Castle Aching

[Donw]

James your concern about watching the train running to CA is easy to fix the track the cassette fixes to is switch to the CA panel you set up the train walk to the CA panel and drive the train towards you. It would be easy to arrange something to tell you it had reached the cassettes so when driving out of CA you watch it run. If the train is from Birchingham it can take the trough road besides the cassettes you watch it leave Birch and as it reaches the trhough road it is a short walk to CA to watch it arrive.

 

Don

[uax6]

One thing to think about is where do you want to view the railway from. It might be that your plan actually prevents effective viewing, and its not something that we naturally think about in the design stage.

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, Donw said:

James your concern about watching the train running to CA is easy to fix the track the cassette fixes to is switch to the CA panel you set up the train walk to the CA panel and drive the train towards you. It would be easy to arrange something to tell you it had reached the cassettes so when driving out of CA you watch it run. If the train is from Birchingham it can take the trough road besides the cassettes you watch it leave Birch and as it reaches the trhough road it is a short walk to CA to watch it arrive.

 

Don

 

Yes, it struck me that that there should be a through road through the upper cassette yard (as the plan is orientated) to CA.

 

Lower Yard is Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea terminus and the two branches to Staithe and Fakeney.

 

Upper Yard is (1) Astride the direct route between CA and BM, hence the through line. and, (2) represents the triangular junction from Aching Constable, hence GER, Norwich and Bury traffic and Bishop's Lynn and Wolfringham branches, and, (3) the MGN junction.  

 

So:

 

- Traffic from the Fakeney & Staithe branches goes from Lower Yard to BM and back

 

- Most CA traffic runs between BM, via through road in Upper Yard, to CA and/or Achingham

 

- Of course, traffic runs between CA and Achingham, entirely onstage

 

- Ex-GER, Ex-MGN, ex-Bury and ex-Norwich traffic runs from the Upper Yard to the Lower Yard (Next-the-Sea) and back.

 

- Any traffic from the GER, Bishop's Lynn tramway and Wolfringham to CA and/or Achingham runs from Upper Yard

 

17 minutes ago, uax6 said:

One thing to think about is where do you want to view the railway from. It might be that your plan actually prevents effective viewing, and its not something that we naturally think about in the design stage.

 

Andy G

 

Pretty happy with the was CA and Achingham are viewed, as I've pretty much stuck to how I'd envisaged them.

 

I'm really liking how BM could sit, with the ability to view from both sides.

[ian]

At the risk of inserting a cat amongst the pigeons, how about double deck?

 

Not like the US basement behemoths, more like Jas Millham's S scale Yaxbury branch

www.s-scale.org.uk/gallery5.htm

 

There the train works along from the junction through a scenic run and station to a cassette where the train is lifted to the upper level where it meanders through anothe station and scenery before reaching the terminus.

 

Given that there will only be one train in motion at a time on the layout the lifting a cassette from lower level (operated and viewed from a seat) to upper level (operated and viewed standing up) wouldn't be to onerous and would give you roughly double the baseboard area to play with.

[wagonman]

Just to keep the record straight, Holt Junction did have road access – it had to as there was considerable goods traffic there – and passenger access to the island pla=tform via a footbridge.

 

 

Holt Junc.pdf

[Donw]

9 hours ago, wagonman said:

Just to keep the record straight, Holt Junction did have road access – it had to as there was considerable goods traffic there – and passenger access to the island pla=tform via a footbridge.

 

 

Holt Junc.pdf 1.35 MB · 4 downloads

 

Not as originally built. Opened 1861 access added 1875. Good shed may date from then

 

Don

[ianathompson]

10 hours ago, ian said:

At the risk of inserting a cat amongst the pigeons, how about double deck?

 

Not like the US basement behemoths, more like Jas Millham's S scale Yaxbury branch

www.s-scale.org.uk/gallery5.htm

 

There the train works along from the junction through a scenic run and station to a cassette where the train is lifted to the upper level where it meanders through anothe station and scenery before reaching the terminus.

 

Given that there will only be one train in motion at a time on the layout the lifting a cassette from lower level (operated and viewed from a seat) to upper level (operated and viewed standing up) wouldn't be to onerous and would give you roughly double the baseboard area to play with.

