Castle Aching

[Adam88]

For those of a North Western inclination this popped up the other day: Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer and might be of passing interest.  I've not read it myself and a quick skim through leads me to think that time might be better spent.

[Compound2632]

32 minutes ago, Adam88 said:

For those of a North Western inclination this popped up the other day: Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer and might be of passing interest.  I've not read it myself and a quick skim through leads me to think that time might be better spent.

 

Just to be clear, she was not J.E. McConnell's mistress.

[drmditch]

13 hours ago, Adam88 said:

For those of a North Western inclination this popped up the other day: Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer and might be of passing interest.  I've not read it myself and a quick skim through leads me to think that time might be better spent.

 

I'm grateful for the link. I have managed a quick (and selective)  read, and regard the time well spent. A valiant lady!

Caroline

Edited February 8, 2023 by drmditch

[Schooner]

Been picking at itches again, sorry! Current plan:

 

Altered plan:

 

All self-explanatory, and I know at least two of the three major changes won't suit our host but I think they make for a better layout so presented here for discussion.

• Castle Aching: No longer using existing boards (con), rules out three-links as primary goods wagon couplings (con), gentler throat and approach curve (c.4'3" opening to >7' radius. Pro) and crucially, better places the railway within the scene (big pro. Labels for my own thoughts only, as per. It might be counterintuitive, but this way actually unlocks more scenic development space and @Edwardian's wonderful architectural models). The view from the Achingham Jnc signal cabin along the S-curve towards CA, and across the landscape to the C, is now particularly sexy.
• @Compound2632 gets his rural Achingham Junction in its own scene! This is what started the whole revision: trying to steal enough space to have two separate junctions with space for a believable view block (here just the road bridge from BM flipped, by way of example). Achieved with some realignment of...well, everything in the top half of the layout! 
• Extending the current cassette yard to a foot wide scenic board. Mainline cassette hard up against the rear would, I think, allow a scenic branch run in front for 6' or so - a decent little run for c.2' trains. The branch cassette is then seen as blocking the doorway when in place, supported by benchwork at either end if necessary and/or a bracket on the back of the door*. 
• EDITS: A bit of development of the branch line idea; some slight fettling of Achingham

 

I know, I know, a couple of red lines crossed so there's no expectation of these changes being adopted and as ever there's no pride involved. It's just what fell out of the ideas tree when given a shake...and I do think they improve the overall scheme, so worth sharing.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Schooner
*At the extreme. I support my c.700mm cassettes along a single 300mm folding bracket and nothing untoward has happened so far. Pic updated slightly.

[Northroader]

It would be neater to have double track between the two junctions, don’t you think?

[Donw]

38 minutes ago, Northroader said:

It would be neater to have double track between the two junctions, don’t you think?

As I suggested pages ago the two junctions are miles apart so going to single track with something of a scenic break helps.

 

Don

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, Northroader said:

It would be neater to have double track between the two junctions, don’t you think?

If it's to be one scene, yes I quite agree. If it's to be two...

Achingham Jnc

 

AC Jnc North

 

...as per the Lore, then I think it might be nice to show the line singling as it goes out of sight?

 

1 hour ago, Donw said:

the two junctions are miles apart so going to single track with something of a scenic break helps.

Wot 'e said!

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Schooner said:

Been picking at itches again, sorry! Current plan:

 

Altered plan:

All self-explanatory, and I know at least two of the three major changes won't suit our host but I think they make for a better layout so presented here for discussion.

• Castle Aching: No longer using existing boards (con), rules out three-links as primary goods wagon couplings (con), gentler throat and approach curve (c.4'3" opening to >7' radius. Pro) and crucially, better places the railway within the scene (big pro. Labels for my own thoughts only, as per. It might be counterintuitive, but this way actually unlocks more scenic development space and @Edwardian's wonderful architectural models). The view from the Achingham Jnc signal cabin along the S-curve towards CA, and across the landscape to the C, is now particularly sexy.
• @Compound2632 gets his rural Achingham Junction in its own scene! This is what started the whole revision: trying to steal enough space to have two separate junctions with space for a believable view block (here just the road bridge from BM flipped, by way of example). Achieved with some realignment of...well, everything in the top half of the layout! 
• Extending the current cassette yard to a foot wide scenic board. Mainline cassette hard up against the rear would, I think, allow a scenic branch run in front for 6' or so - a decent little run for c.2' trains. The branch cassette is then seen as blocking the doorway when in place, supported by benchwork at either end if necessary and/or a bracket on the back of the door*. 

