Launceston Branch: Horrabridge

[Brinkly]

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?

 

Thanks Douglas,

 

I think I'm just going to go with what I have. It has taken me five years to get this far and I really don't fancy changing things drastically now. As it is I've spent too long this morning discussing, when I could be 'doing'. So I'm calling time; it's compromised, I'm happy, so be it!

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[Douglas G]

Thanks Douglas,

 

I think I'm just going to go with what I have. It has taken me five years to get this far and I really don't fancy changing things drastically now. As it is I've spent too long this morning discussing, when I could be 'doing'. So I'm calling time; it's compromised, I'm happy, so be it!

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

 

Quite right - Rule 1 (it's my railway) always applies.

 

There is a general tendency to want to have any hill or high ground at the back of a layout or station, including in many published plans, to facilitate the disguising of the backscene. I had a similar issue with designing my model of Dulverton. To get a curve through the station that came to the front at both ends, I had to have the highest ground at the front and the lowest at the back. Whether the join with the background will look OK, I have yet to see.

[Earl Bathurst]

Looks to be an interesting layout. Look forward to following this as it progresses.

Scott

[Miss Prism]

When did Horrabridge get its tubular signal posts?

[Brinkly]

When did Horrabridge get its tubular signal posts?

 

Pass. The photo above of the 14xx and 45xx is dated 1958.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Martin,

 

I'm so confused it is untrue! .... part of the appeal of the station layout is the curved nature of the design.

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm sorry to have confused you!

 

You have hit the conflict between model railways as art, and model railways as engineering. It is your railway to resolve that conflict in any way to please yourself.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Captain Kernow]

Getting back to the catch point. I knew I had a photo somewhere. I'm sure more learned men will know what it is.

 

It seems to be a pretty similar situation to the sprung catch point at the London-end of the Up platform at Blue Anchor, as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread. Presumably to protect the Up (?) platform from runaways coming from Yelverton (I hadn't realised that the gradient was so severe in that direction).

[Captain Kernow]

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:

 

nick_plan.jpg

 

 

I can't upload photos etc. from the computer I'm currently using, but could the whole 'platform on a curve' thing be served by running the two platform lines even further 'north' of Martin's red line, so that the topmost platform line might run through where the station buildings are currently shown, or maybe a bit further higher up, thus ensuring that the line remains on a continuous curve through the station?

[Mallard60022]

I hope you can get your curves sorted; bit frustrating not having huge amounts of space isn't it?

However, I must just tell you that looking back at that 'base board' construction technique has really given me great inspiration for my proposed work. I've been wondering for ages how I might accommodate cuttings and embankments in a lightweight fashion and without using excessive amounts of timber.

Is this the 'open frame' method so often talked about?

Would you mind if I copy the pics in #24 and maybe some others to my layout files?

Phil

Edited August 8, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Brinkly]

I hope you can get your curves sorted; bit frustrating not having huge amounts of space isn't it?

However, I must just tell you that looking back at that 'base board' construction technique has really given me great inspiration for my proposed work. I've been wondering for ages how I might accommodate cuttings and embankments in a lightweight fashion and without using excessive amounts of timber.

Is this the 'open frame' method so often talked about?

Would you mind if I copy the pics in #24 and maybe some others to my layout files?

Phil

 

No problem Phil. I'll take some photos showing the sides for you later.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

[Brinkly]

I can't upload photos etc. from the computer I'm currently using, but could the whole 'platform on a curve' thing be served by running the two platform lines even further 'north' of Martin's red line, so that the topmost platform line might run through where the station buildings are currently shown, or maybe a bit further higher up, thus ensuring that the line remains on a continuous curve through the station?

 

Wouldn't that muck the approach up?

 

Doesn't Tim Venton's Clutton (second photo) have something similar to my plan? To me it seems like a lot of fuss about nothing.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Brinkly

[Andrew P]

Afternoon Nick, I've been hovering since my posting yesterday and watching the debate with interest, I say stick with your gut feeling, if you change from your plan and it looks wrong you will always regret it.

 

I was born in Plymouth but moved away when I was 3 so I don't remember the area but I bet a few quid my Parents traveled the line and would have remembered it well.

 

I hope you don't mind but  have copied the three baseboard pics into Kirkby Luneside in the Settle and Carlile section as Jeff, (Phisicsman) will be starting his new layout in the next few Months and baseboard construction has been one of the topics we have been discussing in there as he tends to use 6 x 4 timbers, hahaha only joking, but he does tend to enjoy using a lot of trees and over engineering things a tad.

 

Bodge.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Andrew P

[Brinkly]

Afternoon Nick, I've been hovering since my posting yesterday and watching the debate with interest, I say stick with your gut feeling, if you change from your plan and it looks wrong you will always regret it.

 

Thanks Andy,

 

What I want to try and achieve is the feeling of the station. It won't be perfect and I hope I didn't give that impression in my opening post.

 

My fear currently is that if I change things to make it look more inline with the rule book, it loose the feel. I don't know what it is, but Horrabridge is quite magical to me. The real version seemed to twist the rules a bit, look at the catch point, bridge on the curve, gradient and so on. When all is said and done it is a model, a toy train set. I'm sure within a few minutes of searching on here one could find a dozen layouts which capture the look of a place, but throw the rule book away for certain features, as mine will!

 

I really hope I don't upset anyone with this post, it certainly isn't intentional.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

 

Edit - Typo.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Brinkly

[NHY 581]

Thanks Andy,

 

What I want to try and achieve is the feeling of the station. It won't be perfect and I hope I didn't give that impression in my opening post.

 

My fear currently is that I will change things to make it look more inline with the rule book and by doing so it loose the feel. I don't know what it is, but Horrabridge is quite magical to me. The real version seemed to twist the rules a bit, look at the catch point, bridge on the curve, gradient and so on. When all is said and done it is a model, a toy train set. I'm sure within a few minutes of searching on here one could find a dozen layouts which capture the look of a place, but throw the rule book away for certain features, as mine will!

 

I really hope I don't upset anyone with this post, it certainly isn't intentional.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

Nick,

Ultimately you are building it to satisfy yourself, no one else. To recreate something which is special to you. It will not have such meaning to others.

This has all the makings of a splendid layout, one of which you can be justly proud of, and one which will take you to a very different place. Somewhere we are unable to go in this day and age.

 

Should there be those who take umbrage at this then that is their lookout. Your intention is to share with us the adventure you are having building YOUR layout. Let's not worry about upsetting some narrow minded donkey who doesn't agree with how you are doing something.

 

This is your 'train set' which is to be enjoyed.

 

Rob

[Blandford1969]

Firstly this looks like a really interesting layout and i'll look forward to seeing it develop. You have probably seen this one, but if not hope its of interest https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=29644579@N07&q=horrabridge

 

Kind regards

 

Duncan

[Captain Kernow]

Wouldn't that muck the approach up?

 

Doesn't Tim Venton's Clutton (second photo) have something similar to my plan? To me it seems like a lot of fuss about nothing.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

I don't think so, now that I'm back home, I'll try to illustrate what I mean. I suspect (without knowing for sure) that the gist of some of the debate on here is that the prototype platforms didn't have a reverse curve in them - would that be correct?

[brianusa]

As I was very familiar with this area and the line, this discussion and the layout has great interest for me.  However  it has convinced me that my eventual  settling on a tinplate layout was my best option.  I had dabbled in N - too fiddly.  Tried OO, Buckfastleigh and Staverton with mild success which faced some of the same problems as this one as well as similar criticisms.  Then a foray into LGB which was really too big for indoors but in the end opted for O tinplate because one doesn't worry too much if things aren't prototypical or exact.  Much easier!

 

But back to Nick's Horrabridge; I would be happy to have such a layout just as it is and eager to follow its course to completion.

 

Brian.

[Tim V]

Well I'm going to put in my thoughts (as I've been quoted).

 

I see nothing wrong with the plan and the curves. What you are trying to do is capture the look and feel of Horrabridge, which I think the plan does successfully. Outside of the station area, there are compromises, for example the real thing does not dive around a ridiculously sharp curve. If there was any attempt to straighten out the platforms, it wouldn't be Horrabridge, and would end up looking like a lot of other layouts. Stick with it Nick, and never mind the white noise.

[The Stationmaster]

CK, you are correct, except the signal box diagram in the 'Minehead Branch', by Ian Coleby (Lightmoor Press) shows that at Blue Anchor there was no slot on the catch point.  I guess there is no need to run wrong line through the Up loop at BA, unlike at Horrabridge.  At both locations, protection of the down line is by the down loop point lying normal in what appears to the wrong direction; i.e. the up loop line. In the same book there is a reproduction of the Additional Instructions for Blue Anchor Signal box, which states for Regulation 4, 'The clearing point for down trains is the down inner home signal'.  That stopped me in my tracks until I concluded that before acceptance of a down train, the down loop point and the associated facing point lock must be reversed.  No doubt The Stationmaster will give us a definitive answer.

It's in some respect a rather odd Instruction for Blue Anchor as the Down Inner Home Signal is blindingly obviously the Clearing Point assuming a 'normal' single line crossing place arrangement.  However the GWR & BR Regulations referred specifically to the Starting Signal as the Clearing Point at a crossing place so I'm fairly sure that in the case of Blue Anchor we are talking more about getting the nomenclature to match the signal name rather than anything else.  In any event the points would - under GW Regulations - have to be set towards the relevant loop and bolted, the BR version effectively means the same at a single line crossing station but does not read quite so proscriptively.

[Brinkly]

Thanks gents! I'm sticking with the plan.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[westerner]

I'm pleased to hear it Nick. From the photos, Horrabridge has a curved platform and therefore so should your layout. Nuff said. As somebody has already said Rule 1 applies. like you I feel it ahs been a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

 

Go for it and I for one will be following.

Edited August 8, 2014 by westerner

[martin_wynne]

like you I feel it as been a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

 

It hasn't been any sort of storm. Nor has anything been criticized, or anyone taken umbrage. Or any of the other negative suggestions in recent posts.

 

RMweb is a strange place -- I've noticed this tendency before. Unless you post "yes, me too, that's wonderful" someone is determined to see some great confrontation or disagreement -- and then make a post urging that it should be ignored.

 

We had a friendly and I hope intelligent discussion about two different approaches to model railway building. A discussion, no more. That's what a forum web site exists for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Craigw]

It hasn't been any sort of storm. Nor has anything been criticized, or anyone taken umbrage. Or any of the other negative suggestions in recent posts.

 

RMweb is a strange place -- I've noticed this tendency before. Unless you post "yes, me too, that's wonderful" someone is determined to see some great confrontation or disagreement -- and then make a post urging that it should be ignored.

 

We had a friendly and I hope intelligent discussion about two different approaches to model railway building. A discussion, no more. That's what a forum web site exists for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

I think you have raised a very good point here.

 

Trying to fit a prototype station into a given space can create "opportunities" (I use this term instead of saying problems at work!) and I always took what yourself and Miss prism had said as that the changes in curvature from doing that had altered the context of some of the features that existed at the real station. So, if you  "correct " for the alignment changes you lose some of the essential characteristics of the real thing. It is indeed a difficult choice.

 

That being said, I have a bit of a thing for Iain Rice plans. He has produced some wonderfully inspiring ideas and I do like the look of this.

 

Western branches are always talked about as a modelling cliche, yet so very few of them are ever done properly. If you follow through in this form Nick, with correct stock I think it will be a ripper. The fact that it is going to be P4 puts the tick in the final box for me.

 

Craig W

[Brinkly]

It hasn't been any sort of storm. Nor has anything been criticized, or anyone taken umbrage. Or any of the other negative suggestions in recent posts.

I can see where Alan is coming from, but as you said no one, I hope, has been upset - I'm certainly not.

 

We had a friendly and I hope intelligent discussion about two different approaches to model railway building. A discussion, no more. That's what a forum web site exists for.

Quite. If I had the space, the plan would probably be quite different. I think this way I get the best of both world, a roundy-round layout, which should capture the feel of the prototype.

 

And I also hate 'me too threads'. If nothing else yesterday's discussion has enlightened me on correct railway practice, operation and if I do get round to exhibiting the layout, it would be worth having a completely different board with a more prototypical alignment.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[Jock67B]

Morning Nick,

Found your thread thanks to a comment by AndyP elsewhere on RMweb so don't be surprised when a few 'likes' suddenly appear from a stranger! Most impressed so far and as my own modelling is unlikely to start till the end of the year due to illness, I shall look on with great interest! Can you tell me what thickness ply Maurice used on the track bed surfaces? Thank you for the inspiration,

Kind regards,

Jock.

PS, find it confusing why some members have to take such a critical stance - glad to see you're sticking to your guns! I have admired Ian Rice's work for years now and I'm certain his usual deep thought and application would have been applied here! Tad late to be suggesting such big changes when the boards are made and the track laying begun?

Regards,

Jack.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Jock67B