Castle Aching

[MrWolf]

That was how I understood things worked in regard to the train brakes. After a serious derailment at Cherwell, GWR train crews were instructed to allow the brakes of the train to bring the train to a stand in the event of a derailment, keeping the couplings taut. Pre continuous vacuum brakes a long train or one formed of several connecting trains may well have a brake van or two within the train as well as either end to increase braking effort.

[Nearholmer]

6 hours ago, MrWolf said:

It's a real PITA trying to get a bicycle on a train nowadays.

Hugely depends on the train company and, to a lesser degree, on the type of train.

 

Fortunately, the three operators that I use for local-ish trips (LNW, WM and Thameslink) are all bike-friendly, but things begin to get complicated once long distance travel on WCML is involved, and as for GWR, sheesh!!

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, Hroth said:

I thought the "guard at rear" protocol was mandated by the mode of operation of continuous brakes.  In the days of vacuum braking, the most effective/safest application of brakes, especially if there was a derailment, was from the rear of the train as that would keep a tension on the couplings and keep the derailed vehicles in a relatively straight line as vacuum braking initiates from the point of activation. 

 

Air brakes work from the furthest point of the system (ie the rear of the train) so the guard can more or less be at any point in the train.

 

 

I'm quite willing to be shot town on this as I can't exactly remember how Rolt explained it in Red for Danger....   :-)

 

 

If I understand you correctly, it is more important on a vac-braked line to have a brake coach at the rear and less important for an air-braked line to do so.

 

If there is indeed such a distinction, it would seem significant when considering the GE instructions that it was a Westinghouse line. 

[Andy Hayter]

But surely the big change that meant that buffer vehicles were no longer needed was a move from wood for bodies and chassis to metal.  Metal does indeed crumple and afford more protection.

[Donw]

Not sure if I agree with the Air brakes working first from the last vehicle. Wherever the brake is operated the air pipe is opened at that point and the pressure starts to drop this drop will be propagated from the point of opening. One the pressure drop is detected the triple valve can allow air to be exhausted at each vehicle thus minimising the delay in brake operation. 

 

Don

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, MrWolf said:

That was how I understood things worked in regard to the train brakes. After a serious derailment at Cherwell, GWR train crews were instructed to allow the brakes of the train to bring the train to a stand in the event of a derailment, keeping the couplings taut. Pre continuous vacuum brakes a long train or one formed of several connecting trains may well have a brake van or two within the train as well as either end to increase braking effort.

 

I was having a shave* and I thought about pre-automatic braking and the Shipton on Cherwell  disaster, which was caused by a strengthening coach, put on at Oxford, losing its wheels and derailing. The loco crews sounded their alarm whistles (the train was double-headed) but immediately slammed on the locomotive brakes instead of waiting for the guard to react.  The tension, keeping the derailed coach upright was removed, et wolla!!!

 

 

2 hours ago, Donw said:

Not sure if I agree with the Air brakes working first from the last vehicle. Wherever the brake is operated the air pipe is opened at that point and the pressure starts to drop this drop will be propagated from the point of opening. One the pressure drop is detected the triple valve can allow air to be exhausted at each vehicle thus minimising the delay in brake operation. 

 

Don

 

As I said, I can't remember the explanation given by Rolt about the mode of operation, other than propogation of the braking effect was different to that of the vacuum system!

 

Addendum:  Just found the copy of RfD that I was referring to, it's the Pan 1960 edition. Funnily enough the action of Vacuum/Air brakes is discussed immediately after the description of the Shipton on Cherwell disaster, pages 66-67.

 

Rolt states ("for technical reasons which it would be out of place to detail here") that "the vacuum brake always takes effect upon the wheels of the train nearest to the point of application", whereas the Westinghouse brake "behaves in the opposite manner to the vacuum brake by acting first on the wheels of the train furthest from the point of application". 

 

Both automatic vacuum and air brake systems are good as far as continuous braking goes but air braked systems have the edge for safety after a front of the train derailment.  British railways standardised on the vacuum brake after Grouping merely because of economics. Vacuum brake railways outnumbered Westinghouse brake railways. 

 

 

 

* Pushing an electric razor about the fizzog doesn't require much concentration, leaving plenty of time for the mind to wander!

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Hroth
Another thort or two... An addendum and spelin too.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Hugely depends on the train company and, to a lesser degree, on the type of train.

