Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.

[gordon s]

This is a wonderful place for me as I'm surrounded by experts in virtually every field and as things develop, many of you share your huge knowledge base and years of experience.

 

Mike, I'm the first to admit this is a massive challenge and those of you that know me well enough will realise that this complex track layout has suddenly become an opportunity to push my own limited skills far beyond what I believe I am capable of.  That in itself is of tremendous appeal, so thanks for bringing your intimate knowledge of prototypical practice to the table.

 

In the past I've been tempted off piste, failed miserably, lost all motivation and bang, off to the tip with another failure.  One of the attractions of Martin's proposal is that the whole new complex can be treated as one and will drop straight into the existing layout design.  That's a huge get out clause for me as it's no longer all or nothing.  I can have trains running around and gently beaver away on these crossings as the shed is a completely detachable part of the build.  If it doesn't work or the build problems are insurmountable, then I can drop it out and simply join the plain tracks together 

 

One of the things I keep forgetting is that moving a steam locomotive at all is far more than just turning the key and away you go.  I'm guessing many of us who haven't worked on the railways are so used to transport by car or our models that just need a few volts before moving, we have little understanding of just what was involved in moving a locomotive around.  I don't want to become a procedural slave, but if I can get the flow right, without changing everything, then that has to be a plus.

 

Luckily enough we are at a moment of time that nothing is off limits, apart from the access pointwork that is built and laid.  As I understand drawings far more than specs, is there any chance of coming up with some sketches of how prototype practice would work and how we can modify this plan, so we can kick that around in Templot?

[martin_wynne]

Now the Running Foreman would have told his turntable man or Shed (engine) Men which way an engine should be turned when it arrived on shed so in normal circumstances there'd be no need to go back to the turntable before going off shed.

 

This topic is being confused by 2 different meanings for "shed". 1 = MPD area. 2= physical building.

 

My assumption was that after arrival and coaling etc. a loco may need to go into the building. Without these new roads, that means running right out onto the approach road and back again, conflicting with other arrivals at the MPD or departures from the building. This way, the turning process is combined with accessing the building, without obstructing other movements.

 

The second purpose of these roads is to allow shuffling between roads in the building. First loco runs out onto these roads, loco behind it can then escape, first loco then runs back in.

 

The prototype may know exactly which loco is going to be used in which order and facing which way, but I bet Gordon doesn't.

 

This sort of track plan is typical of the pre-grouping era, still lying under all the grot in the 50s and 60s. Obviously no-one would have been building new to such a plan by then.

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

If it's DCC and not separate track sections, the electrics are easy.

 

1. all K-crossings are permanently connected to one of the "DCC 2 wires" or the other.

2. all V-crossings are isolated from the surrounding rails.

3. all V-crossings on one side of the diagonal road are connected together and fed trough a single changeover switch.

4. all V-crossings on the other side of the diagonal road are connected together and fed trough a single changeover switch.

5. both changeover switches can be provided by means of a single DPDT relay, slaved off the point motor giving access to the diagonal road.

 

Martin.

 

Put like that, it's a piece of cake....

 

Thanks!

[Regularity]

I was going to post and ask why engines could not be turned, coaled, watered and “ashed”

prior to going to a road inside (for attention or stabling) or outside (for stabling) via the shed approach road, but Mike has provided a much better explanation of that process!

My assumption was that after arrival and coaling etc. a loco may need to go into the building. Without these new roads, that means running right out onto the approach road and back again, conflicting with other arrivals at the MPD or departures from the building. This way, the turning process is combined with accessing the building, without obstructing other movements.

 

I think you have hit the nail squarely there, Martin: we have all been making assumptions, possibly including Gordon.

 

Firstly, the sort of conflict in movements you mention would suggest an MPD with almost constant activity, and lacking a certain amount of planning on the part of the shedmaster. If this level of movement is not going to be the case, then the extra complexity (of track) in the cause of simplicity (of operation) isn’t required.

 

Secondly, we have not looked at relevant prototype MPDs to see how they were arranged. All that extra point and crossing work would cost a lot to install and maintain, and a real railway would do everything it could to keep costs down by spending wisely. Given a need to support an intensive service in a cramped space, then the extra complications might be justifiable, but from what I have seen generally this is unlikely to be the case.

 

Can’t speak for every shed, but I get the impression - on minor LMS lines at least - that it was common when there were multiple shed roads for some of them to be allocated for repairs, and others for storage. Bit like our cars being serviced in a garage, and stored in garage. (The latter is unforgivable, as we all know that a garage is a great place for a layout! ) There would, therefore, be a degree of logic and structure to the use of the shed.

