Jump to content

jukebox

Stockrington - The branches and brambles tore my clothes...

Recommended Posts

 

 

Just a thought on the plan, on the bottom wall, you have a nice wide baseboard, and all the track confined into about a third of the width - would it be possible to wiggle one or two pairs of tracks towards the front of the boards? I think it might look better to have some scenery between them, and then the join into the station will look more like a junction? Just a thought...

 

I agree with Michael's suggestion, though the last thing you need is people "ganging up" on your treasured trackplan. Maybe you could incorporate the hint of a single track branch line through this space?

 

Jeff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That is a fantastic space you have, and what seems a very good idea of what you want (and that is definitely a good start to have). When I saw the first post I thought you might be trying to emulate Physicman's attempts success at layout room building. Sorry to hear you've had so much trouble with the builder - it does seem to be a worldwide problem - and I hope it's all sorted now!

 

Glad to see you took his advice to get a thread started - he's been trying the same on me, and it really does make a difference to attitude for the build. Keep the story going, I will certainly be following this one with interest.

 

Just a thought on the plan, on the bottom wall, you have a nice wide baseboard, and all the track confined into about a third of the width - would it be possible to wiggle one or two pairs of tracks towards the front of the boards? I think it might look better to have some scenery between them, and then the join into the station will look more like a junction? Just a thought...

 

Thanks for stopping by Michael - yes, I'm lucky on so many levels to be able to dedicate the space I have. The real trick is now to find a balance between integrating the time I spend there with my family, rather than it being a place I hide... I have three children, 13,11, and 6 and none have the rail bug... but all are definitely curious about the railway things Dad does, which is a good start.

 

The plan I posted on the first page was simplified for clarity. The area you mention is set aside for Northmoor MPD - you can see some rough plans based on the old NER shed at Stockton-on-Tees that I started with - but ultimately am not happy about - and need to rework.

 

post-8688-0-00065400-1353064989_thumb.jpg

SCARM 3D output

 

post-8688-0-85172200-1353065088_thumb.jpg

Revised plotter printout - too much track, me thinks.

 

Fantastic job with the instalation of the lamps. The extra effort to paint all the plates and adding the people has really paid dividends.

Im lucky enough to have seen this in the flesh at richards, and the addition of table lamps and people completley change the feel of the railroad pullman.

 

Thanks very much for the kind words. It was not insanely hard to do, once I got the hang of the different brush techniques needed to get the right amount of paint on. Using the spare half tables to practice was a great way to get confident.

 

 

I see my name mentioned in today's posts - thanks Michael for your positive comments. I think Scott has a superb environment for his layout. One advantage he has over my bunker is that it's part of his house, rather than an externally converted building - so it'll be warmer. The last is a given anyway - we're talking Perth, Australia here!

 

Must admit, Scott, the tale of woe you've been having makes me very angry. I'm not a professional builder, but care and attention - I suppose measurement should be fundamental to a physicist - meant very few problems in converting my garage. You seem to have hired at least one incompetent. How do they get away with it? The thing is, think positive - your floor layer will get you sorted and then you'll be flying ahead. There is going to be so much to enjoy in Stockrington!!

*snip*

 

Jeff

I agree with Michael's suggestion, though the last thing you need is people "ganging up" on your treasured trackplan. Maybe you could incorporate the hint of a single track branch line through this space?

 

Jeff

 

 

The temperature extremes are still a concern for me, Jeff - just the other way to yours. Whilst the room is insulated, when it's 42C outside and there's no sea breeze, I am expecting the room to be not overly pleasant... and how that affects track remains to be seen. But it is East-facing, so is spared thr worst of our afternoon sun, so it should not be insurmountable.

 

As for builders... I'm a Civil Engineer/Project Manager by profession, so I was his worst nightmare - a customer who knew contracts, and knew construction. But I couldnt be here 12 hours a day, and you don't get to check on the shortcuts they take until it's too late sometimes. And in the end, contract terms and conditions are never set in the customer's favour, and the laws are woeful at protecting consumers here. I think it's his total lack of honesty and failure to admit his guilt that makes it so bad. The stress it causes is incredible, and has certainly made it anything but enjoyable. Hopefully we are over the worst of it. I did find two brilliant trades for the things I arranged myself - the stairs and the floorboards. Both the guys doing those jobs have been first class craftsmen that "get it" when it comes to delivering what a customer wants. Especially this customer!

