RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) Hi all, After playing with several dioramas and boxfile layouts over the past couple of years, I now feel I'm ready to create a proper layout. It's yet another BLT, and will be run in several eras : late GWR, early BR(W), or BR Blue Diesel. I'm not over fussed about the historical accuracies of running each era, it'll just be a chance to alternate the stock, with roughly the same timetable. This is the plan so far: The green area will be a repeat of my 2011 Challenge Entry - 'The Shed'. The red area will be a variation on my boxfile layout 'Laterite & Co Ltd'. The main line will drop as it leaves the station, leaving the shed area and the headshunt on level ground. The plan is not to scale, the platform will take a loco + 3 coaches, and the goods shed will have plenty of room for road access, with the two good sidings having access on one side each. Still to add is a cattle dock . Road access will be from the right only - I might build the whole track area on a raised section, leaving the surrounding land at varying heights below this. Comments, suggestions, etc., as always, gratefully received. Stu Edited May 14, 2021 by Stubby47 Rename / replanned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I have a slight problem imagining deliveries to the factory a loco heads a train inbound but then what happens? surely not taken direct into factory or left on the wagon turntable for a shunter to peel off the brake, to where, and then cut wagons into the factory building, leaving the loco trapped on the TT. Alternatively heads into the yard on the other side of the station for a shunter to cut wagons across the station main into the factory again leaving the inbound loco trapped The only alternative would be the inbound goods fouling the platform to run round then to take the goods back out and reverse it into the yard/factory. Limiting any passenger moves - effectively one loco in steam type of operation. This then makes a 2 engine shed area and the size of the goods area a bit unlikely especially in BR era? I am also a bit unsure of the shed being accessed from the factory anyway. I think in reality it would simply have its own spur from the main. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 2, 2011 Hi Kenton, Fair comments, it's made me think a bit more about the process. Ok, so a good train arrives on the platform loop line, and the station pilot shuffles the trucks about, including to the factory, until the loco is cleared to either sit at the end of the headshunt or to move to the shed. Out going trains are made up in either of the good sidings, and the main line loco attaches and departs. The factory line is at the end of the shed access road, it may well be a gated area, but will set back far enough to allow access to the shed and siding. "This then makes a 2 engine shed area and the size of the goods area a bit unlikely especially in BR era?" - yes, it probably does, but IMTS . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 but IMTS Always a fair point to be respected 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Nevard Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Private sidings can leave the BR network from all sorts of most unlikely spots - just look at old track plans - I wouldn't worry too much if it works you in the space you have, there will always be a prototype! For example Stothert and Pitt the crane manufacturer and a timber yard had access via the S&D shed lines at Bath Green Park. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted August 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 2, 2011 I would put the factory where you have the loco shed then create an extra platform that acts as the headshunt for this. The loco shed could then be placed next to this, possibly as a kick back siding as was found at Kingswear. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 2, 2011 Thanks Chris & Kris - How's this : I actually think it's a lot better, as it gives more promience to the factory (and the wagon turn-table) than it had hidden behind the station. The shed will sit in the middle, providing more interesting viewpoints. The only major difference is the wagons to and from the factory will need to be shunted via the station loop, but that only adds to the operating potential. Cheers ! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Stu, I think your plan in post 7 is far better than the original ... ... if i could suggest a few changes then they would be to 1) make it 7mm and 2) make it modular 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 2, 2011 Stu, I think your plan in post 7 is far better than the original ... ... if i could suggest a few changes then they would be to 1) make it 7mm and 2) make it modular I don't think I'll be going 7mm (as much as I'd like to !), and it will be modular in a way, because although it will be a complete layout in it's own right, it will also form part of my long term layout-in-a-loft plan, where I hope to have several mini layouts all joined into one railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Stu Just my 2p worth If you swapped the headshunt and loco shed you'd have a self contained shunting yard and somewhere for incoming locos to go (to shed) without interrrupting shunting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 2, 2011 Stu, The first version was, I think, far better operationally and made perfect sense to me. With the second version you now have a factory which is no easier to shunt than it was the first time (i.e. there is no operational benefit at all in moving it, and in fact shunting it would now be harder - but that's railways for you and it would add to the fun of course) although I agree that it is scenically better. But you have put the shed in a much worse position where movements to/from it will require goods sidings to be kept clear or work in them to be stopped - not a sensible way of running the job when a loco has to go to shed to coal part way through the day. It might also be pertinent to add here (and sorry I'm taking advantage of your thread) that on most small branches there was only one place where the freight trip could runround - the platform line (because it was the line with the loop) so that was where the vast majority of branch freights ran round. And of course by moving the factory you now have to run round twice in order to shunt it - but quite ok if you have a GW branchline level of passenger service of course and the timetable often had some strange daytime gaps to allow exactly this sort of thing to happen and no need at all for One Engine In Steam Working unless the level of business so demanded. Anyway if you are wedded to the change because of the scenic advantage of the factory move I would seriously suggest that you either do a St Ives with the shed (a form of layout which would suit your original scenic ideas although the added length might be a possible problem) or connect the shed roads off the headshunt instead of kicking back out of busy yard sidings (although this again adds to the overall length of course). Overall it is worth remembering that even into the 1960s some West of England branchline goods yards could get very busy and crowded with traffic/(rail) vehicles especially on a seasonal basis and they simply wouldn't leave space to access the shed as in the second version. Hope these notes help and sorry if I've shot down a few ideas you had in mind. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 3, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 John & Mike, Many thanks for your suggestions. I would like to be able to shunt the yard independent of the passenger traffic, to allow more operational (exhibition !) movement at the same time. So, I've replaced the shed back in it's original position, where it's accessed from a new, second platform line (suitable for an autocoach / DMU ). Following Chris N's suggestion, the factory is now some distance down the line, which could be done using Jack's suggestion of a completely separate module (even to the extent of it's own 3-sided backscene and joining bridges). This concept could lead on to extending the layout with other modules of my own, or other modellers, depending on any exhibition requirements. So, version 3 : Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldlugger Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Good to hear you're going to have a crack at a layout this time Stu. I think I like your second plan best with the engine shed and factory opposite each other. Looking forward to seeing how you progress... All the best Simon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 John & Mike, Many thanks for your suggestions I would like to be able to shunt the yard independent of the passenger traffic, to allow more operational (exhibition !) movement at the same time. So, I've replaced the shed back in it's original position, where it's accessed from a new, second platform line (suitable for an autocoach / DMU ). Following Chris N's suggestion, the factory is now some distance down the line, which could be done using Jack's suggestion of a completely separate module (even to the extent of it's own 3-sided backscene and joining bridges). This concept could lead on to extending the layout with other modules of my own, or other modellers, depending on any exhibition requirements. So, version 3 : Stu, That, I think, is an excellent arrangement - plenty of operating potential with the opportunity given by the factory placement to do one or two slightly out of the ordinary (but quite permissible) things should you wish and a useful station layout as well which will still offer some operational fun as well as the scenic possibilities; I like it 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardEyre Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Hi Stu, Personally I think all these layouts have their merits. I agree with Mike that the engine shed coming off the goods yard could cause problems in busy periods, but what's annoying in the real world can be fun on the model. And there is a prototype for everything, afterall... Mike, I've been puzzling over goods practice at stations with no dedicated goods loop. I've been working on the assumption that they'd just use the platform line, but I haven't found any reference to it, so thanks for confirming that for me. - Ric 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 All that extra space for development in #12 I cannot resist the temptation to suggest a goods loop instead of the HS extending it all the way back to the factory exit. I still think the ES is wrong but still IMTS (or more correctly, IYTS) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's always interesting to compare some of the features of model layout plans with the real thing and because Stu happens to be located in the far west, beyond England according to many, I thought I'd look that way (and I happen to have the information for that area). So here we go Kingsbridge (1930 revised layout) - engine shed reached via the bay platform, running signalled move to the runround loop from the Home Signal Note *. Yealmpton 1898 layout - No engine shed, running signalled move to the LoopSiding from the Home Signal Note * Ashburton (unusual signalling arrangements!) Engine shed off the runround loop, trains could only (legitimately) arrive at the platform. Princetown 1895 layout/signalling only permitted arrival at the platform although there were two loops (in effect but not for practical purposes) back, loco shed parallel to goods yard 1950 layout theoretically made it possible for a train to run to the runround loop instead of the platform line on arrival Note * Launceston 1895 and 1950 layouts gave the loco shed kickback access from the second platform line which was designated as a siding. The 1950 layout/signalling theoretically made it possible for a train to be run to that siding line on arrival but not a running move Note * Looe - Something of an oddity as the loco shed (and carriage shed) were simply a continuation of the platform line and a runround facility was provided alongsside the sheds. Bodmin - Loco shed was a kickback off the (sole ) platform line, there was a signalled running move directly into the runround loop and the goods yard(!!) but obviously as the station worked as a junction there was a need to allow parallel acceptances. Fowey - No loco shed. Because of the considerable shipment china clay traffic there was a Goods Line provided for arrivals from either direction although that from the Lostwithiel end was only accessible via a ground frame connection. The Par end Goods Line was next to the platform line and also served as the runround (if ever needed) for passenger trains and freights arriving from Par could only easily runround via the platform line. The goods yard was only accessed via a headshunt directly off the end of the platform line and access to the shipment sidings could also only be gained from that line. Falmouth - was a very ancient style of layout with separate arrival and departure lines which both had platform faces. the engine shed, latterly loco siding, was accessed off the departure line through a connection which was facing for departing trains. An arriving passenger train could runround on the arrival line between the Home Signal and iInner Home Signal although there was a also a parallel loop on the arrival (docks) side of the layout which could be used for freight arrivals or as a runround plus there was a further loop in the sidings - the goods shed was on the opposite side and could only be shunted off the departure line/single line. Newquay - The loco shed was long gone by the time of the 1947 layout /signalling change - this latter allowed an arrival in the sidings parallel to No.3 platform but the latter was the only way of running round from there apart from a shirt loop in the goods yard. Helston - Loco shed accessed directly off the (only) platform line. There was a signalled move to the loop for arriving trains but any runround would have to be via the platform Note * St Ives - Loco shed a little way up the line from the station and accessed directly off the running line. Arriving trains could only run to the platform line and runround there. Note * this is the sting in the tail. Under Electric Token Regulations a train can only be accepted at a terminus if the line is clear to the platform stop blocks and under GW Regulations it was not permitted to alter the setting of any points once a train had been accepted until it had either arrived or had been brought to a stand at the Home Signal. This effectively meant that at all the single line stations (with the exception of Fowey which was a through station for signalling purposes, and probably Bodmin because of the junction) the easy way for any train to arrive was to run to the platform line. Doing this also offered a big advantage because in every case except Falmouth the arrangement of the crossovers meant that the greatest length capacity was in the platform line anyway and it also usually offered the quickest way of running round and then a good starting place for shunting. And apologies (again) to Stu for nicking his thread. 4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 3, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 Mike, No apologies necessary, it's fascinating stuff! The thread is open for discussion about my future layout, so any input which confirms or contradicts the current version of the plan is most welcome. On my Shed / Challenge entry, Black Rat had mentioned St Ives shed, but I'd not got around to reading up on the actual layout of the station, so your explanation certainly helps. Bodmin Stn I know quite well, and I was tempted to lose the bay platform and have the shed accessed in a similar way, but the extra operational ability seemed a better choice. I also am very tempted by Kenton's idea of extending the headshunt into a goods loop - the upside is the factory board could then be used as part of the 2012 Module Challenge ( which is double track - other entries are most welcome ! ), but it would also make the station area bigger than I really wanted, for what's hopefully going to be depictation of a small station nestling into a south western-ish valley. Please keep your comments and suggestions coming. Stu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 ... Stu happens to be located in the far west, beyond England according to many... I'm safely 15 miles inside the boarder! Great idea Stu, your proposed layout should be a cracker, it has a Bodmin General feel about it. So working on your progression rate, it should be completed by September? Regards, Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 3, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 3, 2011 I'm safely 15 miles inside the boarder! Great idea Stu, your proposed layout should be a cracker, it has a Bodmin General feel about it. So working on your progression rate, it should be completed by September? Regards, Nick I don't know about September, but as I intend to make a 3rd Challenge entry by 1st October, and I'm trying to organise the Module Project for next April's Taunton Party, I'll be happy if I could get at least the baseboards done by the end of the year. I've realised after starting ( and abandoning ) Polbraze, I need to do smaller sections or I lose the motivation. With this project, as it will be using techniques and scenarios I've done recently, I should be able to both improve on those and maintain steady progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 5, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 5, 2011 Variations of the plan aside, I reckon I'll need a length of 16ft to do this justice. This means I'll need 4 x 4ft x 2ft boards. I'm considering using the ply-sandwich-girder method of construction, so each board would have 2 x 4ft x 3in battens on each side and 2 x 2ft x 3in battens at each end. I'm guessing I'll also need bracing across the middle of the boards, again using 2 x 2ft x 3in battens. (Obviously the battens will be shortened where necessary to fit). The board tops will also be ply, but not 100% coverage, allowing for embankments where necessary. The track bed will therefore be built up on risers from the girders . Does this sound feasible ? What sort/size of ply is recommended ? Should I glue / glue & screw / screw the softwood inserts ? Cheers Stu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DLT Posted August 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 5, 2011 Love the new Avatar Stu, have you or your son been watching Sorry I've Got No Head on CBBC by any chance? Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted August 5, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 5, 2011 Love the new Avatar Stu, have you or your son been watching Sorry I've Got No Head on CBBC by any chance? Dave. Not quite - see this thread, posts #10 and #14... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 5, 2011 I'm considering using the ply-sandwich-girder method of construction, so each board would have 2 x 4ft x 3in battens on each side and 2 x 2ft x 3in battens at each end. I'm guessing I'll also need bracing across the middle of the boards, again using 2 x 2ft x 3in battens. (Obviously the battens will be shortened where necessary to fit). Does this sound feasible ? What sort/size of ply is recommended ? Should I glue / glue & screw / screw the softwood inserts ? Stu I used ply sandwich construction for the boards for Llamedos (daughter liked the name) and it seems to me a good method although I went 4 inches deep and that was possibly excessive. Immensely strong once it has a top on and (with top on) totally warp free after several years in an unheated shed, removal to new home and storage in the garage room for the past 3 years or so. One problem I encountered during construction of the girders was the tendency for some of them to take a set as the glue dried and I'm not at all sure why although it might have been something to do with the way I nailed them with panel pins and used blocks instead of battens? Definitely to Dreadnought standards and none exactly lightweight - they used 6mm ply. The one below is 4ft long x 2ft wide 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted August 6, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 6, 2011 Nice boards Mike. As your trackbed is not going to be supported on the edges Stu, I would go for a 9mm top rather than 6mm. The extra strength could come in handy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts