Castle Aching

[St Enodoc]

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

OT but I happened to work this out recently, having seen a newspaper cutting from 1848 reporting that if all the Midland Railway's locomotive, carriage, and wagon stock if coupled up together would stretch from Derby to Chesterfield. In 1902, the Midland's wagon stock would stretch from St Pancras to Carlisle and half-way back again but the carriage stock would scarcely extend to Luton.

That reminds me of a very politically-incorrect joke from a Leeds University Rag Mag circa 1976 (other institutions of learning are available), which I can't possibly repeat here.

[Hroth]

2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

That reminds me of a very politically-incorrect joke from a Leeds University Rag Mag circa 1976 (other institutions of learning are available), which I can't possibly repeat here.

 

Would that be the one where the ending was that they wouldn't be surprised?

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Hroth

[Schooner]

Another long night, another version of the WNR:

 

 

Very much a first stab at it, not time spent fettling and fairing - there should be no requirement to breath in, for example - but all thoughts/feedback most welcome!

 

Station layouts as below...

 

...and then made to sort-of fit. More marmalade than massage at this point though. 

 

Using set-track curves for convenience - just under 3' for scenic, just under 2' (R4) for hidden. 

 

Happy Friday parishioners all :)

Edited May 20, 2022 by Schooner
Forget to say it's posted here for comment!

[Edwardian]

'Wow!'

 

Would be my first thought.

 

'Thank you', my first comment.

 

It looks like an optimum configuration and it has a nice balance, filling the space very well and allowing good access to the operating 'stations'.  The hidden low level I had not considered, but if these are swung round to underneath the front of the boards, that could be a better place to locate cassettes than at the site of 'Fache" Aching Constable.

 

You will lose some of the length you've used/needed, as the width of the rear scenic boards pushes CA further into the room than you have interpreted it as being.  I hope that does not spoil anything. 

 

Note, then: 

 

The rear scenic board is 2' deep.  

The front railway board (and the rear siding goes almost to its edge) is also 2'

The slant of the track to the TT takes it out a further 19"

24" + 24" = 19" = 67" or 5'7".

 

Allowing for a margin of error/thickness of wall cladding back scene sheets etc, I ordered the door 5'8" from the end wall

 

To illustrate:

 

 

Note that in grey I have added something closer to the actual baseboard fronts.

 

Some helpful measurements (I hope!)

 

For fettling purposes, the CA TT pit is 19cm in diameter.  This allows for a wall to fit inside and I suspect that this will result in a 47' TT if built to the full diameter available. 

 

Train lengths

 

The longer trains will be the WNR BNtS to Bury and Norwich services and the foreign trains to BNtS.  So, junction arrangements at Aching Constable and the cassette yards serving it and BM will need to accommodate this traffic. 

 

Assuming 6 6-wheel coaches a CCT and a small 4-4-0, even taking the longest 6-wheel types, everything should be accommodated within 4'6", which your visible cassette yard comfortably gives me.

 

Platform lengths.

 

CA is currently planned at 53" excluding ramp, to expand to 54" (4'6") when I re-attach the boards. This represents far longer than normal traffic requires, but means it can handle an excursion and I like trains to look lost on long platforms! The idea is that the platform was extended at least once around the 1880s.

 

Achingham should be similar.

 

Birchoverham Market can retain a shorter original platform face as it gained a new island platform in the 1880s, perhaps no more than two-thirds the CA length.  The island platform should look longer than the longest train (which is limited to 4'6" see above), so I would suggest at least 60' (5') excluding ramps, which I suspect is more or less what our drawings show. 

 

I hope this further information assists with the fettling, but, brilliant, I'm sold.

 

Please can we encourage comments?

 

The station layouts are not set in stone*, so variations can probably accommodated.  I would also like advice on arrangement at AC and the hidden sections, particularly from an operational point of view.

 

😀

 

* Because, sensibly, I've used plywood.

[Donw]

I like that plan. it would be comfortable to operate single handed with the junction turnouts being remotely operated. A reduced operation could ignore BM and just run  from the staging sidings to CA.

The only thing lacking is a continuous run but Peter Denny never had one and you get a good run from CA to the BM staging sidings. I wouldshift Achingham forward a few inches and round off thecorner of thebaseboard to  give a little more room there and avoid a pointy bit at the BM operator's back. I would almost certainly catch myself on that.

Dam* fine job sir

 

Don

[drmditch]

Re: Russo-Japanese War, and the 'Dogger Bank Incident'

The Russians were suspicious of the British (as they have been before and since).