 

Fortunately, the three operators that I use for local-ish trips (LNW, WM and Thameslink) are all bike-friendly, but things begin to get complicated once long distance travel on WCML is involved, and as for GWR, sheesh!!

I don't get why they cannot fit roof racks for bikes....

[rocor]

11 hours ago, MrWolf said:

It's a real PITA trying to get a bicycle on a train nowadays.

 

When I used to do a morning commute into London, on the South Eastern around 15 years ago, travelling within the crowded confines of their third class cattle wagons. I could have predicted, that any cyclist that had the audacity to try bringing their mount aboard, would have found themselves in grave danger of being at one with their bike. Literally inseparable from it. 

[Edwardian]

On 22/05/2022 at 13:29, Schooner said:

 

If you're working on a Top Trumps edition, please do share!

 

@Edwardian, much in your last post to read, mark and inwardly digest. Agreed on the quality and qualities of Strangford, though!

 

Turning the CJF up one notch might give us something like...

 

...with the developed lower level and door-crossing allowing not only for return loops (for hands-free system coherence) and storage* but also a continuous run with BM sitting on a 'mainline' circuit. As per, the above to be taken as a sketch only to see if the idea is workable. It is. Has it got legs? Let's find out...

 

*Under the terminii, not shown for clarity/my convenience :)

 

I think the lines conflicting with the door will rule this out.  I lack the carpentry skills of the Honourable Member for Durham.

 

What I was wondering, and I haven't tried sketching it out, is what would happen if CA took the corresponding position, i.e. on the short rend, at the opposite side of the building?

 

My two favourites, so far are:

 

(i) Your original plan

 

 

(ii) My variation of same.

 

Note with this version I have placed the CA boards in their actual position. Another limiting factor!

 

 

 

Both plans leave room for townscapes to be developed at Achingham and CA.  My version, if practicable, gives a longer run on the branch and I could re-site the trestle bridge there, rather than lose it. 

 

I accept the criticism that, back-to-back there is not much space between, but there is a little more space now and it's handy for the single operator. 

 

EDIT: This version rationalises the baseboard edges further, showing the very considerable area available for scenic development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Edwardian]

A bit rough, and the geometry might be totally wrong, but this is what I'm currently considering.

 

The main disadvantage is that the view of the mainline is a bit compromised, but otherwise it's all there. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Edwardian

[nick_bastable]

37 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

A bit rough, and the geometry might be totally wrong, but this is what I'm currently considering.

 

The main disadvantage is that the view of the mainline is a bit compromised, but otherwise it's all there. 

 

 

 

 

thinking of the Engines what Gradients will be in use   I would suggest a serious test first especially if they are on a curve

 

Nick B

37 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

thinking of the Engines what Gradients will be in use   I would suggest a serious test first especially if they are on a curve

 

Nick B

 

 

Indeed, and this troubles me.

 

I had never planned CA as having more than one level, but there are certain arbitrary standards I feel are right and for me.  Bearing in mind little kit-built locos and not wanting to place undue strain on their motors I've always thought that the maximum gradient should be 1:80, and that might be a push on terms of space here here.  

[Adam88]

5 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed, and this troubles me.

 

I had never planned CA as having more than one level, but there are certain arbitrary standards I feel are right and for me.  Bearing in mind little kit-built locos and not wanting to place undue strain on their motors I've always thought that the maximum gradient should be 1:80, and that might be a push on terms of space here here.  

 

Very flat, Norfolk

[ianathompson]

29 minutes ago, Adam88 said:

Very flat, Norfolk

 

Contrary to what many people think that is not quite the case!

Gently undulating might be a better description for most of it.

The fens in the western part of the county are very flat but they are only a small part of Norfolk.

 

Ian T

[Regularity]

36 minutes ago, Adam88 said:

 

Very flat, Norfolk

 

3 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

Contrary to what many people think that is not quite the case!

Gently undulating might be a better description for most of it.

The fens in the western part of the county are very flat but they are only a small part of Norfolk.

 

Ian T

It’s a quote from Noel Coward, I think.

 

He obviously hadn’t walked across it.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Regularity
Private Lives, 1930

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Bearing in mind little kit-built locos and not wanting to place undue strain on their motors I've always thought that the maximum gradient should be 1:80, and that might be a push on terms of space here here.  

Adhesion is more likely to be the limiting factor in terms of train weight rather then lack of power in the motor (unless it's a very weedy motor.  It's my experience that locos will start to slip long before the motor becomes overloaded.

 

Jim

[nick_bastable]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed, and this troubles me.

 

I had never planned CA as having more than one level, but there are certain arbitrary standards I feel are right and for me.  Bearing in mind little kit-built locos and not wanting to place undue strain on their motors I've always thought that the maximum gradient should be 1:80, and that might be a push on terms of space here here.  

a piece of  flexi track as long as you can make it set in part at the radius on a board should give you the anwser ( kit built coaches are very heavy )   to be usable/accessabe     the lower level needs to be probably 5 inchs  125cm lower gap excluding baseboard depth  at 1 in 80 thats quiet a approach.   Aplogies if I have sprayed water on your firework

[Donw]

If you think Norfolk is flat take a ride on the Poppy line from Sheringham to Holt and Back.

 

Don

[Donw]

3 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

a piece of  flexi track as long as you can make it set in part at the radius on a board should give you the anwser ( kit built coaches are very heavy )   to be usable/accessabe     the lower level needs to be probably 5 inchs  125cm lower gap excluding baseboard depth  at 1 in 80 thats quiet a approach.   Aplogies if I have sprayed water on your firework

 

Two lines can cross with no more than 3 ins separation possibly even less, more depth is needed for access under upper levels but that still some distance.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

a piece of  flexi track as long as you can make it set in part at the radius on a board should give you the anwser ( kit built coaches are very heavy )   to be usable/accessabe     the lower level needs to be probably 5 inchs  125cm lower gap excluding baseboard depth  at 1 in 80 thats quiet a approach.   Aplogies if I have sprayed water on your firework

 

It's a problem I anticipated, hence my thought had been to have Aching Constable represented by a cassette yard on the level, Schooner's idea of a lower level overcomes the problem of the cassette yard being behind the running line.

 

The plan below (for a different space from the one I shall end up with) had the mainline pass through the cassette yard. Again, not ideal.

 

Schooner's solution is more elegant, but only if I can achieve the difference in level in the length available. 

 

 

 

[Regularity]

37 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

the lower level needs to be probably 5 inchs  125cm lower gap

I think you may have meant 125mm, the more or less equivalent of 5”, rather than 50”?

[Edwardian]

Note also that the current CA boards are ply framed, about 4"deep, so a line would have to pass about 7" under the station track bed just to clear the baseboard.

[Schooner]

12 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I lack the carpentry skills of the Honourable Member for Durham.

3' of 2"x1" laid across the doorway would suffice, but point taken. A split-level approach benefits from 15' main- and branch line runs and a full Aching Constable Junction (worked out in a cheeky little Mk II) but it might not be worth the hassle. Worth keeping in the back of the mind though, I think, for these reasons.

 

7 hours ago, Edwardian said:

geometry might be totally wrong

Right ballpark :) 

 

Also shows the general gist of hidden line - as I imagined it - a couple of loops, cassette track and a way to turn trains, nothing v clever...and a long old run before it goes under anything!

 

Oh...apart from the motte of Castle Aching's Castle...which, I've just realised, already exists...so actually it doesn't help hide the line, but would mean driving the line under the Castle, which is probably not ideal. Mind you, Devizes...

 

Anyway, some rules of thumb picked up from hanging round the layout design subforum (rather than from experience):

• >60mm vertical clearance
• >8' straight run 
• <2.5%/1:40 gradient

= workable. 

 

Does this seem reasonable to those in the know? I appreciate there are caveats with corners, and coupled motive power (vs bo-bo/co-co); then concerns about access and practicality etc.

 

In this case...

...min. clearance is just about doable within 1:80, or 1.25%. Above we see track height (440mm above datum, down from 500mm) and the gradient (down 1.1%) from the crossing top-right of the first screen grab to the curve of the return loop, a c.15' run.

 

Just to put some numbers to the chat :) 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Schooner
Of course, the answer might not lie in this direction at all!

[Edwardian]

To keep it all on one level, what about?

 

 

[nick_bastable]

48 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Note also that the current CA boards are ply framed, about 4"deep, so a line would have to pass about 7" under the station track bed just to clear the baseboard.

do you think you can rerail a loco in a 3 inch gap ?