I know, I know, a couple of red lines crossed so there's no expectation of these changes being adopted and as ever there's no pride involved. It's just what fell out of the ideas tree when given a shake...and I do think they improve the overall scheme, so worth sharing.

 

Your thoughts?

Bullet point 1: I would put this in the too hard basket. Too late for such a major change.

 

Bullet point 2: I like this very much. I've also used the dodge of using an overbridge to represent several miles of track.

 

Bullet point 3: I don't like the idea of blocking the door and the scenic branch would also interfere with the main line cassette.

[Schooner]

Entirely reasonable all round!

 

...but... :)

 

Is it too late? Work on the WNR has yet to start. Taking the absolute worst-case scenario, if we assume CA is currently plug-and-play and the changes require everything to be rebuilt from scratch, how much does that increase the workload for the layout? 20%? Significant, certainly, but it might not be a deal-breaker given the long-term nature of the project...and @Edwardian isn't shy of other layouts on which to play trains in the meantime...!

 

I agree with the issue, just wonder about its severity/if there could be benefits which outweigh it.

 

Re. Blocking the doorway, also agreed!

 

Mitigation is in timing and the handy size of branch trains, I think. 

 

BM operator just drives the train under the bridge and forgets about it, like normal. The train stops at an isolating section just beyond - so we know it's safe and the door unblocked. At leisure (the same time they would need to switch cassettes anyway) the operator can then pop a cassette (2' or so for most services) at the end of the line, and drive the train through the scene. Turn cassette, drive train back through the scene stopping just before the bridge, remove cassette, return to BM to accept the train at leisure. These stops could be for a signal at danger, or there's even space, just, for a halt I think.

 

Total time the door's blocked...a minute? Two? During which time the operator is right there. It doesn't increase the workload of operating the service at all, but adds an entire new scene to the layout and the branch trains a chance to be seen in a starring role!

 

Again, the downsides are significant and not to be taken lightly. I just wonder if the benefits might outweigh them. Only one way to find out!

 

Quickly (!) on couplings: given shunting isn't a major concern, would short rakes - say 3-6 wagons - with an autocoupler at each end be an acceptable compromise? The only station really set up for shunting with three-links is BM (which I think works thematically, as well as practically?), both the others would benefit from a largely hands-free approach. For aesthetics, @Mikkel's use of Sprat-and-Winkles is exemplary, showing they need not jar the senses.

[Edwardian]

I must study these New Plans - thank you Brother Schooner - and the Sage Comments.

 

Experiencing a bit of an hiatus these last 3 weeks due to Life, but I have managed to advance some matters.

 

CAD for the replacement Third Class sides has been commissioned.

 

I have a couple of options for printing the 1870s coaches. The design is not really suitable for desk-top printing, having been designed for factory printing using DLS. The factory in question has, in the meantime, moved away from DLS but is confident it has something better (and cheaper!) the company is Turkish owned and my contact there is very much affected by the dreadful earthquake, so am not bothering him at present.

 

Further, the project to provide bespoke transfers for WN stock has not been revived and is very much active. This will spur me on to complete the general merchandise goods fleet and tackle some other WNR wagons.   

[Schooner]

If that's a hiatus then we'll have to hang on tight when the project is in full spate!

 

If you'll forgive a final prod at this idea, hold the likes of Aston Cantlow and Chevening in your mind, and view the below as only the broadest of suggestions, I think there's space for something like:

 

It adds a decent bit of landscape and, 'tho Doughton Abbey it ain't, it does give a little bit of operational potential if in the mood, without really costing anything in return. This sort of thing:

http://www.wbrm.org.nz/the-westerham-branch/

 

Looking forward to more updates as and when, bonne chance till then.

 

EDIT: Lunch spent tinkering with the grand plan a little further. Edited above, linked here

Edited February 17, 2023 by Schooner
Link to new plan added

[Schooner]

Ummm...

 

 

...so...

 

 

....if can be made to fit, is there any way in which this isn't an improvement?

Rough as guts obviously, but is that intelligible?

 

I'm walking away from the computer now, honest. Happy Friday all!

Edited February 17, 2023 by Schooner

[16Brunel]

Questionable access to the South Cassette Yard?

[Edwardian]

On 15/02/2023 at 17:09, Schooner said:

Been picking at itches again, sorry! Current plan:

 

Altered plan:

 

All self-explanatory, and I know at least two of the three major changes won't suit our host but I think they make for a better layout so presented here for discussion.