 

No problem with discussing the trackplan, Jeff - now is the time for suggestions and thought - before I break out the jigsaw and timber. As I mentioned above, I've got a six (eight?) road shed planned for there. What I want to do at some point is take the output from the plotter, lay it on the dining table, and move some locomotives around on top of it, so see how much space I have. I'd like to lose some tracks... but the space is a little wider and shorter than I really would like, so getting things to "fit" isn't simple. I've got some other self imposed constraints in that I want to have at least some of the shed roads accessed by medium-large radius turnouts so that the kit built locos I have do not come to grief. But the detail planning for the MPD is probably something for a later post, when I am into a building groove.... however the key point is, that space on the left as you walk into the room has been assigned.

 

Curiously, the space on the right of the doorway has not been planned out - an industry served by rail? Housing to justify the station? Honestly, I have no idea yet...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott. Nice presentation of what things may look like when the track's down.I remember post 1 stating max gradients of 2.5%, so 1 in 40. Have you tried running a steam loco and 10-15 wagons up a 1 in 40? It's do-able, but some may struggle. Just a thought - ideas at this stage cost nothing.

 

On my old (very poorly designed) layout I had an incline of 1 in 25 ... diesels coped admirably, steamers - forget it. KL has no "designed in" slopes whatever - there's a 1 in 250 across part of the board due to "builder's incompetence"!

 

And congrats - your thread is approaching its first 1000 views...

 

Jeff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Jeff!

 

The SCARM output seems to me to be a little ropey - the 3D model doesn't quite display in the correct ratios I think, but it's just there to help me imagine the plan - the 2D output is fine, and to scale, and usable to print 1:1, to check on track laying logic.

 

The gradients are something very much in the forefront of my mind. Gordon (Eastwood Town) has been very sage about avoiding them, and I certainly have reservations that need to be tested. Come build time, the first thing I will do is build the storage tracks, the ramps up and down from them, and the piece of mainline that connects, so I have an operational loop. I will use that to comprehensively test the haulage situation, and only then stake out the track plan as firm.

 

I did some haulage trials a few months back with a Prototype Deltic, a Bachmann split chassis A4, and a Hornby loco drive Duchess on a 4m ski jump. At 1:40 The Deltic romped away with an 8 car pullman*, the A4 could do so if driven carefully, but the Duchess was woeful, not even managing 4 pullmans. That was with Peco track though, and I understand that steel rails will help traction, as will additional weight. I do need to test the real track, and real radii, and only then will know for sure.

 

If I do find that I'm having issues, the remedy may well be to have two completely seperate double track circuits at different levels, connected by a third pair of tracks - hidden for the most part - that use a whole lap of the room to change levels. That could bring the grade down to 1-in-80 or even 1-in-100 if I use a change-of-grade on the circuits as well as the connector ramp. It will alter the "look" of the long wall section, as the four-track mainline would be sacrificed, and would erode my goal of "a long continuous run", but would still allow multiple trains in motion, and iconic NE engineering. However, on the plus side, it would then make Stockrington station a true junction, which could result in some interesting trackwork there.

 

*And that result was the driver for keeping my storage tracks at a low level - the concept being the Deltic - and other diesel stablemates - would be able to bring stock up and down from the storage yard that the steam locomtives may not. My Duke of Gloucester has yet to be tested, and I am very curious to see how the heavy bodied kit loco performs off the level.

 

(and yes, I'm very pleased with how the thread has matured in such a short time - you know I had my reservations, as I knew i was still quite a few weeks away from breaking ground - but it's been good to have a focus, and be able to present the story as it matures. I appreciate the prodding you did to get me to commit to it, and for the RWwebbers for coming to visit and supporting my toe-dipping!)