 

I think, without checking,  that Peter Denny built a train lift for an early version of Buckingham.

The construction was covered in the OPC two part series of books.

Jas Millham's version was described in an edition of MRJ and they are also occasionally featured in Model Railroader.

These mechanical contraptions  appear to be rather fearsome beasts demanding accurate alignment and smooth movement between levels.

 

I have to declare an interest here as my own layout is of double, and in places triple, deck construction.

I considered some of the pros and cons in an article on the website.

I had around 400 square feet for the layout but feel that this is about the minimum for a round the walls helix.

The continuous gradient is about 1 in 36 which is a little steep for rural Norfolk!

 

A removable cassette, as suggested by ian in the post, and by Iain Rice, amonst others, that can be plugged into different levels is a simple solution.

This apparently ideal choice does have some drawbacks however.

Rice's suggestion (in one of the US layout design books) was based on a converted Ikea book case.

Obviously the shelves were stacked at different levels and a short cassette was used for access.

Short was the operative word.

Train lengths were very limited, perhaps a shunter and a couple of wagons, or a switcher and a couple of cars to use the appropriate terms.

 

I use a cassette for a minor upper fiddleyard onto which I simply drive the trains and unload to a nearby shelf.

I would not like to contemplate moving it betweeen levels.

It is around five feet long and difficult to manoeuvre in a tight space, and that is without a train upon it.

The longer the cassete becomes, the heavier and more unwieldy it gets.

There would also be the problem of securing "in transit" trains so that they did not roll off when the cassette was moved.

You would need to consider how much it weighed and the space required to switch it between levels.

There would also be the possibility of dropping it, along with the train.

 

There is also the additional problem of driving the train "onto the cassette" in the upper position to find that this is not there!

The train, or at least the loco, then nose dives onto the lower level.

There are obvious simple solutions to this but they need to be bombproof and to work every time.

Relying on memory to place a physical or electrical "buffer stop" in the way of the train would not inspire confidence in that the inevitable would eventually happen.

There is also the drawback that this procedure would have to be followed for every train.

Whilst ihis might be acceptable for an occasional service I imagine that it would soon pall as intensity increased.

 

From a personal point of view I dislike the idea that the train's journey cannot be completed without resort to mechanical contrivance.

I have a similar aversion to small "bitsa" layouts that rely upon a sector plate to represent various points in the track fromation.

It somehow strikes me as "cheating"!

 

I suppose that, if there is a theme to this post, it is that double decking definitely comes with some form of cost.

On the other hand it effectively doubles your layout space.

 

Ian T

 

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

I think that if I redraw carefully, I might fit the new layout into the originally planned footprint of the shed (25' x 17' (widest)).  I think I can lose 12" off Achingham (which I had drawn longer than it could have been in the original shed) and move it 1" closer to the curve.   

 

If so, the need to introduce the complexities of two levels only arises should I wish to model more of the system and I heed the sage warnings concerning over-ambition in that quarter.

 

Essentially the new plan means that there will be one additional station, making a total of three, and a second cassette yard, which I am increasingly seeing as a semi-scenic plank (so as not to lose the open feel by bringing sky with a hole in it across the layout.  The major work lies in the number of cassettes, not the 'yards' themselves. 

 

Now, increasing the project by a third is a lot, but, I hope, not too much, and I can leave BM relatively undeveloped whilst concentrating on CA and Achingham. It's more important at this stage to know I have the room necessary to expand.

 

The advantage of re-configuring the WNR route map and building BM is that 'mainline' traffic is no longer limited to the platform length at CA, anymore than is the intensity of services by the fact of a single platform.

 

This makes for longer trains, and, therefore, longer cassettes.  How problematic this might become remains to be seen.

 

For CA, loco cassettes would be, say, 8' 1/4", while train cassettes would be up to, say, 3'6", though most services/cassettes will be under 2'

 

For mainline services, running Cassette Yard to BM to Cassette Yard, loco cassettes of 9' would be required, whereas train cassettes could be up to 4'3",* though, again, most would be shorter, ranging from branch passenger trains of under 18" to a mainline train of five 6-wheelers at 2'6".