The British had signed a treaty with Japan, thus ending 'splendid isolation'.

The Russian fleet did manage to travel round the world, which was a logistical feet in itself.

It was not just Barrow involved in construction for the Japanese fleet, the Tyne made it's contribution as well.

The naval powers of the world watched the resulting battle of TsuShima with great interest.

 

Re: Prussia.

The state/kingdom of Prussia was officially abolished by W S Churchill and J V Stalin  in 1945.

 

Re: Railway design

My railway room benefits by a 'swing-out bridge', which I can thoroughly recommend.

Unfortunately the pictures on my own thread have vanished after the recent troubles, and I haven't yet replaced them, although I will work on this.

If you will forgive me posting pictures on this thread - here is some idea of how this works.

(Sorry for the and untidy pictures. My attempts to load better ones result in them being upside down!)

 

 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

That is serious engineering in plywood!

[Hroth]

31 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That is serious engineering in plywood!

 

Completely agree with you, I'm merely an approximate carpenter....  😬

 

[Edwardian]

Idly playing around .....

 

Schooner's plan:

 

 

A reorientation of Achingham (leaving probably too little room to get around, even assuming those curves work):

 

[monkeysarefun]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Like my father's red Vectra of the same period. 

Working up in tropical Townsville a few years ago where all red cars end up a faded pink, the hire car we were using to transport items around the site had an altercation with a pole, creating a dented crease down the back passenger door.

 

You know that thing people always say when they are presented with pictures of  a mangled car - "it'll polish out!"? One of the team actually must have heard that so many times that he believed it because he came back after lunch with a tin of Cut-n-polish. 

 

He opened it to find that the Townsville humidity had turned it into near liquid so it splashed across the bonnet of the faded red car of unknown driver that was parked beside us. We grabbed the polish cloth to wipe it off and in doing brought half his bonnet and the top of his guard back to near pristine glossy red condition, while the rest of the car was still faded chalky matt pinky-red.

 

Would have loved to have seen the owners face when he returned to find his car apparently targeted by car-polishing vandals.

Edited May 21, 2022 by monkeysarefun

[jcredfer]

Would the planning Program be AnyRail by any good fortune?  If it is, then there is a setting which will warn of a "Optional Set" minimum curve, which will show as a red track centre.  That should help to see if the curves are realistic ones.

 

I wondered if the borders of the plan match the borders of the room, as the lower right turntable might be problematic, if so.  I may have missed something about the borders, earlier.

 

 

[petethemole]

10 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Would that be the one where the ending was that they wouldn't be surprised?

 

 

 

Reminds me of Virginia Pippalini.....

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

Would the planning Program be AnyRail by any good fortune?  If it is, then there is a setting which will warn of a "Optional Set" minimum curve, which will show as a red track centre.  That should help to see if the curves are realistic ones.

 

I may lack the aptitude.

 

I once fought with Templot.

 

And lost.

 

7 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

I wondered if the borders of the plan match the borders of the room, as the lower right turntable might be problematic, if so.  I may have missed something about the borders, earlier.

 

 

 

Schooner needed to fettle, he said. His TTs look too big, about 12", whereas I reckon they're actual more like 7 1/2"

[jcredfer]

54 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I may lack the aptitude.

 

I once fought with Templot.

 

And lost.

 

 

Schooner needed to fettle, he said. His TTs look too big, about 12", whereas I reckon they're actual more like 7 1/2"

 

Much sympathy with the Templot, although my, similar experience was nearby a decade ago.  It is probable that it may well be rather more user sympathetic by now, but a switch, back then, to AnyRail made for a wealth of features which have proved to be rather effective.

 

I'm not aware of any planning TT, which is of the size you are looking for and a suitable reduction of the oversize representation would, certainly, seem to suit the space available.

 

[Schooner]

*sigh* Clear Editor was not what I meant to click.

 

Just quickly then:

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Some helpful measurements (I hope!)

All noted, all useful and I think all within the bounds of possibility. Train/platform lengths shouldn't be an issue - your sketch plans are spot on.

 

Re low level, my initial thought was for a return loop, along which are a couple of holding loops and a cassette track, under CA (traffic via AC Jnc North, to serve BM) and under BM (traffic via AC Jnc South, to serve CA) - splitting F'Aching Constable into two. Make any sense?!

 

Maybe you'd want to go full Hades, maybe you'd rather keep it all on the level, but definitely worth thinking about how to store and access The Rest of the World for max simples and min fuss.

 

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I'm sold

On the very first version of a very vanilla approach?! It might be the answer, I did keep coming back to the same setup, but until it's time to pull the trigger I'll be looking for alternatives and glad to see you are too, cos...