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about gradients Scott, is that there is no hard and fast rule as there are so many factors to consider. The weight of the loco, the weight of the stock, length of run and the radii of any curves on the gradient are all variables, so running your own tests after considering the experiences of others is always the best bet. I'm glad to see that's what you aim to do.

 

Another thing to bear in mind, particularly with the floor level error you had, is the true gradient. If you are using your main boards as a datum, then they have to be level or it will change the gradient, up or down, from what you believe you are building. I found this to my cost as using a short spirit level and inaccuracy of reading the bubble, meant I was a degree or so out of true. Not a problem on a short board, but take that out to 20' and one degree can make a height difference of 4". Eventually I dealt with the sloping floor issue by setting the boards up with a laser level. Overkill perhaps, but I was fed up getting unpredictable results.

 

Jeff will tell you a piece of plastic tube filled with water will work just as well and costs pennies... ;)

 

Enjoying your story, so keep the updates coming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its that hot why not go around the garden? You can then enjoy a nice cold beer whilst watching the trains go by :no: , Engine shed and station indoors and a lovely long run in the sun, hahah :scratchhead:

 

All the best Andy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, I don't know whether I've mentioned this, but a piece of plastic tube filled with water can make an excellent level. I must pass on this tip to Gordon! Lol!

 

Testing your gradients on the job is the way to go. I wouldn't worry too much about the results from your Duchess. I love those locos and have 2 of the new Hornby models. Their pulling power is poor compared to my Black 5s and several leagues below my Bachmann 9Fs.

 

Andy tried to encourage me to extend into the garden... Given the British weather - not a chance. You'll have noted that Larry is going to do this, of course!

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon - Wow, I am very glad you made that point. Thank you. Did you know that even with all the dramas of uneven floors, and knowing I have a fall along my room - albiet less of a one now than before - if you hadn't said it, I am sure I would have gone ahead and used the floor as my datum? :O At least know it is there, it is easy to manage: I plan to use L-girder benchwork, so it is a relatively simple matter to make sure when I set the base pair of girders, I use a spirit level, not take an elevation off the floor. Then of course, everything else can be referenced off the main beams.

 

Hi Andy! Stockrington will live in a second floor room, so I'm afraid unless I plan to do a run out and along the ground floor guttering, it will inside play for me. Which will not preclude the consumption of cold beverages on a hot day, I assure you! In fact bottles of Crabbies (from Glasgow) have been going down rather nicely at the home of Stockrington since the start of November. :drink_mini:

 

We had our stairs clad in Marri last week - still to be sanded and varnished, but this is what the stairway to my heaven looks like:

 

post-8688-0-11586600-1353291549.jpg

The house never normally looks this empty - but everything has been moved out in anticipation of the (saw)dust storm that floor sanding will bring...

 

Over on Ron Heggs Points Bridge build thread there is some discussion about the lack of NE-themed layouts, and bridges in particular. As a bit of a teaser for everyone following Stockrington, this is what I am contemplating for the river crossings on the left hand end of the layout:

post-8688-0-39022700-1353293004.jpg

post-8688-0-99710300-1353293118.jpg

Jeff - I think the Duchess can be improved upon - some lead sheet squirreled into the nooks of the body should give her better legs. Certainly plenty of room in the streamlined version, but not quite so much in the standard one. Nothing will help the split framed Bachmann B1, I'm afraid: I am sure that as Stockrington evolves, a program of loco replacement or upgrading will be inevitable - and that will eventually help thin out some of the "foreigners", too.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're certainly whetting the appetite, Scott. As a bit of a viaduct fan, I'm looking forward to the construction of this bridge. You may be giving me new ideas!

 

Lovely staircase, btw. Is the house of predominantly brick construction or wood-framed? I ask because the latter is very common outside the UK and some of the houses are very large by British standards.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's right, I didn't mention the viaducts, did I... :secret: I'm rather taken with the ECML crossing of the River Idle at Retford, but photos of it are rather scarce online. I'm going to have to put out a plea for help from the locals down there when the time comes. Not sure I will emulate your viaduct-in-a-jiffy rate of progress, though!!!!!