 

*4' should get you, say, eight 6-wheelers or seven and a horse box and CCT. I love pre-Grouping coach lengths!

 

Thus, a 5' yard should suffice for cassettes.  It's swinging around the longest that worries me, but even the mainline trains are generally short enough, I hope. Ex-GER, ex-Bury and ex-Norwich trains are intended to be five to six 6-wheelers, so 2'6" to 3' cassettes.  It would seem sensible to standardise at 3' for mainline passenger trains.

 

It is the mainline goods trains that have the potential to be the longest, the maximum 4'3" getting one 16 standard 15' wagons and goods brake. While, again, many, probably most, goods services will be shorter, I feel that I am more likely to run a 15-16 goods train than a 7-8 coach passenger train.

 

As will be apparent, the intention is to have separate loco and train cassettes.  The logic is that the locos turn, the trains don't. That means that train cassettes do not need to be swung round, but must be a manageable length to be lifted off the yard and placed somewhere convenient, preferably under the cassette yard surface. 

 

 I think the shorter cassettes could then be stored across the aisle, as it were, to the yard, as turning with them in the space available is not really an issue. 

 

In some ways the new plan is two different layouts, the mainline and the CA-Achingham branch, which two layouts are linked, with services running between the two. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling

[Northroader]

A four foot cassette is plenty to handle. I’ve done them longer in 0 gauge, but particularly if you wish to turn them round, it all becomes rather unwieldy. I have a square loop handle away from each end, and at some point you need to change hands and to rest them down, so there’s a yard full of cassettes with handles with flat tops ready for this.

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Northroader said:

A four foot cassette is plenty to handle. I’ve done them longer in 0 gauge, but particularly if you wish to turn them round, it all becomes rather unwieldy. I have a square loop handle away from each end, and at some point you need to change hands and to rest them down, so there’s a yard full of cassettes with handles with flat tops ready for this.

 

Yes, I can imagine.

 

I think that I would only need very few 4' cassettes, with most being 2' for branch traffic and 3' for the mainline. 

 

It should not be necessary to turn any of them, except, of course, a local passenger service running CA - AC - BM, because the triangular junction will have turned the train, with the loco having to turn and run round at AC! 

 

For that, and only that, service, a train TT would be ideal!

 

[Andy Hayter]

Having built a small layout that used cassettes up to 1m long, I have to agree totally with the comments about turning the cassette.  Keep it level. Don't hit anything.  Don't drop it, Do it smoothly or those nice fine flanges will come off the rail.

 

I eventually came to the conclusion that it was a mistake.  A 1 m cassette needs a 1m turning circle, so why not install a 1m train turntable?  That will not be possible in all locations but it is worth considering.  

[Donw]

It is the turning that gets difficult. You should have something to stop a train running off the ends while handling. My ABC motor gearbox powered locos only need a very slight tilt to set off. Locos with worm drive are not affected unless the slope is so great they just slide off. 

Having separate ones for the locos works well you can easily change a loco or put it on t'other end. It worked ok on the club 0 gauge layout at Warley. I had designed the cassettes with a connector on the right hand side when facing an end so two cassettes will clip together either way round.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

Yes, I was actually thinking of a 3' diameter revolving table top adjacent to the Upper Yard just to sit the CA - AC - BM train on in order to turn it!

 

Otherwise, I am hoping it is a case of lifting train cassettes  on and off the baseboard from and to shelves below.  No need for turning except for the short loco cassettes. 

[drduncan]

You don't turn the train cassette, you have a separate loco cassette that is turned (much easier to handle)!  If you get a chance watch how the operators on Richard Butler's Westcliffe don't turn the train cassettes at all (at nearly 48" I know from experience they get heavy...) but swapping locos end for end using the separate cassette is a doddle.  Only the brake vans on goods trains get any handling.

D

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, drduncan said:

You don't turn the train cassette, you have a separate loco cassette that is turned (much easier to handle)!  If you get a chance watch how the operators on Richard Butler's Westcliffe don't turn the train cassettes at all (at nearly 48" I know from experience they get heavy...) but swapping locos end for end using the separate cassette is a doddle.  Only the brake vans on goods trains get any handling.

D

 

Yes, that is very much the intention, as I hope was clear. I realise a number of people have talked about the difficulty of turning the train cassette, but that was never the plan here.