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

assuming those curves work

...they do!

 

Rough-as-guts doodles, but in the spirit of further exploration/demonstration, some cutting-room-floor ideas:

 

...which mucks about with CA to cough up room for a 'proper' Aching Constable Junction. Probs not a goer, unless you love the junction idea. 

 

Or...

...which mucks about with Achingham (I'm sure the throat could still be made to work), looking to wring out two decent scenic runs. On the back burner, because the 'back stage' looks like it'll have to be pretty complex if the scenic area is going to convince.

 

Or or or! This stage is just throwing stuff at things to see what sticks - which we can all join in with - but only @Edwardian knows which ideas are worth developing.

 

10 hours ago, Donw said:

I would shift Achingham forward a few inches and round off the corner of the baseboard to give a little more room there and avoid a pointy bit at the BM operator's back. I would almost certainly catch myself on that.

Agreed! Re continuous run, it should be possible to operate Birchoverham Market as a continuous run, with return loops 'south' (low level, fixed) and 'north' (attached to the staging/cassette yard, temporary). Not ideal, perhaps, but an option.

 

9 hours ago, drmditch said:

swing-out bridge

Cor!

 

3 hours ago, jcredfer said:

Would the planning Program be

SCARM. AnyRail sounds more advanced (that min curve warning would be handy), but having got the free trials of both I found myself using SCARM almost exclusively. Path of least resistance, I suspect! Your other points are valid, too - see below :)

 

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

His TTs look too big, about 12", whereas I reckon they're actual more like 7 1/2"

Best part of 13" - good for checking clearances!

 

A Note on SCARM

A powerful planning tool, it does have some limitations relevant to these comments:

• track libraries are good, but not exhaustive. I'm using the PECO Streamline library for this, geometry we are all familiar with, and solely large radius straight, Y, and curved points . This includes the vast PECO TT!
• curves are most easily plotted out using Settrack, just as a frame of reference. Sadly there's no facility for compound curves, but flexi track is otherwise well modeled.
• it can be used for very precise planning...or, as I'm doing here, as a digital facsimile of messing about with point templates and flexi track, or notebook and pencil. Please keep calling out all the issues you spot, but nothing presented so far deserves to be taken too seriously - it's fag-packet stuff!
• I'm not qualified, nor experienced at all, in matters Railway Modelling...I just enjoy it, including the planning/design phase :) Relying on others for the good ideas...

In time, it'll be worth looking at things like accurate track curves, hand- or kit-built turnouts, representing a TT of the correct diameter, checking access, sight- and reach lines, and the thousand other things which contribute to a well-designed layout...but for now it's all broad-brush. Is that a useful way to proceed?

[drmditch]

Re: Scarm

I agree with the comments above. I have used it for basic planning, especially since it can be used for Peco point/curve geometry.

Using the flexible track can be tricky, but quite possible.

It's main advantage is that it doesn't take long to learn, thus leaving more time for 'proper railway stuff'.

 

In hindsight, I would do the first plan in Scarm, but before cutting materials, draw the critical elements at actual size on lining paper (can one still buy this?). One can lay out actual track, or use Peco templates. I do have one error now embedded in the layout which I could have avoided if I had made a full size drawing.

 

Since I merely use Peco track (thus saving my building time for vehicles/buildings/structures etc)  then inevitable my railway has compromises. I wish however that I had been bolder in emulating those valiant modellers who have lead the way in modifying the curvature of Peco points. I have done a little of this but should have used the technique earlier.

[ianathompson]

Just a thought re turntable size.

If you want a smaller one and are not propared to scratchbuild why not use the HOm turntable?

Place a short piece of OO track on it and you should be good to go.

 

Peco Reference LK-1455.

No idea of the dimensions and Peco's website is awkward to use.

 

Ian T

[jcredfer]

Does Scarm have N Gauge track, as Peco have a 5.94" TT, which might enable a similar TT place-holder, to the 7.5" Edwardian mentioned.  {Peco NB - 55; also HOm LK-1455, as mentioned by Ian T}.

 

[Edwardian]

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

*sigh* Clear Editor was not what I meant to click.

 

🙄

 

Many thanks once more. We edge ever closer to the unattainable!

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Just quickly then:

All noted, all useful and I think all within the bounds of possibility. Train/platform lengths shouldn't be an issue - your sketch plans are spot on.