 

The staircase has come up wonderfully. It's jarrah framed for strength, but the carcass is just MDF. Then the guy who laid the timber floorboards upstairs clad it in Marri to match the floors (we did suggest building the whole lot in Marri, but the stair builder vetoed it as it's not an easy timber to make structurally sound components from). To his amusement, I've retained all the offcuts - I'm sure I can use 12mm hardwood somewhere!

 

When we first contemplated a 2nd floor extension, we were told to allow 10% of the budget for the stairs. I thought that sounded outrageous, but by the time we went self supporting (no column underneath) and glass ballustrade, that number was frighteningly accurate. The void area was already 44 courses high, and is now 67 or so, and you can just see in the reflection, it has northlight windows like a railway shed! (not deliberately) They make the space beautifully light and bright.

 

The house was single story double brick - built by us 15 years ago; the 2nd floor extension is timber frame with a brick veneer, to make it match the original externally. Here in Western Australia we seem to use double brick construction for the majority of our homes - maybe because timber is relatively scarce/expensive - but where I originally hail from, Sydney, timber frame and brick veneer is much more common.

Edited by jukebox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Scott. Thanks for the info. It's a lovely staircase, so it justifies its cost! Hopefully it's built true, unlike your layout room floor!!

 

If I had the space to include another viaduct, or could have made the existing one larger, I'd have jumped at the chance. I hadn't realised how dominating a feature it would be in the layout. Your "mini Sydney Harbour bridge" should do the equivalent for you!

 

Jeff

Edited by Physicsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan I posted on the first page was simplified for clarity. The area you mention is set aside for Northmoor MPD - you can see some rough plans based on the old NER shed at Stockton-on-Tees that I started with - but ultimately am not happy about - and need to rework.

 

*snip*

 

No problem with discussing the trackplan, Jeff - now is the time for suggestions and thought - before I break out the jigsaw and timber. As I mentioned above, I've got a six (eight?) road shed planned for there. What I want to do at some point is take the output from the plotter, lay it on the dining table, and move some locomotives around on top of it, so see how much space I have. I'd like to lose some tracks... but the space is a little wider and shorter than I really would like, so getting things to "fit" isn't simple. I've got some other self imposed constraints in that I want to have at least some of the shed roads accessed by medium-large radius turnouts so that the kit built locos I have do not come to grief. But the detail planning for the MPD is probably something for a later post, when I am into a building groove.... however the key point is, that space on the left as you walk into the room has been assigned.

 

Ah, that makes more sense now. I think you may be right about the amount of track - if you lose the second smaller shed, does that help? I think you could probably push up to an 8 road shed if it's on its own. Could you use the turntable to provide more of the shed access roads, removing the need for, (and space required by) pointwork in front of the shed?

 

Curiously, the space on the right of the doorway has not been planned out - an industry served by rail? Housing to justify the station? Honestly, I have no idea yet...

 

Tempting to suggest a town-scape - there is a lot of railway elsewhere, but it does really depend on what you want to be able to 'play' with - if you're happy watching trains go round, go for landscape...

 

Your bridge designs look really impressive, I shall look forward to seeing you build them. Does the plan allow adequate clearance to see what you have built? Jeff (of Kirkby Luneside fame) had to remove a planned viaduct as it hid a larger one from view...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually I dealt with the sloping floor issue by setting the boards up with a laser level. Overkill perhaps, but I was fed up getting unpredictable results.

 

 

I also used a laser level to sat a datum around my layout room, and I'm so glad I did - it was only when I'd done it that I really appreciated how far from level the floor really was. Even now the combination of a wonky ceiling and floor can really trick the eye into thinking that it's the layout that's sloping, but no, the layout is the only level thing in the room. I marked the datum using a pencil all round the room and 5 years on it is still useful, as when I need to add another shelf or set of brackets, it is there as a reference. It has also allowed me to monitor board stability since I can quickly assess whether a board is sagging or bowing relative to the pencil mark.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning, guys;

 

Michael - I had a short play with SCARM last night - am getting Northmoor MPD looking a lot more Stockton/Haverton Hill-like, which is good. I shall post specifically on this once I've advanced it enough to be worthy of review.