 

The reason for having separate loco cassettes is precisely the need to turn them and place them on the other end of the train without altering the orientation of the stock.

 

There is, however, an exception, I realised; stock running CA - AC - BM, or back the other way, does turn, because AC is at the head of a triangular junction and the train reverses there. There still needs to be a separate loco cassette, however, as the loco needs to turn (or be replaced) and attached to the other end of the train.

 

 

All other services, the stock stays the same way round, so cassettes merely travel between shelf below and baseboard above, without turning, and only the separately cassetted locos are turned. 

[Andy Hayter]

37 minutes ago, drduncan said:

You don't turn the train cassette, you have a separate loco cassette that is turned (much easier to handle)!  If you get a chance watch how the operators on Richard Butler's Westcliffe don't turn the train cassettes at all (at nearly 48" I know from experience they get heavy...) but swapping locos end for end using the separate cassette is a doddle.  Only the brake vans on goods trains get any handling.

D

 

And passenger brake vans for those periods/countries where these were required as a buffer between the steam loco and the passenger coaches.   That is what persuaded me turn full trains -less prototypical but a lot easier.

[Edwardian]

29 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

And passenger brake vans for those periods/countries where these were required as a buffer between the steam loco and the passenger coaches.   That is what persuaded me turn full trains -less prototypical but a lot easier.

 

I expect to run semi-permanent sets of 4 and/or 6-wheelers bracketed by brake vehicles, generally a Brake Third at one end and a Luggage Brake at the other.

 

Handled stock will arise, thus, only where there is 'tail traffic' like horse boxes, carriage trucks or other NPCs, or some through coach or portion added to the service. 

 

A typical movement might be a fast service for Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea, either GER or WNR, that runs Upper Yard - BM - Lower Yard with one or two CCTs/OCTs.  Photographs of Edwardian trains at Hunstanton, for instance, often show such tail traffic.  These would be removed from the returning service.

 

This is an important point, because there will be loose vehicles detached or attached at bot Yard locations, and some where to put them aside must be catered for.  So, then, I need to incorporate a loose vehicles siding - just an unpowered length of plain track laid along the rear - into the Yard design.

 

To mix things up, one could always, say, run a coach or two from Achingham, via CA to Aching Constable, and there join them to, say, an Ex-Bury service for the onward journey to Birchoverham Market. 

[Edwardian]

Another variant.

 

Thus far, I have recognised the relative status of Achingham by suggesting that there are two daily direct services from BM to Achingham (via CA, where the train must reverse)

 

If, however, you were a burgher of Achingham who wished to travel between that place and Norwich, a perfectly reasonable aspiration, so far I've still had you change trains at BM.

 

Achingham is surely a place deserving of a daily through coach, and the BM to Achingham service would be the ideal train to add it, or, perhaps better, add it at AC to a southbound BM - AC - CA - Achingham service.

 

I see these various west Norfolk local services comprises relatively recent, relatively long 'mainline' 4-wheelers (the MGN still ran 'mainline' 4-wheelers), say around the 28' mark and dating from the '80s and '90s, say in rakes of around four coaches (Brake - 1st/2nd Comp - Third - Brake Third).  The through coach would be a 6-wheel Comp of similar vintage.   

[Cunningham Loco & Machine Works]

RE: Tit-Willow. It looks as if your model is of the first locomotive in Japan after the circa 1884 rebuilding.

 

PRIOR TO:

AFTER: 

All information from auto-translated Japanese Wikipedia.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/国鉄150形蒸気機関車

[Edwardian]

Yes, it is certainly the sole Vulcan 2-4-0T, IJGR No.1.  It has been preserved in its rebuilt state, though I am grateful for the second photograph, as I had not seen a contemporary picture of it in its rebuilt state.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling

[drduncan]

12 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Another variant.

 

Thus far, I have recognised the relative status of Achingham by suggesting that there are two daily direct services from BM to Achingham (via CA, where the train must reverse)

 

If, however, you were a burgher of Achingham who wished to travel between that place and Norwich, a perfectly reasonable aspiration, so far I've still had you change trains at BM.

 

Achingham is surely a place deserving of a daily through coach, and the BM to Achingham service would be the ideal train to add it, or, perhaps better, add it at AC to a southbound BM - AC - CA - Achingham service.

 

I see these various west Norfolk local services comprises relatively recent, relatively long 'mainline' 4-wheelers (the MGN still ran 'mainline' 4-wheelers), say around the 28' mark and dating from the '80s and '90s, say in rakes of around four coaches (Brake - 1st/2nd Comp - Third - Brake Third).  The through coach would be a 6-wheel Comp of similar vintage.   

James,

Just a point of pedantry wrt through coaches - normally (I won’t say exclusively because someone will find exceptions) through coaches were brake composites not ‘normal’ composites. To add to the modellers woes in sourcing such vehicles, unless second class had been abolished by the owning railway they would be brake tri-comps to boot. 
Duncan

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, drduncan said:

James,

Just a point of pedantry wrt through coaches - normally (I won’t say exclusively because someone will find exceptions) through coaches were brake composites not ‘normal’ composites. To add to the modellers woes in sourcing such vehicles, unless second class had been abolished by the owning railway they would be brake tri-comps to boot. 
Duncan

 

 

Agree.

 

I had not planned for Brake Comps, but recognise that this is a necessary consequence of a through coach service.

 

The alternative is a pair of coaches, say a Composite and Brake Third or a Composite and Luggage Brake, but, assuming a single coach, it will be a Brake Tri-Comp, the WNR not having abolished Second.

 

That's a bit tight for a 31-32' 6W body. 3/3/2/1 plus a single guard's door and ducket  is possible (e.g. GWR U17), but ideally we'd have double doors for luggage.  The GW managed his with the U22, but with hardly any luggage space (drawings taken from http://penrhos.me.uk/Udiags.shtml).

 

 

 

Judging from the GW examples above (31') I think a 32'-33' body, might be required.  Since some of 6-wheelers in progress are in excess of 34', very much the upper limit for 6-wheelers, I think a , say, 32' or 32'6'' body would be uncontroversial.

 

A lot of the coaches in progress are 'cut and shut' and I can see this one as just such a case.

[Donw]

That would be fine for the WNR coaches working through. However often coaches would be paired with an 'other' company coach working turns about to even up the costs.  You could have some interesting  other coaches. 

 

Don

[drduncan]

I think you are right to draw a distinction between a through coach and a through portion (2 or more coaches). I also think there should be a distinction between WNR through services and foreign though services coming into the WNR. I think we’re I the WNR financial comptroller I’d be aghast at providing specialist coaching stock for internal (ie WNR only)  through services. I’d insist the operating dept cobble together the required number of seats (1/2/3) from standard coaches, so a through portion might be a 2 or 3 compt brk 3rd to give lots of parcel/luggage space with a 4 compt 1/2 composite. 
 

For foreign through workings the destination companies (in each direction) would often alternate who provided the through coach(es). This would provide the WNR with a rationale to have a bogie brake tri comp design (say 40 or 48 ft) to match that provided by the foreign company - which might mean the chief bean counter might have been put in his place!

D

[webbcompound]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

Agree.

 

I had not planned for Brake Comps, but recognise that this is a necessary consequence of a through coach service.

 

The alternative is a pair of coaches, say a Composite and Brake Third or a Composite and Luggage Brake, but, assuming a single coach, it will be a Brake Tri-Comp, the WNR not having abolished Second.

 

That's a bit tight for a 31-32' 6W body. 3/3/2/1 plus a single guard's door and ducket  is possible (e.g. GWR U17), but ideally we'd have double doors for luggage.  The GW managed his with the U22, but with hardly any luggage space (drawings taken from http://penrhos.me.uk/Udiags.shtml).

 

 

 

Judging from the GW examples above (31') I think a 32'-33' body, might be required.  Since some of 6-wheelers in progress are in excess of 34', very much the upper limit for 6-wheelers, I think a , say, 32' or 32'6'' body would be uncontroversial.

 

A lot of the coaches in progress are 'cut and shut' and I can see this one as just such a case.

You could shorten the carriage by making the end compartment a coupe (one bank of seats, windows in end) first, second or third (depending on how you see the traffic flow). The LNWR had several of these type of carriage.