 

I love the way that the complex track work looks, and it would not be too difficult to come up with justification for it (not least rule 1!) but I think it is overkill as long as there is space for the biggest locos (plus a touch extra) to get clear of the shed access turnouts without going effectively “off shed” by requiring turnouts to be thrown by the signalman, i.e. going onto the mainlines.

 

Of course, Gordon, as its your railway, if you want the challenge of building and wiring so many diamonds, then go ahead and do so!

[martin_wynne]

Firstly, the sort of conflict in movements you mention would suggest an MPD with almost constant activity, and lacking a certain amount of planning on the part of the shedmaster. If this level of movement is not going to be the case, then the extra complexity (of track) in the cause of simplicity (of operation) isn’t required.

 

It's important to keep an historical perspective. The level of activity in 1960 is likely to be entirely different from that when the shed was built in 1890. At that time tracks were laid like knitting -- costs were obviously very different. By 1960 it's quite likely that the rails would still be there, buried under the ash and dirt, but seldom or never used.

 

Until Gordon comes along and needs them.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Gordon,

 

I'm going to pass on the timber shoving, spending time on the timbering layout is a bit pointless if it will all be hidden by ash and grot. So I have removed the timbering from the file for these templates. You could obviously use scruff copper-clad under them any way you want.

 

 

 

I haven't finished the partial templates for the outside slip. I will finish that off before/if you decide to build it. The radius in the outside slip is 39.7". All the other radii are much larger.

 

Now the admission. Templot can't actually do the short-angle diamonds on the left -- they have been on my NOD list for years. The shortest angle Templot can use is 1:1.5. Short-angle diamonds are constructed entirely differently from other pointwork, and prototype designs vary widely. All we can do is overlay plain track templates, and add in some check rails as partial templates. Again I will do that for you before/if you decide to build it.

 

In deciding, bear in mind that you don't have to build both diagonal tracks. You could settle for just one or the other if you preferred.

 

I will email the box file shortly.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

Thanks Martin, that is brilliant.  I was going to say not to worry about shoving sleepers as I never bother, preferring to do it visually as part of the build process.  I'm certainly going to go ahead as I've nothing to lose.

 

In this case, if things don't go to plan, I can simply bin it and put the original plain track in place.  This is a real challenge for me and it will provide a welcome break from having to do the same type of job, hour after hour, day after day.  This last board has been a killer in terms of the number of hours I've put in to get to this point.  I guess I'm a sprinter not a marathon man....

 

My plan is to start with the six crossings and just leave rail tails.  Then the outside slip and finally the two crossings and double slip.

 

It so interesting as a complete complex, I've got to do it.

 

Looking forward to getting the .box file.

 

Spent the afternoon browsing the Bronx Terminal/Fast Tracks site as I was fascinated by their jig systems used to build the crossings.  I've mailed them to see if they do custom jobs.  I don't know the answer, but I suspect Templot could proved a CAD output that they could use to CNC jigs to take the rails and hold them during construction.  They may be horrendously expensive or they may not offer a custom service, so I've asked.

 

I have no problem doing it by hand, but am always curious about assembly jigs and production tools.

 

I seem to recall Templot did have a limit on crossing angles as this has come up before.  No problem in using two crossed tracks and filling in the check rails.

 

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?cat=8

 

I do like the idea of half lapping the rail, soldering up the whole thing and then cutting with a slitting disk.  As Tim says, there's no room for error and one mistake and that's it.  Could be soul destroying if you've done 19 gaps and the disc slips on the last one....

Edited January 8, 2018 by gordon s

[martin_wynne]

Looking forward to getting the .box file.

 

Ho Gordon,

 

File sent an hour ago. Not received? In your spam?

 

Martin.

[Regularity]

By 1960 it's quite likely that the rails would still be there, buried under the ash and dirt, but seldom or never used.

 

Do you have any prototype examples, other than surmising it to be “quite likely”?

[gordon s]

That's great, Martin. I was having dinner then I just had to test out Tim's half lap theory, so didn't go back to emails.  All here.  I'll move it across to my Mac this evening and report back.

 

First comment is that it works.  This won't win any soldering prizes, but that wasn't the aim.  Cutting with a disc is OK but I can imagine it's hard to control the depth of cut.  I will possibly consider a razor saw as an alternative.

 

Of course there are no check rails in place, so I'll play around with those tonight.  I suspect it will add further difficulty, but as always you just got to proceed slowly.  I've no doubt this process will develop as we go along.

 

Holding bullhead rail vertical is a challenge.  The half laps have to be a loose fit to enable you to set the rail gauge with a 00sf gauge and so the rail can move about.  I can see loads of lacemaking pins being brought into play once I set off down the road for real

 

 

 

[gordon s]

Do you have any prototype examples, other than surmising it to be “quite likely”?

 

 

Here's one.  I suspect there are many...

 

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000-01-t-ermel-weymouth.jpg

 

Edit: ....and another.

 

http://btckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site3376/Edge%20Hill%208A/Edge%20Hill%208A%2045284%20Laurence%20Smith%20061968.jpg

Edited January 8, 2018 by gordon s

[Regularity]

I am confused there: can’t see lots of tracks crisscrossing each other, and they aren’t LNER.

 

I think that an unrealistic track plan is far worse than using ready-made turnouts in making a model railway look like a train set, and it would be a shame if you went to all the trouble of that extra work if it punctures the illusion of verisimilitude, especially as you have taken the time and expense to hand make your track to make it look good, and to reduce the “00-ness” of your track gauge that would result from using, say Peco Streamline.

 

But if this is what was typically in use on the ECML in the early 60s, go for it.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Regularity

[gordon s]

The links to the pics I posted were simply tracks buried under ash and dirt, which I thought you were asking.

 

I said at the outset I enjoy building track and these crossings are an exercise for me, simply to take me outside my comfort level. I may or may not use them, it's simply an exercise, nothing more. The other thing I've alway said is that I'm here to enjoy railway modelling for what it is. An opportunity to make something. To put to use all those skills we have learned over the years.

 

ET is not a model of a railway, it is simply something to enjoy building and have fun running. Of course you will be able to drive a bus through lack of prototype fidelity, so perhaps if your looking for another Pendon, you're in the wrong place. Having said that, the LNER is close to my heart and the basics will be there, but life is too short to build anything perfect on this scale and on your own.

 

Apologies if my unrealistic track plan looks like a train set. That may well be the case, but I never set out to build a scale model of a particular place, so perhaps you've misunderstood my motivation.

Edited January 8, 2018 by gordon s

[The Stationmaster]

The links to the pics I posted were simply tracks buried under ash and dirt, which I thought you were asking.

 

I said at the outset I enjoy building track and these crossings are an exercise for me, simply to take me outside my comfort level.  I may or may not use them, it's simply an exercise, nothing more.  The other thing I've alway said is that I'm here to enjoy railway modelling for what it is.  An opportunity to make something. To put to use all those skills we have learned over the years.

 

ET is not a model of a railway, it is simply something to enjoy building and have fun running.  Of course you will be able to drive a bus through lack of prototype fidelity, so perhaps if your looking for another Pendon, you're in the wrong place.  Having said that, the LNER is close to my heart and the basics will be there, but life is too short to build anything perfect on this scale and on your own.

 

Apologies if my unrealistic track plan looks like a train set.  That may well be the case, but I never set out to build a scale model of a particular place, so perhaps you've misunderstood my motivation.

 

Go back to what I said previously Gordon - if you enjoy building track (a given) and fancy a challenge (another given) then go for the highly complex amendment for the shed track layout - it's your railway so build what you want to.

 

As I have said in terms of working the depot it really adds little and it is very difficult to find all but 19th century depots with trackwork that complex because that sort of thing vanished between the late 1890s and the inter-war period - some of the Southern depots that were killed by electrification were probably the last survivors.  Also the most complex layouts seemed to involve access to/from the running lines rather than being there for movements within the depot itself.

 

Interestingly, apart from a second running line access, Speke Junction shares a number of features with your original plan for Eastwood Town shed with a very similar locational relationship between the turntable, coal stage and shed building.  The only real difference is that fact that coaling and ash disposal/fire cleaning took place, even in the 1890s, on a double ended road thus engines could progress along it without having to come back out in conflict with others waiting to go in (a common principle at many sheds even back in the 19th century).  But all other movements were involved in some sort of potential conflict, especially to/from the single ended shed.

 

http://www.8dassociation.btck.co.uk/SpekeJunctionLocomotiveShed8C

 

Now an example - again LMS - of how things changed with Widnes (which has previously appeared on RM Web as it happens) providing the example.  Note here how the original dead end coaling/ash road has become double ended thus, again, allowing a through progression.  But note also that even the later layout still involves several points of conflict including one where almost every movement is likely to conflict with another.