 

I agree with your thoughts of townscape - the terraces being mass produced over at Bacup are rather inspiring! - time will tell.

 

Barry - hello and welcome. The idea of marking the datum (discretely) on the walls is certainly a smart one that I will put to good use.

 

***

 

It’s been an interesting six months or so as I have started to marshal thoughts and plans for Stockrington together in an organised fashion. Using the High Level Bridge as the basis of a structure has always been something I wanted to do, ever since I first set eyes on it in 1988. Then, as I started to tweak Brian MacD’s Model Rail track plan, I realised that even though I would be placing rail tracks on the upper and lower decks of the HLB, I would still need another river crossing*. The Victoria Viaduct in Washington was one of the candidates I looked at, as was Knaresborough, but something kept bringing me back to Monkwearmouth – it had a similar industrial grittiness to the HLB, remembering that I was not thinking of a chocolate box river valley here – more a grimy, coaly, working river.

 

As I set about drawing things up, I had envisaged my modified HLB to be the major focus at that end of the layout, and be the structure closest to the operating well. That was until I scaled down the 300ft main span from Sunderland: 1200mm. That is a serious distance to cross unsupported (each of the six HLB spans scale down to 500mm, but reducing the span length would, I fear, alter the arch geometry unacceptably, so I suspect my version may use just four of these). But what did become very apparent was that with a >1m span, I could bring the Monkwearmouth model to the front, and still have good sight lines through to the mHLB at the rear. So as I started to weave the track levels, that was how it played out – the front bridge having the highest and widest span, and the mHLB having the mid and lower level tracks.

 

If anyone is taking any advice away from this thread (…heaven help you for starters. Don’t follow me, I might be lost , too!), I guess as nothing has been built yet, the one nugget you may be able to glean is the amount of planning that deserves to go into an exercise of this scale and timeframe. Planning the order of construction; planning the materials to use; finding suitable reference material; making sure that I do not paint myself into a corner by completing something that then restricts access to distant parts of the layout; thinking about what the end result will look like... And I hasten to add that most of what has been written about so far is just that – plans. They need to be tested and truthed and proven as workable. Much like Jeff’s experiences with viaducts, I have no doubt I will need to shift goal posts and make changes when I find things are not quite as simple as they seem. But I think that’s all part of the fun of a layout build - not being frightened to make mistakes, learn from them, and do better. That's the reason I would never build the Sunderland bridge first - I need to "cut my chops" on the support act (the mHLB) that is further away from the normal viewing position. And as that structure can be built as four independent spans on my workbench, I can learn and improve as I progress, so that the best four sides of that model end up facing the viewer.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

 

*The sharp eyed amongst you will look at my trackplan and say “But what about the single track that runs down to the storage sidings at this end of the layout?”. Well I looked at the plan, and felt that a third structure here would overpower the scene, and did not make a lot of sense from an engineering perspective. So the plan is to have the back scene 50-75mm off the wall, and run that single track behind the backscene here, so it will not be visible when looking down the river.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott,

 

Just caught up with your thread this morning, having seen something 'interesting sounding' appear on the layout topics list recently.

 

Like others, your first posting ticks a lot of my boxes too. I hesitated for some time myself before putting my posting on RMWeb (something to do with all the facebook and twitter nightmare stories you read about) but everyone seems so encouraging and helpful on the site - a sort of virtual 'club' which nevertheless respects the right of us all to be individuals!

 

Perhaps a particular couple of 'connections' for myself with your project: firstly the apple green/teak 'thing'(!) but secondly that I am now domiciled right in the heart of your chosen area for study. In terms of inspirational viaducts, then I need look no further than about half a mile away at a most glorious former railway viaduct that used to take the Bishop Auckland to Durham railway soaring over the Wear valley. Known as Newton Cap viaduct, it was saved from demolition and completely refurbished in 1999 and now its 11 graceful arches carry a road across its deck. OK not a railway, but a far more preferable outcome to it not being there at all. A rather different setting to your more industrial Tyne-influenced concept but just a thought.

