JPG.c5182130fdb7ea6432fbf692d69860cf.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Rupert the first one is definitely the best by a long way as you can now more readily work both the goods yard sidings because the access space for vehicles is between them with a common point of entrance to the goods yard for those vehicles.  In fact it you wished you might even be able to include a road vehicle weighbridge although it might be a bit of a squeeze.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Mike,
A verhicle weihtbridge certainly makes sense.
I can make the weighbridge out of, say, 12 Starbuck wooden coffee sticks.

Starbucks , Ikea, coffe to GO are my biggest supplier for "free" wood for my model making. 

DSCF3548.JPG.3f9013a6ac196d5d230df89e75fdd51e.JPGDSCF3546.JPG.58ccd6c22b6a5e5db38fd3b3ee0bf99d.JPGThe space remains the problem, I can make an extension for the control house , that is just the standard Pecco Line shed.
My fugures are all 1:45 and Pecco is 1:43 but it looks like "lazy John" can get through the door without bending over.  

weight Bridge platform + operator house .JPG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 11/08/2021 at 14:18, Ian_B said:

but mail sacks being off-loaded on Platforms 3 and 4 and attached to a sack conveyor that carried them across the tracks to the main sorting office where the mail was unbagged and sorted then rebagged for putting out by roads or carried back to the conveyor to head to platforms 3/4.

This happened at Bristol TM and Newport High St. as well, but is unlikely at a smallish BLT, as is a TPO.  Post Office vans backing up to trains to unload a few  mail bags is very likely, though; again, this is done be Post Office staff, not railway, who unload railway parcels.

 

OP Rupert seems to be influenced by Padstow but the stock he mentions, 58xx, pannier, and 122, are more suitable for a GW or BR Western Region branch.  This is important, because the LSWR, later the Southern and then BR Southern Region, had a different approach to working the traffic, and this impacts on the layout.  And we are assuming that he intends to represent Cornwall or at least the South West of England because of the Padstow mention and the inclusion of a harbour wharf. 

 

Padstow was one of the destinations of the Southern's main service to Cornwall, the Atlantic Coast Express (ACE), so named because all of the Southern's Cornish termini were on the northern coast of that county which is to the Atlantic Ocean as opposed to the southern coast which is to the English Channel.  The Western served the southern coast and a few places on the northern.  The Southern ran portions of the ACE to all of it's termini in Cornwall (and Ilfracombe in north Devon), through from Waterloo in London with pacifics, and used tender locos such as N class for much local traffic.  The Western did things differently (and some say this was deliberate policy because they thought they were better than anyone else), running their 'Cornish Riviera Express' to main line junctions then detaching through coaches to be hauled to the final destination by branch locos, almost always tank locos.  Summer Saturdays saw these portions run as complete trains from Paddington, but they still changed locos at the junctions.  So you had less chance of seeing a tender loco at a GW branch terminus in Cornwall than at a Southern one.

 

Rupert has not actually specified where Wantstow is, thoug the name sounds a little north Cornish (Padstow, Morwenstow), and I am only assuming that he intends it to be a BR(W) situation from the mention of 58xx, pannier, and 122, available RTR from Dapol.  Tank locos mean a much lesser likelihood of a turntable, which means that that space could be used for a different purpose.  Moreover, the CRE normally stabled it's stock overnight at Penzance or a main line junction, so there is less need for a carriage siding.  St Ives is the obvious prototype to suggest looking at, as Newquay is a bit to 'main line', but there is no room for the Saturday 12 coach CRE set double headed by 45xx tanks.  I would suggest having a look at Lostwithiel, southern coast and a fairly busy China Clay port.  The platform was on a curve, which may be a good use of space.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Rupert has not actually specified where Wantstow is, thoug the name sounds a little north Cornish (Padstow, Morwenstow), and I am only assuming that he intends it to be a BR(W) situation from the mention of 58xx, pannier, and 122, available RTR from Dapol.  Tank locos mean a much lesser likelihood of a turntable, which means that that space could be used for a different purpose. 

Hello Johnster,
Wantstow station does not exist.
I live in the Netherlands in a former Dutch Zuiderzee harbour called Enkhuizen. The street where I live is "In het Want". 
Are you curious where I live here the film;
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THDimDPYYyQ.  

I was actually fed up with building crammed German model railways, which in principle can only run circularly. Point to point layouts are hard to find. I have always been charmed by the Victorian architecture and infrastructure. In any case Wantstow still has some elements of Padstow due to lack of space. In the last few days there have been many positive changes to the original plan.
As I have a 65 ft turntable from Kitwood Hill Models and Padstow also had one, my choice fell on Padstow. The conversion will be slow. I am already very happy to have 2 steam locos from Dapol and the Diesel loco with 3 Dapol open wagons. 

But thanks for your contributions,
I will have a look at the stations you mentioned.

kind regards 
Rupert 

MMcC-01 (1).jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The name Wantstow always makes me think  of Wanstrow which was a tiny single platform intermediate station on the East Somerset line serving a very small village.  

 

Incidentally while unlikely for your scenario   TPOs (Travelling Post Offices) and POTs (Post office Tenders, also known as Stowage Vans - the same as a TPO in appearance but without the mail exchange apparatus)  used to work through to some small and fairly remote stations and termini with only one or two platforms.  Hardly a common feature and not one found on short branchlines but it happened.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 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...