 

 

 

Now the ultimate in keeping things separate  but look how much space it takes up.  Old Oak Common was very specifically laid out to separate inwards and outwards movements with everything coming in (or able to bypass if necessary) the two coal stage/ash & fire cleaning roads then into the shed and with two outward routes available completely clear of the incomers.  Another feature to note is the dead end siding next to the ashpits - somewhere to stand wagons to load ash but also used to stable engines not required to go into the shed for any reason.

 

[trustytrev]

Hello Gordon,

                   Maybe you should get a shed to build your shed layout in then you can seek refuge indoors with Eastwood Town when you need a break.

That way you can do some running on Eastwood Town while the shed layout progresses without having to move stuff about as much.

trustytrev.

[Regularity]

The links to the pics I posted were simply tracks buried under ash and dirt, which I thought you were asking.

 

Fair enough.

I said at the outset I enjoy building track and these crossings are an exercise for me, simply to take me outside my comfort level. I may or may not use them, it's simply an exercise, nothing more. The other thing I've alway said is that I'm here to enjoy railway modelling for what it is. An opportunity to make something. To put to use all those skills we have learned over the years.

ET is not a model of a railway, it is simply something to enjoy building and have fun running.

 

I have repeatedly said that it’s your railway, and that if you enjoy the challenge then go for it. I made a point of that.

Of course you will be able to drive a bus through lack of prototype fidelity, so perhaps if your looking for another Pendon, you're in the wrong place. Having said that, the LNER is close to my heart and the basics will be there, but life is too short to build anything perfect on this scale and on your own.

Apologies if my unrealistic track plan looks like a train set. That may well be the case, but I never set out to build a scale model of a particular place, so perhaps you've misunderstood my motivation.

Not at all, but I think you have overinterpreted my comments.

What horrified me was the thought that you might look at it and say, “Too many diamonds, it looks awful,” and then throw it in the skip.

I just think this might be over-complicated, and that you were really onto something.

If you want more track, then go for it, but if this is the response I get after taking the time to download, sketch and edit pictures, and then put them back up as part of suggestions, then next time you ask, you may get fewer alternatives put to you.

[martin_wynne]

I wonder how many locomotives Gordon has available?

 

Given that his plan doesn't have a fiddle yard in the usual sense (nor did the ECML, so he's got that bit right), it seems likely that a great many more locomotives will be "on shed" during the working day than would be usual for a prototype shed?

 

So unless he is going to use a hand crane to place them on and off the layout in mid-operating session, some adjustment to prototype shed practice is likely to be needed to suit model conditions. 

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

I'd invest in a smoke alarm personally with that lot, but I have confidence in your wiring abilities Gordon!

 

Mike.

[Buhar]

I wonder how many locomotives Gordon has available?

 

Given that his plan doesn't have a fiddle yard in the usual sense (nor did the ECML, so he's got that bit right), it seems likely that a great many more locomotives will be "on shed" during the working day than would be usual for a prototype shed?

 

So unless he is going to use a hand crane to place them on and off the layout in mid-operating session, some adjustment to prototype shed practice is likely to be needed to suit model conditions. 

 

Martin.

 

I think that's a really good point, Martin.  A shed with that acreage would probably have an allocation of about 25-30 locos and most would be out and about, except on Sundays.  Unless your interest is in replicating shed movements, the ability to get at the loco you want to run next is quite important.

[gordon s]

Forums are a wonderful place. Information on any subject in a matter of minutes and even though you rarely, if ever meet face to face, you can build virtual friendships over a period of time as each of you understand how you can complement each other and share common goals. The one massive drawback is that body language is non existent and hence you are dependant on the written word, which is often misconstrued or misunderstood.

 

I'm just as guilty as the next man of reading something and then interpreting in the way I think is correct. Without the added element of body language, forums can be a minefield.

 

I'm incredibly grateful to all those who take their time to write often quite complex answers to ideas that are kicking round my head. This current discussion is a perfect example. My knowledge of railways is a fraction of my love for railways. All those years as a youth watching some of the LNER finest locomotives in the last few years of their life left a permanent mark and all I set out to do is relive some of those memories.

 

Of course I could do that by walking into Hattons and buying loads of boxes, plonking them together and then watch trains to my heart's content, but then there is a second part to that equation. The 60's for me were also Airfix kits and a father who was always down the shed making things. As a young lad I was always hanging around him, watching and learning, so I need to make things.