 

I absolutely agree with others about the vexed question of gradients. The looped '8' is a great layout planning concept but you can't escape the gradients! And as a triple stack '8' then at some point the highest level needs to come down to the lowest level and I fear that will be its undoing in the space you have. My experience (on a previous layout) with gradients was based upon a 1-in-90, up which a 4-6-0 with 7 coaches was reasonably comfortable. It steepened to 1-in-65 (-ish) round the back which was just about manageable with some momentum behind it but I wouldn't personally design anything steeper than 1-in-50 if you want a half decent train for the steam locos. The other big factor is whether the gradient is on a straight or a curve; it's really worth easing (or even eliminating) the gradient on the curved sections to make things more manageable (our corners are of course far tighter than the prototype equivalents so the drag is increased enormously); this of course will not help in any way with your stacked '8' planning! I have to say that I never found much problems with freight trains as (unlike the prototype) model wagons are generally much lighter than coaches (unless you've got a stock of whitemetal kits!)

 

I quite like playing about with track plans so I'll see if I can have a look at some of the details you've asked about. I usually get my inspiration from the prototype in terms of track formations and it can be quite surprising what you can end up with compared to a 'trainset' approach. Apologies if I missed it earlier - what track system do you intend using?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandside's terraces are - I wonder if there'll be a worldwide shortage of slaters embossed stone shortly. Maybe someone should tell them to crank up the production...

 

Your explanation of the bridges makes a lot of sense - thinking of the bridges over the Tyne, the iconic images of most of the bridges use other ones to 'frame' them. I can imagine from your description a view of the High-level bridge under the Monkwearmouth one - and it looks delightful! All you'll need is a chair in the right place so you can watch the trains go by all day...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott,

Your thread has just popped up on my radar and your proposed layout is right up my street. As a Structural Engineer, now retired, I share your interest in bridges and I will certainly look to include a bridge model in my future layout which, hopefully, I will get going next year. Looking forward to following your progress.

Incidentally, it's been throwing it down all day here in the this part of the UK and floods are reported in the west country. I assume you are now firmly heading into summer in Oz now.

Regards,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robert, and welcome to Stockrington. We've spoken already over at Grantham - I rather like your modified Peco trackwork! It's my intention to do some similar surgery here - especially in terms of cutting back turnouts behind the frog in yards so that I can make things more (prototypically) compact. I'd recognise that shedcode anywhere BTW!

Edited to include the following, which I originally missed:

As for my trackwork, I've chosen C+L steel Code 70 for the scenic areas, and am using Peco code 70 on the storage sidings (to save a little cost). The turnouts on the storage fans are curved Peco Code 70's for the same reason, whilst I have two job lots of Shinohara Code 70 turnouts of various sizes that I picked up on eBay that I will use in the MPD. There's also a smattering of Tillig that I have acquired in the last year when I have seen them for the right price, that are destined for the mainline.

 

I appreciate your experiences with gradients, and don't disagree with your thoughts - curves exacerbate the gradient problem, as do Pullmans, and RTR steam locomotives! Once I get a little way down the build, I'd enjoy a discussion on track planning with you - hopefully finding a compromise between what I need operationally, and what the real railway might have done.

 

Michael - you have absoloutely nailed the concept of the bridges: luckily, the precedent is set with the road bridge do close to the rail bridge at Monwearmouth, but also through the seven spans across the Tyne in Newcastle... if I ever get around to adding sound, I can see the need for a fixed speaker, and a recording of that deep rumble a train makes crossing a large steel bridge. Anyone who has ever been to Dawes Point in Sydney (or done Bridgeclimb there) will know that sound, as the trains cross the Harbour Bridge. (I did try to find a Youtube clip of this, but no joy) I'm not sure about DCC sound, but I know that a good speaker under the layout with that as an effect woud be something very special

 

 

Hi Brian - and welcome to you, too. Glad to see you here - love your signature! I see Tornado comes out in blue this weekend? That will be special. Yes, summer is almost here - we had a 34C day yesterday, and it was unusually humid (it's normally a very dry heat in Perth) but the forecast thunderstorms didn't reach us. The real heat is not fully on here yet - lows this week will drop back to mid teens overnight, so the days will be very nice. Come February, it will be at its worst.