 

😀

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Re low level, my initial thought was for a return loop, along which are a couple of holding loops and a cassette track, under CA (traffic via AC Jnc North, to serve BM) and under BM (traffic via AC Jnc South, to serve CA) - splitting F'Aching Constable into two. Make any sense?!

 

So, the track from ACNJ reverses and goes back to the CA end where there is a cassette deck under that station?

 

Likewise the line going left from ACSJ loops back and goes to underneath BM?

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Maybe you'd want to go full Hades, maybe you'd rather keep it all on the level, but definitely worth thinking about how to store and access The Rest of the World for max simples and min fuss.

 

I shall watch this with interest, thanks.

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

On the very first version of a very vanilla approach?! It might be the answer, I did keep coming back to the same setup, but until it's time to pull the trigger I'll be looking for alternatives and glad to see you are too, cos...

...they do!

 

😀

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Rough-as-guts doodles, but in the spirit of further exploration/demonstration, some cutting-room-floor ideas:

...which mucks about with CA to cough up room for a 'proper' Aching Constable Junction. Probs not a goer, unless you love the junction idea. 

 

The above is mind expanding.  Whatever else, as you anticipate, that position for CA comes at too great a cost, but it does help to free the mind.  For instance, if you put CA in the diagonally opposite corner from where it is planned (unaltered, save bottom right instead of top left corner) and set the mainline in a great diagonal?  Where would that leave us? 

 

There ought to be space for a perfectly sound system layout. The problems are all of my own creating.

 

Thus:

 

(1) The fictional world and the WNR were planned independently and ahead of any system layout, because I had not expected to model anything beyond CA - Achingham. 

 

(2) We are thus saddled with CA boards, built with a different location in mind with the thought that it would be BLT to Cassette and may later have Achingham too. These are pretty much stuck in their present configuration as a result. 

 

I cannot really alter these constraints without fundamentally throwing away the concept and much of the world-building. [sigh]

 

That does give you less freedom than you should have, or, perhaps, need. 

 

Today I took a look at the latest RM.  It features a layout called the Strangford & Downpatrick Joint Railway. I have a feeling that this layout was drawn to our attention, I think by Northroader.  Seeing the plan made me think that the builder has been a lot more clever about his system layout than I have!

 

 

He has 3 stations, including a branch terminus, and 2 fiddle yards.  He, too, has only 12' width to play with and much less length. 

 

Now, he has some balancing advantages in that it looks as if his curves are tighter and his fiddle yards a bit shorter, and he can use different levels in the scenic section (the gently rolling hills of West Norfolk would not easily accommodate that), but, as I say, he has much less length (at 16') to play with. 

 

 

I really like this layout.  The plan has a certain CJ Freezer intensity about the track plan, but I don't mind that, and it certainly does not detract from the looks of the layout, it's just cleverly compact rather than crowded. As an exercise in the art of model railway design and quart in pint pot compromise, it looks pretty successful to me and a very charismatic model results.

 

On the other hand, CA was specifically designed to be one of those lines lost within the landscape.  The station sites were conceived to have a lot of 'context'. This can be seen with CA, where I devote a space 2' x 10' behind the track board to a castle mound, village streets and, eventually, a big Norfolk church. That, at the time I conceived CA, seemed more important to me than lots of track or operating a model railway. It is still the core of the dream.  I could scrap it, save 2' and use a back scene, but that is really not what drew me to the idea of modelling CA.

 

Likewise, I had a whole townscape for Achingham planned beyond the Maltings (Drill Hall, terraces, corner factory (Purlew & Schlott), Achingham Argus, pub , Jubilee clock etc), though I don't see how this could fit the present system schemes. 

 

Likewise, too, when first looking at a large shed-system option, I liked the idea of Birchoverham Market across a corner, because this would allow a perspective townscape to form the backdrop to this busiest of WN stations (and, indeed, give me scope to force that perspective more aggressively than in the more open CA location, with its greater range of view points). 

 

BTW, the obsession with these 3 stations and the offstage links via ACSJ and ACNJ is because, provided I allow the tramway and Wolfringham services to terminate at BM, not AC (which is a railway village, so you'd be heading for BM anyway) literally every service, locomotive, coach and wagon of the WNR and all foreign traffic can feature on this layout. Because of that, of all the locations on the WNR I'd love to model, these are the 3 I'm committed to in the long-term.

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Or...

...which mucks about with Achingham (I'm sure the throat could still be made to work), looking to wring out two decent scenic runs. On the back burner, because the 'back stage' looks like it'll have to be pretty complex if the scenic area is going to convince.

 

Which has nice runs, allows for the bridge outside CA, but I do not see how the AC junctions would fit and there would be poor access to the BM cassettes. 