 

ET is simply an amalgamation of those two drivers.

 

This started off as a request for help on a shed design that would make some sense and give some operational pleasure. Eventually we arrived at a design that ticked all the boxes. Martin and I go back years and even though we have never met, I like to think we have an understanding of each other. I'm happy with the original plan. It has space and looks the part. This latest detour is simply a design challenge for me, to see if I could make such a complex formation.

 

One of the things I kept saying was I wanted to see this printed out full size with buildings around. Seeing a set of small drawings/sketches will never convey how something will actually look in the context of everything else. I specifically said the input pointwork had already been built and this option is something that can be added or removed without changing any other parts of the plan.

 

Nothing is going to the skip as I'm happy with ongoing plan. I latched onto Martin's proposal as a build challenge, not a complete change to my plan. That decision would never be taken until I had seen something full size and saw the impact it would have. If I loved it, then Rule 1 would apply and I'd be happy.

 

If it didn't look right or didn't work then it wouldn't happen.

 

That decision would be probably be based on would it increase or reduce the pleasure of operating this layout, rather than does this look prototypical.

 

I wasn't offended by your train set comment, because in simple terms that is what it is. What I hope will set it apart is running quality and the flow of the track work, because that is where I get my real pleasure. Others get similar pleasure from hand built locomotives or superb scenery, but there are very few who can cover every aspect of modelling to the same high standard, so there is always a compromise somewhere.

 

I took a big break from RMweb because the tone of some threads was quite destructive and I couldn't be bothered to offer help or information only to get drawn into a pointless argument. It all seemed so negative and destructive, so off I went to golf which was much more fun.

 

Anyway I digress. I'm sorry if you feel I responded curtly and I welcome your contributions to this thread.

 

Back to the questions. How many loco's do I have. The answer is an embarrassment and I've probably sold at least a 100 that I'd collected whilst I was working. Even now I pull out various boxes and I'm surprised what I find. Just as soon as I have a running loop, each loco will come out in turn and a decision made.

 

First option will be to sell it. Second option will be to work on it in terms of DCC chipping, painting, weathering and detailing. Those that survive the first option will be put in a queue for finishing and they won't be opened until an earlier one is finished.

 

At any one time I don't expect to see more than 25 loco's up and running. Any more will look daft and it will be great to chop and change from the off layout stock. I can't see any more than 10 being on shed at any one time and ease of access to those is important.

 

I'm just one person and can only really run one train. The number of trains running will depend on who has dropped round to share a beer or two.

Edited January 9, 2018 by gordon s

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Back to the questions.  How many loco's do I have.  The answer is an embarrassment and I've probably sold at least a 100 that I'd collected whilst I was working.  Even now I pull out various boxes and I'm surprised what I find.  Just as soon as I have a running loop, each loco will come out in turn and a decision made.

LOL, I'm watching " the Ranch " on netflix, when Beau is asked how guns he has he replies " I find that people get uncomfortable when I answer that question ". sounds like your loco collection 

 

Just A small thing,in relation to track work,  I will remind you that on Eastwood Town, episode 155, " KISS", you did promise yourself to make your life a little less complex , !!

[jukebox]

RMWeb is indeed a challenging place at times, Gordon - although I do think it has mellowed a lot in the last 5 years.  I *almost* did not migrate Stockrington here from another modelling website I was very active on, as this was, in the early Twenty-teens, a very snipe-y place.  I think it's much improved since then.  Or perhaps I've got thicker skin now!

 

I understand where Simon (Regularity) is coming from - you've taken quite a tangent from the simple question of how you will handle shunting loco coal empties to where you are right now, in the space of, oh... 72 hrs?     The thing that surprised me was possibly what surprised Simon - because you have been quite keen to embrace broad radii turnouts, and sweeping curves on the mainline, to go down a path of obvious fiction (albeit spectacular fiction!) is quite a change of tack for you.  But you have stated your reasoning, and that's okay

 

For what it's worth, I hinted at what my solution would have been a few pages back, and even through it didn't align with the path you chose,  I think almost everyone who follows ET would support whatever choices you decide to make - respecting the "it's my layout and I'll do what pleases me" edict should always be a check and balance when you contribute to someone else's thread.  Perhaps the concern is that the effort to build this, even if it is a diversion from your tedious board (and I know that feeling well!), would be heartbreaking if it only led to you "skipping" it... at the expense of progress on ET elsewhere that may be more permanent.