 

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Edited by jukebox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Jukebox,

a tad more info......than I am used too.............................. :O

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - still no floor boards down in my room... but that's okay, as the rest of upstairs and the stairs have been boarded and varnished. Just the laminate to lay, which is due this week.

 

Had some pretty ugly storm weather here for four days this week - 110km/h wind gusts, plenty of driving rain that started from the North and by day three was coming from the South, and - thankfully - none of it ended up inside. This time.

 

So with all that down time, I spent a few hours tinkering with the Northmoor MPD plan on SCARM.

 

I started with this:

 

post-8688-0-33235800-1354360811_thumb.jpg

Six road NE style shed, plus another 4 road shed for foreign/D/E locos

I don't mind this plan - locos arrive, and coal up, shunt through the ash disposal, and then onto the turntable for shedding. But is doesn't resemble any prototype, and after looking at it for a while, despite wanting a second building to shed locos that did not fit the theme I am trying to anchor to, I just felt it looked like trying to fit too much onto the space I had.

 

So I tried to shuffle things around a little. The coaling stage stays put - it is fed from a trailing turnout off the ramp that comes up from the storage tracks (that is the line shown in blue). The MPD location is constrained by the viaduct that curves around to the right from the bottom of the page, and the doorway (which is the blue line to the right). I have added 500mm bars in red on the revisions, to give a sense of scale. For SCARM purposes, most turnouts were Large Radius Peco Code 75's - in reality I plan to cut and shut turnouts a bit, so this really is just a planning guide, not a tracklaying plan.

 

post-8688-0-22939600-1354360856_thumb.jpg

Eight road NE style shed, simplified trackwork

For this next incarnation, I removed the four road shed, increased the main structure to match Stockton's eight roads, but tried to keep the coal and ash roads intact. I don't like how the shed must be accessed via the turntable - although joining the track next to the bottom of the shed with the track next to the ash road - or even combining them - would be a work around to this. So I tinkered some more:

 

post-8688-0-68650500-1354360834_thumb.jpg

Eight road NE style shed, using double slips to try and decrease restrictions to movements

Adding a pair of double slips increases the flexibility of movements a lot. But I fear that by getting to this point, I am more or less back to where I started: loads of tracks, and no character or discernable heritage.

 

post-8688-0-00903900-1354360883_thumb.jpg

Eight road NE style shed, trying to follow the track plan for Stockton as close as possible

So I then went back to first principles. I don't have the length to get a full Stockton plan to fit, but if I keep the basics there, I can see an arrival side and a departure side to the MPD, and the whole plan, whilst not a carbon copy, has a more open feel to it, that I think may work out. The compromise is that I probably need to now develop a small "stabling point" for the diesel locos I plan to keep. This may be worked into one of the corners of the room up near the station - or possibly in the no-mans land between the approach to the two bridges just to the north of Northmoor (to the left of the views above).

 

I have not spent a huge amount of time troubleshooting these - so if anyone sees obvious flaws, or would like to suggest improvements, I'm of an open mind!

 

N.B. Clicking on the images above will open them out to a more readable size. :D

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Edited by jukebox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott - there must be some plans of the prototype out there. I'd stick closely to the "real thing" and add a few roads, if you see fit.

 

I quite like your overall concept, but sometimes "a little bit less is more". As long as you have plenty of operational interest / storage you don't need to fill the whole area with rail.

 

I'm sure you know all of what I've just said. To me, the prototype has the final say.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

If you are looking for prototype shed layouts I can recommend "BR Steam Motive Power Depots - North Eastern Region" by Paul Bolger (Book Law Publications). Drop me a PM if you want more details.

Regards,

Brian.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott - there must be some plans of the prototype out there. I'd stick closely to the "real thing" and add a few roads, if you see fit.

 

I quite like your overall concept, but sometimes "a little bit less is more". As long as you have plenty of operational interest / storage you don't need to fill the whole area with rail.

 

I'm sure you know all of what I've just said. To me, the prototype has the final say.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

 

Hi Scott,

 

I have to say I find myself agreeing with Jeff 100% here. To expand the prototype theme a little, most prototype MPDs (certainly anything of medium sized and above) were designed with a very definite 'flow' around the site in order to make loco movements as efficient as possible and to avoid conflicting movements. Depots were working sites (not a place to parade nice looking locos!) with certain activities to be accomplished in a certain time and booked departure times to be achieved. Congestion was the biggest fear, leading to delays and the inevitable questions from 'on high'!

 

It follows therefore that dead-end sidings which locos had to reverse back out of again, having performed their allotted task (eg ash disposal) were not an aid to a smooth running depot. Much preferred was a one way 'loop' system, upon which the various tasks (ash disposal, coal, water, etc) were located and the locos moved from one to another in the same direction. Sometimes the turntable would form the reversal at one end of the 'loop'. Generally (as you have already alluded to) the main shed would not be directly accessed from the turntable. Not only could this lead to congestion but if the turntable was out of action (a not infrequent occurence) then locos would be 'trapped' and unable to leave shed for their allotted duties.

 

Having said all this(!) I am not familiar with Stockton shed layout and it may well be the 'exception to the rule' that disproves everything I've just said!

 

I'd be interested to see a plan of the prototype as I'd then be able to offer a more specific suggestion in terms of a possible layout for your model.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff - I don't disagree. That's probably why the third revision seems, for the present, to be a fair compromise.

 

Brian - yes, I have that as a reference (and the Eastern region volume as well), as well has some of the BR-ills that deal with NE sheds that have been handy to see "how it was done" as it were.

 

Robert - I'll attach a version of the LNER shed plan below. The issue is that I don't quite have the length needed to use larger turnouts and still get the shed to the left of the space I have. Using a large radius turnout off the mainline to access the yard, and the curving viaduct on the left end up restricting the site quit signifigantly.

 

The driver for the larger radius turnouts even in the shed is accesibility for kit-built locos, and also to try and eliminate some of the toy-like aspects of some shed models. The compromise may well be to try and plan access to just two or three roads of the shed using either larger turnouts or the straight leg of smaller turnouts, and then incorporate medium and small turnouts to get the geometry to make the rest fir. Or possiblly rotate the MPD clockwise though about 15 degrees and not have it strictly parallel to the mainlnes.

 

I shall plot a couple of these out at 1:1 and see how they shape up before I make any more revisions.

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

 

post-8688-0-43870500-1354430785_thumb.jpg

Stockton MPD trackplan in LNER days; red bars are 500mm at 4mm scale, same scale as my SCARM outputs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott,

 

Hmmm! I've been studying the actual depot track plan in comparison to yours - all very interesting.

 

Interesting to see how the turntable was 'off to one side' on the prototype - it would be good to replicate that I think to capture the look. It's also a mere 45foot turntable. This would help tremendously with your space challenge - but I suspect you will be wanting a larger one than that!

 

To be honest, I'm not convinced by the large radius point argument for a depot. Kit-built locos should cope perfectly OK with medium points, whilst appearance-wise I think many depot yards had tight (and badly laid!) trackwork - the longer radius, smoother points were more typical of mainlines. By using the two types of points respectively on a layout you can replicate this contrast.

 

I notice that all your plans have a separate ash pit road which isn't apparent on the actual Stockton shed plan. I'm sure they must have had the facility somewhere(!) It's not inconceivable that the ash pit was actually on the coal road so that both tasks were performed in the same location? Whichever way, if you could lose that additional road, that might give more flexibility to put the shed building where it actually was. I like the idea of angling the shed building at say 15degs - things not parallel can often look more visually appealing.

 

It'll be a few days before I have a chance but I can sketch a few alternative ideas if you like - it's so much easier to draw than describe!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.