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Or or or! This stage is just throwing stuff at things to see what sticks - which we can all join in with - but only @Edwardian knows which ideas are worth developing.

 

Agreed! Re continuous run, it should be possible to operate Birchoverham Market as a continuous run, with return loops 'south' (low level, fixed) and 'north' (attached to the staging/cassette yard, temporary). Not ideal, perhaps, but an option.

 

Cor!

 

Certainly a 'nice to have'. Very nice to have.

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

SCARM. AnyRail sounds more advanced (that min curve warning would be handy), but having got the free trials of both I found myself using SCARM almost exclusively. Path of least resistance, I suspect! Your other points are valid, too - see below :)

 

Best part of 13" - good for checking clearances!

 

Ah, so, yes, your TTs really don't have to fit on the baseboards as drawn!

 

23 minutes ago, Schooner said:

A Note on SCARM

A powerful planning tool, it does have some limitations relevant to these comments:

• track libraries are good, but not exhaustive. I'm using the PECO Streamline library for this, geometry we are all familiar with, and solely large radius straight, Y, and curved points . This includes the vast PECO TT!
• curves are most easily plotted out using Settrack, just as a frame of reference. Sadly there's no facility for compound curves, but flexi track is otherwise well modeled.
• it can be used for very precise planning...or, as I'm doing here, as a digital facsimile of messing about with point templates and flexi track, or notebook and pencil. Please keep calling out all the issues you spot, but nothing presented so far deserves to be taken too seriously - it's fag-packet stuff!
• I'm not qualified, nor experienced at all, in matters Railway Modelling...I just enjoy it, including the planning/design phase :) Relying on others for the good ideas...

In time, it'll be worth looking at things like accurate track curves, hand- or kit-built turnouts, representing a TT of the correct diameter, checking access, sight- and reach lines, and the thousand other things which contribute to a well-designed layout...but for now it's all broad-brush. Is that a useful way to proceed?

 

Very useful and valuable way to proceed!  

 

4 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

Just a thought re turntable size.

If you want a smaller one and are not propared to scratchbuild why not use the HOm turntable?

Place a short piece of OO track on it and you should be good to go.

 

Peco Reference LK-1455.

No idea of the dimensions and Peco's website is awkward to use.

 

Ian T

 

That was a good thought and may yet have application.  It looks a little too small, however, equating, I think, to something like a 38' table in 4mil.

 

Product Link

 

Once again I'm humbled by the invaluable support.  Thank you and please keep the ideas coming.

 

 

 

[Donw]

14 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Idly playing around .....

 

Schooner's plan:

 

 

A reorientation of Achingham (leaving probably too little room to get around, even assuming those curves work):

 

 

that would be ok for single handed or just two operators but with a team so that achingham and BM each had an operator I think they would get in each others way unless the Achingham operator was round by the junction.

 

Don

[jcredfer]

 

With this one, there seems a pleasant balance of country between the three stops.  Also, the occupants of the room, when occupied with one station, would be pretty much looking away from the other two stations. 

 

It may not be of concern, of course, but at the top, just by the three trees, there would need to be a polarity switch for the single line there, or one of the other sides of the triangle.

 

 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

 

that would be ok for single handed or just two operators but with a team so that achingham and BM each had an operator I think they would get in each others way unless the Achingham operator was round by the junction.

 

Don

 

I lead a lonely life!

 

A fair point, but for me the ability to turn from one to another is an advantage.  Other plans had Achingham opposite CA for the same reason.

 

Of course, if the layout is realised, you are all welcome, but I had not anticipated any frequent visitors, as there is no one to visit!

 

 

[RedGemAlchemist]

45 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I lead a lonely life!

 

A fair point, but for me the ability to turn from one to another is an advantage.  Other plans had Achingham opposite CA for the same reason.

 

Of course, if the layout is realised, you are all welcome, but I had not anticipated any frequent visitors, as there is no one to visit!

Might bring my No.3 down at some point to visit his old home... :P

[Edwardian]

Seriously, if CA achieves working layout status - with something to run on it - then Parishioners, who, after all, have contributed so much in advice, assistance and comradeship, will always be most welcome.

 

But, I have to have something to welcome folk to, so ...

[Donw]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I lead a lonely life!

 

A fair point, but for me the ability to turn from one to another is an advantage.  Other plans had Achingham opposite CA for the same reason.

 

Of course, if the layout is realised, you are all welcome, but I had not anticipated any frequent visitors, as there is no one to visit!

 

 

 

there was more room between CA and Achingham