 

To be frank, I'm just happy you are back in the saddle - like me, you had a fairly long pause in your build, and it's great to see you maintaining momentum.

 

As for how many locos you have, your response sounds like me - I honestly do not know the answer.   That happens when you start to accumulate for a large layout, and can't run things for awhile.  I have become a lot better at saying "no", and have thinned a few out, but still have a long way to go.  And like you, once my MPD is built, I'll make a case by case assessment and only allow myself a few "follies".  Luckily Bachmann didn't' announce a J27 this year.  That would not have helped my bank balance...

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[hayfield]

That's great, Martin. I was having dinner then I just had to test out Tim's half lap theory, so didn't go back to emails.  All here.  I'll move it across to my Mac this evening and report back.

 

First comment is that it works.  This won't win any soldering prizes, but that wasn't the aim.  Cutting with a disc is OK but I can imagine it's hard to control the depth of cut.  I will possibly consider a razor saw as an alternative.

 

Of course there are no check rails in place, so I'll play around with those tonight.  I suspect it will add further difficulty, but as always you just got to proceed slowly.  I've no doubt this process will develop as we go along.

 

Holding bullhead rail vertical is a challenge.  The half laps have to be a loose fit to enable you to set the rail gauge with a 00sf gauge and so the rail can move about.  I can see loads of lacemaking pins being brought into play once I set off down the road for real

 

DSCF9090.jpg

 

As an object/study in track building the proposed layout with all those crossovers is pure delight to the track builder, but lace making pins  ? Just use the processes you have become a master at, using slitting discs etc will end up with lots of rails with lumps out of them, but getting back to basics was there ever a shed designed like this ?

Go back to what I said previously Gordon - if you enjoy building track (a given) and fancy a challenge (another given) then go for the highly complex amendment for the shed track layout - it's your railway so build what you want to.

 

As I have said in terms of working the depot it really adds little and it is very difficult to find all but 19th century depots with trackwork that complex because that sort of thing vanished between the late 1890s and the inter-war period - some of the Southern depots that were killed by electrification were probably the last survivors.  Also the most complex layouts seemed to involve access to/from the running lines rather than being there for movements within the depot itself.

 

Interestingly, apart from a second running line access, Speke Junction shares a number of features with your original plan for Eastwood Town shed with a very similar locational relationship between the turntable, coal stage and shed building.  The only real difference is that fact that coaling and ash disposal/fire cleaning took place, even in the 1890s, on a double ended road thus engines could progress along it without having to come back out in conflict with others waiting to go in (a common principle at many sheds even back in the 19th century).  But all other movements were involved in some sort of potential conflict, especially to/from the single ended shed.

 

http://www.8dassociation.btck.co.uk/SpekeJunctionLocomotiveShed8C

 

Now an example - again LMS - of how things changed with Widnes (which has previously appeared on RM Web as it happens) providing the example.  Note here how the original dead end coaling/ash road has become double ended thus, again, allowing a through progression.  But note also that even the later layout still involves several points of conflict including one where almost every movement is likely to conflict with another.

 

Widnes - early layout.jpg

 

Widnes - later layout.jpg

 

Now the ultimate in keeping things separate  but look how much space it takes up.  Old Oak Common was very specifically laid out to separate inwards and outwards movements with everything coming in (or able to bypass if necessary) the two coal stage/ash & fire cleaning roads then into the shed and with two outward routes available completely clear of the incomers.  Another feature to note is the dead end siding next to the ashpits - somewhere to stand wagons to load ash but also used to stable engines not required to go into the shed for any reason.

 

OOC.jpg

 

 

These are a lot less fun to build, but do resemble steam sheds I remember, sorry for being a party pooper !!!

[martin_wynne]

I'm surprised at the suggestion that the trackwork I suggested is excessively complex or unprototypical.

 

It might be nowadays. But when that engine shed was built, in the days when when steam on bullhead was king, such track was just par for the course. Here's the goods yard at a small country station in Suffolk:

 

 

Compared with the amount of pointwork Gordon has already committed to, it is only a small percentage addition. It doesn't have to be built in the first phase of construction, or ever. But if allowed for in the initial track build it could be added at a later date. We already know that the first turntable will be a temporary installation until the wanted one is available.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

My thoughts on this is that locos have to cross incoming lines to access the turntable, I accept that diamond crossings were common place on the railways. I just think the turntable would be on the other side of the incoming lines in practice. Not saying I am right but this would be my preference