• Castle Aching: No longer using existing boards (con), rules out three-links as primary goods wagon couplings (con), gentler throat and approach curve (c.4'3" opening to >7' radius. Pro) and crucially, better places the railway within the scene (big pro. Labels for my own thoughts only, as per. It might be counterintuitive, but this way actually unlocks more scenic development space and @Edwardian's wonderful architectural models). The view from the Achingham Jnc signal cabin along the S-curve towards CA, and across the landscape to the C, is now particularly sexy.
• @Compound2632 gets his rural Achingham Junction in its own scene! This is what started the whole revision: trying to steal enough space to have two separate junctions with space for a believable view block (here just the road bridge from BM flipped, by way of example). Achieved with some realignment of...well, everything in the top half of the layout! 
• Extending the current cassette yard to a foot wide scenic board. Mainline cassette hard up against the rear would, I think, allow a scenic branch run in front for 6' or so - a decent little run for c.2' trains. The branch cassette is then seen as blocking the doorway when in place, supported by benchwork at either end if necessary and/or a bracket on the back of the door*. 
• EDITS: A bit of development of the branch line idea; some slight fettling of Achingham

 

I know, I know, a couple of red lines crossed so there's no expectation of these changes being adopted and as ever there's no pride involved. It's just what fell out of the ideas tree when given a shake...and I do think they improve the overall scheme, so worth sharing.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Slowly catching up.

 

So, first thoughts are ...

 

North Cassette Yard

 

Subject to accessibility, there is scope for a very short scenic section to line 1:

 

 

 

The shortest branch trains will be those for Birchoverham Staithe, a minor silted up harbour, now a muddy creak restricted to smaller vessels (think Burnham Overy Staithe) 

 

These will, however, use Line 2. 

 

Line 2 is shared by Birchoverham Staithe and Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea. 

 

 So, here it is on the system map:

 

 

Line 2 will subdivide off stage to (a) Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea, and (b) Birchoverham Staithe,

 

Whereas Birchoverham Staithe will feature little 3-coach trains of short 4-wheelers, Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea is the mainline resort terminus.

 

A GER London express of up to 7 6-wheel coaches plus a horse box and OCT will need 4' plus the engine.

 

 

 

This is why North Cassette Yard Line 2 and the South Cassette Yard need a minimum 5' length for cassettes, up to 5'6" (train cassettes of 4'6" are already too long!) if we can. This should allow for minimum 14-15-wagon, plus brake van, for mainline goods trains.

 

Line 1 is just the Fakeney Branch. The usual set is 4 4-wheel coaches. If we add a strengthening Third and a couple of NPCs for market day, or run up to 9 goods wagons plus brake van, together with engine I reckon we need just 3' of cassette space.

 

 

 

 

Line 1, thus, has a spare 2' that could be developed scenically, without needing the 'fiddle stick' overlapping the door, which I think on reflection we are not keen on. 

 

A halt?

 

I am not keen on a halt. We are in 1905. We are still early days for the railmotor/motor train revolution for mainline companies. It is these services that cause halts to burgeon. I had thought to nod to this development by trialling an early Pickering steam railmotor on the Wolfringham Staithe/Shepherd's Port branch (and, perhaps, the Birchoverham Staithe branch), butI don't think the WNR has yet adopted such services. Walking several miles to the nearest station somewhat misleadingly named after your village seems more the WN way!

 

 

But, yes, looking at your plan, the Fakeney branch (Line 1) could have something like 3' of scenic run beyond the bridge, which is worth doing. Whether we could frame it so that LIne 2 was hidden is a tricky question, as we have to have good access to Line 2 to attach loco cassettes to the heads of trains.

 

I think the area indicated below, being mid-train, could have some scenic features byond minimum height:

 

 

[Edwardian]

On 15/02/2023 at 17:09, Schooner said:

Been picking at itches again, sorry! Current plan:

 

Altered plan:

 

All self-explanatory, and I know at least two of the three major changes won't suit our host but I think they make for a better layout so presented here for discussion.

• Castle Aching: No longer using existing boards (con), rules out three-links as primary goods wagon couplings (con), gentler throat and approach curve (c.4'3" opening to >7' radius. Pro) and crucially, better places the railway within the scene (big pro. Labels for my own thoughts only, as per. It might be counterintuitive, but this way actually unlocks more scenic development space and @Edwardian's wonderful architectural models). The view from the Achingham Jnc signal cabin along the S-curve towards CA, and across the landscape to the C, is now particularly sexy.
• @Compound2632 gets his rural Achingham Junction in its own scene! This is what started the whole revision: trying to steal enough space to have two separate junctions with space for a believable view block (here just the road bridge from BM flipped, by way of example). Achieved with some realignment of...well, everything in the top half of the layout! 
• Extending the current cassette yard to a foot wide scenic board. Mainline cassette hard up against the rear would, I think, allow a scenic branch run in front for 6' or so - a decent little run for c.2' trains. The branch cassette is then seen as blocking the doorway when in place, supported by benchwork at either end if necessary and/or a bracket on the back of the door*. 
• EDITS: A bit of development of the branch line idea; some slight fettling of Achingham

 

I know, I know, a couple of red lines crossed so there's no expectation of these changes being adopted and as ever there's no pride involved. It's just what fell out of the ideas tree when given a shake...and I do think they improve the overall scheme, so worth sharing.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Generally preferring earlier plan!

 

It is not too late to make changes - you are right there - but I like the planned depth of CA.

 

Also, I do feel that the singling between Achingham Junc and Aching Constable junction looks very artificial.

 

Yes, a road bridge acting as a scenic break could solve that, but this is Norfolk. Aside from the bridges that used to be over the MGN lines at Mellton Constable, the only road over rail bridge I remember on my Norfolk rambles was above Wells. They really are not that common in the region, and having used the dodge to close off Birchoverham Market, I'm wary of using it again.

 

In any case, I have an excuse for BM; geographically a level crossing would suffice, as with nearly all Norfolk road crossings, but here the traffic for the mainline in addition to two branches was causing too much congestion in moving between parts of the town. While I realise that the situation ifar less acute than the case of Peterborough Cowgate, which did not get a bridge to replace the LC on the ECML until 1913, I can just about see the WNR putting in the bridge when remoddelling BM station with its island platform to cope with all the burgeoning resort traffic on the mainline to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea. 

[Hroth]

Flatlands railways are always infested by level crossings, bridges are either for operational necessity or because a bridge will cut the wage bill in the long term.  Between West Kirby and Birkenhead, the Wirral Railway is as flat as you'd like, and until modern times had only three overbridges. The one at West Kirby is a traditional view-blocker, right across the station throat, where a level crossing would be an operational irritant.  The other two, at Meols and Moreton, have very long approaches on either side to lift the roads over the railway. The one at Meols is a busy main road, I've no idea why the one at Moreton was thought desirable...

 

You can always stick a bridge in as an accommodation bridge for farms which have been bisected by the railway. Flat or not, it's preferable to having the farm hands herd the cattle across the railway for milking right in front of the morning "Flyer". And cows can cope with steep approaches!

 

[Donw]

It is your choice James but to me the visual closeness of those two junctions looks wrong. According to the map there is some distance between them.

 

Don

[drduncan]

15 minutes ago, Hroth said:

You can always stick a bridge in as an accommodation bridge for farms which have been bisected by the railway. Flat or not, it's preferable to having the farm hands herd the cattle across the railway for milking right in front of the morning "Flyer". And cows can cope with steep approaches!

 

An excellent point!

Duncan

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Donw said:

It is your choice James but to me the visual closeness of those two junctions looks wrong. According to the map there is some distance between them.

 

Don

 

I don't disagree, but it's a question of least-worst option and I am still in several minds!

[Edwardian]

Bridges ....

 

Here is a possible accommodation bridge, a narrow farm track over the Wymondham-Wells line.

 

 

 

 

Further, it might be that I am being a tad conservative in my concerns over road bridges. 

 

Congham bridge, the one the Swine recently filled with concrete.

 

 

Near Holt 

 

 

Returning to Birchoverham Market, I was goint to kit bash the Prototype Models GCR bridge kits, but what about this?

 

 

It's at Honing, over the MGN, and apparently dates from 1881. If so, it could be a nice Norfolk fit with the WNR's 1880s re0modelling of BM station, as aforementioned.

 

Somerthing a little different (and hard to resist), the given explanation for which us:

 

This means of construction in wrought iron was chosen because there was a shortage of bricks in North Norfolk at the time the line was being built. This section of track was still being constructed when the young William Marriott joined the staff, and he eventually acquired bricks by scouring North Norfolk brick yards. By then Honing bridge had already been built.

 

See https://joemasonspage.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/william-marriott-north-norfolk/

 

[papagolfjuliet]

On 10/01/2023 at 07:25, Edwardian said:

Happy to report Hornby's 2023 announcements will not cause any financial trauma in Edwardian Towers. Just as well given the efforts made by Accurascale, Bachmann, Hattons, Rapido et al!

 

Thus, there is nothing to fear!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, they've already given Suffolk the treatment so Norfolk couldn't be far behind. 

[Nearholmer]

For a simple accommodation bridge with ramps up from the flatlands, cheap would be the order of the day. The date would matter, because concrete and iron cheapies didn’t begin to arrive until c1880s. A really rare and interesting early iron and concrete one near here was demolished about 18 months ago, to be replaced with a new bridge as part of the EWR re-opening (eventually!) project. That had granite setts as a surface on the farm road, totally out of keeping with the area, presumably to permit the passage of big wagons and things like ploughing engines.

 

These bridges are common on minor roads in bog districts in Ireland, dead flat land with a bridge sticking up above it, and they are real car-wreckers because the bridge itself is a sturdy thing, but the steep earth ramps up to it either side slump over time. Some have steps getting on for a foot high at the top of the ramp onto the deck, where the approach road surface has subsided. On a bike, you actually have to get off and lift the thing up, or risk a broken neck and buckled wheel!

 

 

 

[Hroth]

14 minutes ago, papagolfjuliet said:

Well, they've already given Suffolk the treatment so Norfolk couldn't be far behind. 

 

That South Wales ironworks loco certainly gets about!  Its almost as ubiquitous as the GWR 101....

 

[ianathompson]

3 hours ago, Hroth said:

Flatlands railways are always infested by level crossings,

 

I certainly concur with this argument.

When I worked the boxes on the Lynn branch there were only two over bridges between Lynn and Ely.

These were for Lynn by-pass (1970s/80s?) and the older one over Hardwick Road.

I suppose to counterbalance this one should consider that the M&GN had crossed the GER on a bridge just outside Lynn into the 60s.

 

We are, however, talking about the Fenland edge here.

Once you go eastwards the landscape subtly changes to become more hilly.

You only have to walk into Downham from the station and stand beside the church to realise this.

This "High Norfolk" is the area occupied by the layout.

Alright we are not talking about the West Riding valleys, where I grew up, but there are more bridges.

There was, for instance, one over the Wells harbour branch, a couple of hundred yards from the sea, that is still there.

 

Re cassettes: I would be loathe to hide them behind anything.

They really need clear access to fiddle with stock.

They can be disguised or dressed up but they definitely need easy access.

I use a couple  on my own layout to allow for extensions of the modelled area.

In effect they are removable "fiddlesticks" rather than true cassettes.

 

 

This crude one was retrospectively fitted to serve a new paper mill (totally off the layout).

It curves on a grade to cross the mainline seen in the right foreground.

There is no requirement for such attatchments to be flat, level and square!

(It wouldn't fit in with the rest of the layout otherwise!)

 

It also requires removable scenery so it is a pain to use.

It is still easy to access however, once set up.

I assume that train formations are adjusted on the Castle Aching ones.

The stock for the mill resides in a drawer across the aisle to allow for different formations.

 

 

This is the main terminus with the standard gauge which is effectively a "dressed" fiddleyard.

It looks plausible (in my opinion any way, and that is all that maters, Rule 1 etc!)

It is just two narrow gauge sidings loaded from the far end.

Once again access is easy and the platform nearest the aisle has no obstructions for reaching in to lift stock off. 

The hut in the foreground is loose to allow for knocks.

Loading is from the short pieces of track beyond the footbridge and the train is pushed into the scene by hand.

Trains can credibly stand here as they make connections and there is a (working) signal whilst freights await access to the single line.

 

At the end of the day James has to decide for himself what he wants to achieve.

Designing the layout has become an interesting excercise for a number of us but it is his own choices that should prevail.

It reminds me of the story about a horse designed by a committee.

They took everyone's ideas on board and ended up with a camel!

Don't know if it was a Bactrian or a Dromedary!

 

As an aside I would be interested to know, from some of the other people who post on here, and who own largish layouts, how much they consulted others before building their little empires.

I know that I definitely took no advice but there were no internet forums at the time and I have never been a club member.

 

Iconoclastic views perhaps but there we go!

 

Ian T

[Hroth]

Bactrian or Dromedary?  I suppose that all depends on the range requirement the committee decided upon!