brianusa Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 I'm intrigued how you can get away with all this in the front room! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 7, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 7, 2014 I'm intrigued how you can get away with all this in the front room! Brian. Single gentleman at present Brian! My house, my rules! Regards, Nick. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DLT Posted August 7, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 7, 2014 (and I agree, Moonraker was definitely Flemming's finest, such a shame the film was so completely awful) I've not read the book myself, but I agree that the film was awful. I thought For Your Eyes Only was the best of the Roger Moore period. Sorry for drifting off, Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 The reason this formation was chosen over the first option, was for viewing purposes, as the station clings to the side of a very steep hill. So if we opted for the reverse curve approach the layout would be view from the higher side of the hill, if that makes sense, looking down into the valley below, which nor Iain, myself or other DRAG members thought would be very good! I'm confused - which side is the hill - on the up platform side or the down platform side? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 7, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 7, 2014 (edited) I'm confused - which side is the hill - on the up platform side or the down platform side? Behind the down platform, looking towards the wall. The station was built up on the hillside. Edited August 7, 2014 by Brinkly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Ah, I see, so from the operating area, you're actually viewing 'up the valley'. (I can see the geological dilemma with the overall arc of the curve.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 7, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 7, 2014 Ah, I see, so from the operating area, you're actually viewing 'up the valley'. (I can see the geological dilemma with the overall arc of the curve.) Yeah, basically the hill has been a real issue! If you look back at the original post the photos show part of the hill behind the down platform shelter, it is quite high, about 35 ft give or take a bit and is almost sheer. Originally it was a small quarry for local stone, which I believe was there before the railway, but don't quote me on that! Regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 The platforms themselves are on a similar curve to the prototype, what we, or really Iain did, was to curve the bridge section the wrong way and curve the refuge sidings more than they should be. Unfortunately there was no way that a 'scale' version would fit in the space intended for the layout - it would have been close to 34 feet! Hi Nick, Although I understand the problem, I agree with Miss P that the reverse curve through the platforms doesn't look right. It would not have been built like that, when it could just as easily have been built straight. It also means that the sight line from the signal box is obstructed by the station building. When you can't fit a prototype plan in the available length, Templot has an option to wrap a scanned track plan image into a corner on a defined curve, see: http://templot.com/companion/index.html?wrap_picture_shape_to_curve.htm I don't know if that would have helped, but I doubt it would have produced such an obvious kink in the platforms. The catch points on the left look very odd in a passenger line, and seem to be facing the wrong way to act as a trap? Trap points are normally used only on goods lines. Are they perhaps sprung catch points for the gradient? A photo of them in that location would be interesting. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hi Martin, Thanks for your post. With regard to the reverse curve, which part are you referring to, the end of the platforms looking towards the refuge sindings, or the bridge end? With regard to the catch at the bridge end, I believe it is a catch, trap, not sure of the terminology, but I do have a photo showing it. Bare with me as it will require scanning. Templot looks lovely in that respect, but I hate to say it, find it very difficult to use (even being 28 and IT literate) so the thought of changing the track plan around now really doesn't trill me! Nor I'm sure Maurice who has spent such a long time cutting timber! Would changing the geometry not result in a complete redesign of the boards, or am I missing something? Regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Can I bring my Grassmaster over? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Can I bring my Grassmaster over? Soon sir, soon! There's another foam board to go behind the current set up to add an extra 12' or so of depth, so lots of lovely grassy moorland to create. Regards, Nick. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Thank you Paul! I was searching for that plan, but couldn't find it. This was another reason for choosing Horrabridge as the prototype to model - it has some unusual features! Regards, Nick. Edited August 8, 2014 by Brinkly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Martin, The Horrabridge Signal Box diagram shows the catch point as shown on Iain's drawing. Note that the down loop points are set normal for the up line, which is not a common arrangement but was seen along with the catch point arrangement shown when the loop was at the foot of a gradient. Hi Paul, Many thanks for that. Presumably then it is a sprung catch point(s)? The detail on the lo-res diagram is too small to read. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Hi Martin, Thanks for your post. With regard to the reverse curve, which part are you referring to, the end of the platforms looking towards the refuge sidings, or the bridge end? Hi Nick, What I meant was that if you were building a railway from A to B, you would need a very good reason for not following the straight line between them: Possible reasons would be that the building on the platform is a church or burial ground or some such unmovable obstacle. Or maybe the curve would be a legacy from an earlier closed line, such as one following line C. It is for you to decide whether to modify anything. It would not be a big change to the baseboard because you already have a platform to support in that location. edit: sorry, clicked too soon. regards, Martin. Edited August 8, 2014 by martin_wynne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 8, 2014 Easy to adapt track plan on your boards.....no worries. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hi Martin, I'm just going on the photos of what I have. Personally I feel that is quite a curve. Regards, Nick. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Hi Paul, Many thanks for that. Presumably then it is a sprung catch point(s)? The detail on the lo-res diagram is too small to read. regards, Martin. They were spring slotted catch points Martin - you can just make out the associated ground disc on the SRS diagram on the 'net and no doubt arranged in that manner to allow an Up freight to shunt without derailing on the catch point (the Up Starting Signal had a Shunt Ahead lower arm subsidiary which effectively confirms my point about shunting). The arrangement of the siding traps is unusual together with the associated siting of their point indicators. The only reason for this arrangement that I can come up with is that it kept the lineside clear of impediments for shunting with a rope on the two sidings but there might have been some engineering explanation. It is going to need some careful spacing to make it look sensible on a model but I'm sure Nick will have that sorted. However now seeing Nick's latest couple of pics it certainly makes more sense on the Up side as there would otherwise be quite a distance between the running line point and the trap, but was it altered I wonder? Edited August 8, 2014 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hi Martin, I'm just going on the photos of what I have. Personally I feel that is quite a curve. Hi Nick, Thanks for the pics. Yes, the curve is clearly needed on the prototype because of the alignment of the tracks at each end. But having changed them, you no longer need a curved platform between them. If you want to retain it, you really need to provide a reason. Can you put some ancient monument on the platform? Or some landowners requirement to avoid something? Or add the remains of a line C as in my diagram? regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Moorland, lovely, we can match fibres to the location! You going to need masses,of Springside fern etches as well! It may be worth having your own done, be a fraction of the cost! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hi Nick, Thanks for the pics. Yes, the curve is clearly needed on the prototype because of the alignment of the tracks at each end. But having changed them, you no longer need a curved platform between them. If you want to retain it, you really need to provide a reason. Can you put some ancient monument on the platform? Or some landowners requirement to avoid something? Or add the remains of a line C as in my diagram? regards, Martin. Hi Martin, I'm so confused it is untrue! Please don't think I'm being rude, I'm not and I really do appreciate your and Miss P's input. I'm really not sure about a straight platform when the prototype is curved, part of the appeal of the station layout is the curved nature of the design. I presume when they built the line in the 1850s that it was built that way because it was the cheapest option for the land available. The model is a compromise; as I said in my opening post a 'scale' version just wasn't an option with the space I have. I understand the curve entering the station is the wrong way and a wiggle has been created, but I put my faith in Iain and I am very happy with the design. It is a compromise, I accept that. The layout probably won't be exhibited widely as I haven't the time. I know Maurice has made duplicate board ends for a possible future exhibition board, but this is really home layout, which has to fit in the space I have. I don't want to loose the feel of the place by straitening the platforms out. Kind regards, Nick. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 I don't know if this helps. The road is where the track bed is, and you can see the old goods shed in the background. The hillside is quite steep, made from local stone. If you carry on going along the road towards the cattle grid, the road is where 'C' is on your map, the track carrying on over the bridge towards Yelverton. Regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Just playing catch up with the tthread here.... ther does look to be some lovley stuff going off in Devon As I'm discovering, nothing is simple or easy! We had/have our own ways of doing things! Regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I can appreciate the points made by Miss P and Martin, but I think they ignore what Nick is trying to achieve. I may be wrong, but I think that is to capture the essence of Horrabridge and, to me, the curve through the platforms is an essential characteristic of the station. I spent about three years fiddling with alternative plans for Camerton where there is a similar curve around the colliery spoil tip, but I needed a reverse curve to lead into an L shape quite unlike the prototype. After trying to build two versions of this I gave up and went back to a linear layout simply because the reverse curve was not in tune with the spirit of the place. However, I don't think anything so drastic is needed here. I'm not convinced that contrived excuses are needed if the line is running along the edge of a hillside, reverse curves are hardly unknown on the Devon brances. If anything, I might try to amend the curve at the left hand end of the plan so as to straighten the section between the bridge and level crossing and so reduce the effect of the reverse curve so close to the station. At the other end of the station, the tracks between the goods shed and the start of the retaining wall might be pushed back and the top of the slope behind the quarry moved towards the edge of the board. Nick 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 8, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 8, 2014 Getting back to the catch point. I knew I had a photo somewhere. I'm sure more learned men will know what it is. Also shows the curved approach from the bridge entering the platforms. Regards, Nick. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas G Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 What if the front of the model was the other side of the station so the main station building was to the rear - couldn't you keep the prototype curves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now